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.
Nazi Germany (1944)
Jet Fighter – 1 Incomplete Prototype Built
The P.1101 prototype after the war [Wiki]
During the war, German scientists and engineers managed to develop and build a number of jet powered aircraft, several of which went on to see combat. What is generally less known are the large number of experimental jets that were proposed and prototyped. These designs utilized a great variety of engines, airframes, and weapons. One of these unfinished projects was the Messerschmitt P.1101 jet fighter.
Need for a New Jet Fighter
Line drawing of the P.1101 [Luftarchiv]During the war, the Germans introduced the Me 262, which had the honor of being the first operational jet fighter in the world. While it provided better performance than ordinary piston powered aircraft, it was far from perfect. The greatest issues were that it was expensive to build, required two jet engines, and could not be built in sufficient numbers. The German Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium; RLM) wanted a much simpler and cheaper design powered by a single engine. They issued a competition for a new jet fighter ,code named 1-TL-Jäger, during July 1944 for all available aircraft manufacturers. Some of the requirements listed were that it would be a single seater, have a maximum speed of 1000 km/h (620 mph), an endurance of at least one hour, armor protection for the pilot, make use of the Heinkel HeS 011 engine, and had an armament that had at least two 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons. During a meeting with the leading German aircraft manufacturers held in September 1944, Messerschmitt presented the P.1101designed by Waldemar Voight.
The Messerschmitt P.1101 Development History
Drawing of the P.1101 before a number of design changes were introduced. [Luft46.com]Messerschmitt’s engineers and designers began working on designing a single engined jet aircraft at the start of 1943. Two projects, P.1092 and P.1095, were both powered by a single Jumo 004 jet engine, but, as the Me 262 was entering full production, their development was largely suspended. These projects were shelved until the RLM competition in 1944. Seeing a new opportunity, Messerschmitt presented drawings of a new project named P.1011, which was influenced by the previous projects. It had an all-metal fuselage construction and was powered by one HeS 011 engine with the air intakes placed on the wing’s roots. It also had a V-tail.
Following the meeting with the RLM officials in September, some changes were made to the P.1101’s overall design. Instead of two air intakes, a single one in the nose was to be used. This also necessitated the redesigning of the cockpit, which was moved back. In addition, the rear V-tail was replaced with a standard fin design. At this early stage, the possibilities of using this aircraft for other purposes were still being explored. Beside the standard fighter, other roles which were considered were night fighter and interceptor. On 10th November, the owner of the company, Willy Messerschmitt, issued orders to begin working on the first experimental prototype. To speed up the developing time, it was proposed to reuse the already produced components of the Me 262. The Me 262 fuselage, wings design and construction were to be copied.
End of the Project
The P.1101 prototype was only partially completed in early 1945. It appears that, despite Messerschmitt’s attempts to complete this project, the RLM simply lost interest. Messerschmitt’s other projects, like the P.1110 and P.1111, showed greater potential than the P.1101. This, together with the fact that the promised engine never arrived, meant that the single incomplete prototype was put into storage at the Messerschmitt Oberammergau research center. It remained there until the war’s end, when it was captured by American forces.
Technical Characteristics
Side view of the P.1101. This picture was taken at the Messerschmitt Oberammergau base. [Luftarchiv]The P.1101 was a single seater, jet engine-powered mixed construction fighter. The lower parts of the all-metal fuselage were designed to house the jet engine. In the front of the fuselage, a round shaped intake was placed. To the rear, the fuselage was additionally reinforced to avoid any damage due to the heat of the jet exhaust. The underside of the fuselage was to have a skid to help better land during an emergency.
While it was originally intended to be powered by the HeS 011 engine, the power plant was never supplied and the Jumo 004B was to be used as a replacement. The main fuel tank, with a capacity of 1,100 liters (290 gallons), was placed just behind the cockpit. Only a mock-up engine was ever installed in this aircraft, so it was never tested properly, even on the ground. Due to this, it is unknown what the P.1101’s overall flight performance would have been. Some sources give rough estimates, such as that it could have reached 890 km/h (550 mph) at sea level and up to 980 km/h (610 mph) at higher altitudes. Of course, these are only estimations contingent on the fact that the plane had no other problems during operational flight. In addition the general ability to test flight characteristics in the transonic-supersonic range were extremely crude at this point.
Close up view of the P.1101’s large front air intake for the jet engine. The markings painted on it were probably added by the Americans after the war. [Luftarchiv]The wing’s were made of wood materials. The prototype would have a completely innovative feature, namely the sweep angle of the wings could be adjusted at different angles ranging between 35° and 45°. The rear vertical and horizontal tail assembly was also made of wood.
The P.1101 had a retracting tricycle-type landing gear. It consisted of one forward mounted and two mid-fuselage wheels. All three retracted rearwards into the fuselage. The cockpit had a round shaped canopy with good all around vision.
The basic armament configuration consisted of two MK 108 cannons with 100 rounds each. These were placed in the front lower part of the fuselage. There were proposals to increase the firepower by adding two more MK 108 cannons, and the use of experimental air-to-air missiles was also considered. As the prototype aircraft was built to test overall flight performance, no armament was ever installed.
Rear view of the tail assembly. [Luftarchiv]
In American Hands
The restored P.1101 in America. [Pinterest]Advancing American soldiers reached the Messerschmitt Oberammergau base during April (or May) 1945. The single P.1101 was found there and, for some time, left open to the elements. The Bell Aircraft Chief Designer Robert Woods came to know of the existence of this aircraft. Once he had a chance to examine it, he organized for it to be shipped back to America for further study. It would be restored and used as testing mock up aircraft. The Bell aircraft design bureau paid great interest to the variable wing design. Working from the P.1101, they would eventually develop the Bell X-5, one of the first operational aircraft that could change the position of its wings during flight.
The Bell X-5 aircraft, which was heavily influenced by the German P.1101 design [WIki]
Conclusion
While incorporating the innovative feature of variable swept wings, the P.1101 was another victim of the chaotic state Germany was in at the end of war. Whether this aircraft could have performed its role is unknown, and while it never flew for the Germans, it helped the Americans develop the Bell X-5 after the war which incorporated the same variable wing design.
P. 1101 Specifications
Wingspans
27 ft / 8.24 m
Length
30 ft 1 in / 9.13 m
Height
9 ft 18 in / 2.8 m
Wing Area
170 ft² / 15.8 m²
Engine
One Jumo 004B or one HeS 011
Empty Weight
5,725 lbs/ 2,600 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
8,950 lbs / 4,060 kg
Fuel Capacity
1,100 l / 290 Gallons
Estimated Maximum Speed
610 mph / 980 km/h
Estimated Cruising speed
550 mph / 890 km/h
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Two 108 MK cannons
Messerschmitt P.1101 PrototypeInitial P.1101 Design prior to changes
Credits
Article by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. and Henry H.
Illustrated by Carpaticus
D. Nešić, (2008). Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Monday. (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Bounty Books.
D. Sharp (2015) Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes, Frontline Books
R. Ford (2000) German Secret Weapons of World War Two, MBI Publishing
Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009) Aircraft of the Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
Macchi M.C. 200 of the 272ª Squadriglia of the 153° Gruppo Autonomo ‘Asso di Bastoni’. This aircraft was part of the middle production run of the SAI Ambrosini plant. Soure: pinterest.com
The Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’ (Lightning) was a fighter aircraft developed by Aeronautica Macchi (AerMacchi) of Italy around the mid-1930s, resulting in one of the most produced and used aircraft of the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) during the Second World War. It yielded good results on all fronts where the Italian forces operated, from the hot and dusty desert of North Africa, to the cold and snowy Russian steppes.
After 8th September 1943, both the Luftwaffe and Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana (Eng: Italian National Air Force) on the Axis side, and the Aeronautica Cobaelligerante Italiana (Eng: Italian Co-belligerent Air Force) on the Allied side used the surviving aircraft.
After the war, the Aeronautica Militare (Eng: Italian Military Air Force) used the few Macchi 200 that were still functioning for another two years, until 1947, for training tasks.
Development
Before the Macchi 200, the Regia Aeronautica was equipped with fighter biplanes, such as the FIAT C.R. 30 and C.R. 32, which were considered among the best biplanes produced in Europe at the time.
During the early 1930s the Regia Aeronautica had in service some of the best biplanes of the world, not for nothing it was considered one of the best air forces in the world, with records in both civilian and military spheres.
In the mid-30s it became clear to the Italians that the biplane configuration was more than outdated and they needed new, state-of-the-art, low-wing, all-metal monoplane aircraft, and, only one year after the biplane FIAT C.R. 32 appeared in 1935, the leaders of the Royal Air Force issued a request for a new aircraft.
On 10th February 1936, the Direzione Generale Costruzioni Aeronautiche or DGCA ( General Directorate of Aeronautical Construction) requested the development of a low-wing monoplane ground interceptor fighter with retractable landing gear. The maximum speed was to be 500 km/h (310 mph), with a range of 2 hours, and a climb rate of 6,000 meters (19,685 ft) in 5 minutes. The requested armament was to be composed of one or two 12.7 mm (.50 in) machine guns, the engine had to be the FIAT A.74 radial with an entirely metal fuselage.
The largest aeronautical companies in Italy responded to this order. Aeronautica Macchi presented the Macchi M.C. 200, FIAT Aeronautica, a subsidiary of FIAT, had the FIAT G.50, Aeronautica Umbra S.A. (AUSA) had the AUSA AUT 18, Caproni the Caproni Vizzola F.5 and Industrie Meccaniche Aeronautiche Meridionali (IMAM) had the IMAM Ro. 51.
In 1938, Officine Meccaniche Reggiane also responded to the request by presenting the Reggiane Re. 2000 which did not see great success, however it was used to develop the more powerful Re. 2001 and Re. 2002.
The FIAT G. 50 prototype. Photo taken prior to its first test flight. Source: warfly.ru
Two winning projects were chosen. The Macchi M.C. 200 was found to have excellent flying characteristics, meeting most requirements that were stipulated in the original request. The FIAT G.50 was not as highly praised, but still accepted into service. The prototypes of both aircraft first flew in 1937, and both would enter service in 1939.
The Macchi MC 200 was designed by a team of engineers led by Mario Castoldi (1888-1968), a successful designer who had already worked on the Macchi M. 39 and M.C. 72, the latter still holding the speed record for a seaplane powered by a non-standard engine.
The initials M.C. stood for Macchi-Castoldi to emphasize the prestige that the company gave to its chief engineer.
Prototypes
Hastily produced, the prototype, with serial number MM. 336 (Matricola Militare; Military Serial Number), flew for the first time on 24th December 1937 from the Lonate Pozzolo runway, piloted by test pilot Giuseppe Burei that I judge the driving of the aircraft positively. Due to Burei’s untimely death during a flight test of the seaplane Macchi M.C.94, the subsequent test flights of the first prototype were conducted by Ambrogio Colombo.
First prototype during assembly in the Varese plant. Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
On March 1st, 1938, Colombo was asked to impress the ministerial commission composed of General Ferdinando Raffaelli, Lieutenant Colonel Torre and Major Lippi. The reason for this request was simple. Macchi was late with developing the aircraft. FIAT and IMAM had already completed test flights months before, and there was a risk that the Macchi fighter would not be taken into consideration by the Regia Aeronautica.
During the exhibition flight for the commission, Ambrogio Colombo performed 38 exercises with the prototype fully loaded and at an altitude of 3,300 meters (10,827 ft).
There were no major differences between the first and second prototypes apart from a few small details, such as a one-piece rear canopy, anti-rollover structure and shorter exhaust pipes.
The second prototype, serial number MM. 337, during its first flight test. Note the full size landing gear gear cover. Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
On 11th June 1938, during the test flights at the Guidonia runway with the 1° Centro Sperimentale Aviazione (1st Experimental Aviation Center), the body responsible for evaluating aircraft for the Regia Aeronautica, it was found that the aircraft tended to flipping if turns were too tight, with consequent loss of control (in 1940, two pilots of the 1st Wing, Lieutenant Tinti and Sergeant Major De Bernardinis, were killed during training on 1st March and in May due to this problem).
Mario Castoldi immediately began to design new wings to solve the problem (which was common to all the monoplanes presented for the competition), a solution that would take an excessive amount of time to design and implement.
Engineer Sergio Stefanutti of the Società Aeronautica Italiana Ambrosini (another Italian aeronautical company), was commissioned by the Experimental Aviation Center to find the cause of the Macchi’s control problems, solved the problem more simply, by gluing layers of balsa wood on the center and ends of the wings. Castoldi did not waste time, and the new wings were then mounted on the successor of the ‘Saetta’, the Macchi M.C. 202.
Around 1941, some Seattas of the 1st Fighter Wing, belonging to the first production series, were withdrawn from first line service due to the problems with the defective wing profile.
Engineer Mario Castoldi with MM. 337 piloted by Giuseppe Burei. Photo taken during the first test flight of the second prototype: Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
With this problem corrected, the Macchi M.C. 200 proved to be a reliable, manageable aircraft. Despite the radial engine, it still had enough speed to compete with the Hawker Hurricane, which it bested in combat maneuverability, but was outmatched in firepower. As the war went on, the Saetta’s maneuverability, sturdy construction, and the reliability of the radial engine were the fighter’s only remaining strengths.. Primarily thanks to the experience of the pilots did the type manage to obtain some aerial victories.
The prototype serial number MM 336 remained in the Breda factory for a period of time, and was then returned to Macchi on 23rd August 1940, where it was left in disrepair. Due to the lack of engines caused by the war, at an unknown date, the MM 336’s engine was disassembled and mounted on the Macchi M.C. 200 serial number MM 8836. The prototype, without the engine, returned to Varese in September 1942 and from there, nothing more is known about it.
The second prototype was used for camouflage tests after the conclusion of flight tests, before being overhauled and sent to Rimini.
Structure
The structure of the MC 200 was entirely metal, a big step forward for the Italian aircraft industry at the time. The only other Italian aircraft with an all-metal structure before the MC 200 was the Breda Ba. 27, of which only 14 units were produced and otherwise remained at the prototype stage, along with the competing FIAT G. 50.
Structure of the Macchi MC 200’s fuselage. Source: cmpr.it
The new fuselage turned out to be quite robust, but was heavier, and let to longer production times It was made of molded duralumin and was covered with super avional plates (a special duralumin alloy) riveted with countersunk-head rivets, reducing aerodynamic drag.
Structure of the Macchi MC 200 seen from inside. Source: cmpr.it
Like the fuselage, the wings, mounted on the lower part of the fuselage, were also a single structure consisting of two spars with ailerons and ventral flaps. The whole wing structure was made of duralumin, apart from the ailerons, which retained the doped and painted canvas.
The prototype Macchi prototypes were equipped with a constant airfoil that increased the speed by a few kilometers per hour but caused autorotation problems which risked making the aircraft impossible to maneuver with the risk that the pilot could not even parachute out. On the production models, this was replaced by a variable airfoil.
The wing structure. Source: cmpr.it
Cockpit
The Macchi M.C. 200 cockpit. Source: cmpr.it
The cockpit had a single hand-control column. On the left side was the throttle, along with the controls for take-off and the flaps controls. The instrument panel had a gyroscope, speedometer, altimeter and other basic instruments for flight and an onboard ammunition gauge that ran up to 650 rounds per weapon. In the center of the instrument panel was the compass with a San Giorgio collimator located just above, for aiming the onboard armament.
On the first series of the Macchi MC 200, the windshield was a 5 centimeter (1.96 in) thick piece of glass, and the steel pilot’s seat had a thickness of about 3 centimeters (1.18 in) to protect the pilot. Behind the seat were oxygen cylinders, and those of the fire extinguishing system. The ARC 1 radio system and its batteries were located in front of the cockpit.
From the 26th Macchi MC 200 produced onward, a new tubular roll bar was introduced behind the armored seat. This was meant to protect the pilot if the plane landed inverted. It is not clear whether this was introduced after an accident or as a precaution. However, from the 3rd Series onward, this feature was again eliminated, the cockpit was open and unpressurized, and the rear canopy, no longer made of glass, was reinforced to act as the anti-roll structure.
The semi enclosed cockpit was introduced in August 1941, starting from the 12th aircraft of the 5th production series of Macchi and starting from the 65th aircraft of the 1st production series of Breda.
Macchi M.C. 200 of the 2nd Series. The anti-roll structure behind the pilot and the retractable tail wheel are visible. This aircraft was part of the 371ª Squadriglia of the 22º Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre during the Greek Campaign. Source: Macchi MC 200 Saetta
In the late production versions, an antenna fixed to the back of the canopy was added. This reduced the reception problems of the onboard radio.
Landing Gear
The landing gear with the third type of wheel covers. Source: cmpr.it
There were several types of landing gear covers used on the Macchi MC 200. On the first prototypes, the landing gear door completely covered the strut and the wheel. During landing, the lowest part was raised to avoid hitting the ground. This version was very complex to manage, and in case of malfunction the landing gear would break. Often the planes were forced to take off on makeshift runways on lawns, in case of malfunction the cover, due to the speed, would be stuck in the ground causing the breakage of the strut or worse, that the plane would fall on one side leading to the total destruction of the fuselage and wings.
The outer landing gear cover of the prototype. The lowest part is raised in the photo. Source: Macchi MC 200 Saetta
The models of the first series adopted a different type of outer landing gear doors, with a small inner gear door at the wing attachment points.
The 1st series Macchi MC 200 with the 2nd type of running gear cover. Source: Source: pinterest.comThe standard Macchi M.C. 200 outer running gear cover with the 372ª Squadriglia. Source: pinterest.com
The rear wheel on the first 146 examples was retractable, which slightly increased top speed but slowed production. In addition, during firefights, enemy fire could damage the mechanism that lowered and raised the wheel, leading to the risk that it would not come out during landing.
The rear retractable wheel of the landing gear of the Macchi M.C. 200. Source: cmpr.it
The tires were of the FAST type, produced by Pirelli of Milan. The dimensions of the front ones were 236 x 85 x 79 inches, while the rear wheel model had the Spiga type, also made by Pirelli, which was 82 x 31 inches.
Engine
The M.C.200 engine was the radial two-row FIAT Aeronautica 74 RC 38 ‘Ciclone’ ( Cyclone). It had 14 cylinders and was air-cooled, with a displacement of 31.25 liters (1,907 in³).
It had been developed by Engineer Tranquillo Zerbi and Professor Antonio Fessia based on the American Pratt & Whitney R-1535. The 600 kg (1,322 lbs) engine delivered a take-off power of 870 hp at 2,500 rpm, 840 hp at 2,400 rpm at an altitude of 3,800 meters (12,467 ft), and a maximum power of 960 hp at 3,000 rpm, which could only be maintained for short periods.
Photo of the FIAT A.74 RC 38 ‘Ciclone’. Source: Centro Storico FIAT
This engine guaranteed a maximum speed of 503 km/h (313 m/h) at 4,500 meters (14,763 ft). Its low fuel consumption also guaranteed a range of 570 km (354 miles) with two fuel tanks, one in the wings and the other under the cockpit, and a third auxiliary tank behind the pilot’s seat. In total, there were 313 liters (82.6 US gallons) of fuel. This could be extended to 870 km (540 miles) with an external tank of 450 liters (118 US gallon), at an average speed of 465 km/h (288 m/h) at an average height of 6,000 meters (16,685 ft) . Its climb rate was 6,000 meters in 7 minutes and 33 seconds.
FIAT A.74 RC 38 schematic. Source: svppbellum.blogspot.com
This engine, despite being outdated in performance and power compared to the most contemporary modern in-line engines of the war, was appreciated by pilots and technicians for its simplicity, ease of maintenance and ease of operation. This was true even in unsuitable climates, such as the deserts of North Africa and the freezing Russian steppes. However, there were problems with the carburetors that had quality issues in addition to not being suitable for such extreme climates.
A FIAT A.74 Engine mounted on a FIAT C.R. 42 biplane during maintenance. Source: stormomagazine.com
The engine cowling featured “bubbles” that protected the rocker arms of the cylinders.
This allowed a decrease of the diameter of the cowling, increasing visibility compared to the G. 50, which was equipped with the same engine.
In June 1940, all Fiat A.74 engines, produced under license by Reggiane, were replaced due to failures that brought oil temperatures to dangerous levels after an inspection by a captain of the Aeronautical Engineers and an engineer of the company.
In the first series, the cockpit was equipped with a fully enclosed canopy, which was prone to several problems. Over time, the glass became opaque which affected visibility, and it was also difficult to open above a certain airspeed, so it was opted to go for an open cockpit with only frontal protection.
The new fighters were required to have variable pitch propellers. On the two prototypes, and on the first 25 specimens produced, the propeller was the three-blade FIAT-Hamilton 34D-1. The first 25 production planes were equipped with an aerodynamic spinner to protect the propeller hub but. From the 26th plane onwards, the Piaggio P. 1001 propeller, designed by Castoldi himself, was mounted with the spinner removed. In both cases, the propellers had a diameter of 3.05 meters.
One of the first 25 planes produced with the FIAT-Hamilton 34D-1 propeller with a cap. pinterest.com
Armament
The machine guns are visible through the open inspection doors. Source: cmpr.itThe Breda-SAFAT machine guns without flash hiders. Source: cmpr.it
The armament consisted of two 12.7 mm (.50 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns positioned on the engine cowling and synchronized with the propeller. They weighed 29 kg (64 lbs) each and were fed with two 370-round 12.7 x 81 mm SR Breda belts. This ammunition developed from British Vickers .5 V/565 Semi-Rimmed round.
There were various types of bullets produced by the Società Italiana Ernesto Breda per Costruzioni Meccaniche and by the Società Anonima Fabbrica Armi Torino (SAFAT). In addition to the classic full metal jacket bullet, the weapon could fire ammunition produced in Italy of the following types: tracer, perforating, explosive-incendiary, and explosive-incendiary-tracer (or multi-effect).
On average, these bullets weighed 34 grams each, for a total of 25.160 kilograms (55.46 lbs) of ammunition. The machine-gun firing rate was 700 rpm, but this was decreased to 574 rpm when synchronized with the propeller.
Ammunition resupply of a Macchi MC 200 of the 160ª Squadriglia of the Regia Aeronautica. Source: kitshow.net
Although quite powerful, these machine guns proved insufficient to deal with enemy threats as the war continued. Another big problem encountered was the small number of rounds on board. Only 740 rounds guaranteed just over a minute of continuous fire.
After the 25th plane, the machine guns were equipped with a flash hider so as to not blind the pilot when firing. The ammunition reserve was also increased to 740 rounds, as it consisted of only 600 rounds in total on the first planes. The spent cartridges, after being shot, were not ejected from the plane but stored onboard, so that they could be reused.
In 1937, engineer Castoldi proposed the adoption of two 7.7 mm (.303 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the wings to the Regia Aeronautica. This required a consequent strengthening of the wing structure, and subsequent loss of speed, but the proposal was ignored.
On the Macchi MC 200CB, or Cacciabombardiere (fighter-bomber), version, the aircraft was equipped with two 3 kg (1.86 lbs) underwing pylons, capable of carrying bombs weighing up to 160 kg (353 lbs) each.
The bombs were used for infantry support missions. Although the maximum load was 320 kg (705 lbs), four 15 kg bombs (33 lbs) per pylon were commonly carried .
The aircraft could also carry two bombs up to a maximum of 160 kg (353 lbs) each or two 150-liter (40 US gallons) auxiliary tanks, increasing the range. The two 150-liter tanks could also be equipped together with the 450-liter centerline tank, effectively doubling the aircraft’s maximum range.
Schematic representation of the Italian aeronautical bombs used during the Second World War. The 50, 100 and 160 kg ones were the used on the Macchi MC 200CB. Source: talpo.it
In Italy
The first M.C. 200s were ready in the spring of 1939 and were delivered to the Regia Aeronautica during the same year. As of September 1st, 1939, 29 Macchi M.C. 200s had been delivered, of which 25 were allocated to front-line units, with the others given to flight training schools. In comparison, the Regia Aeronautica had 19 FIAT G. 50s and 143 FIAT C.R. 42s.
At the time of the Kingdom of Italy’s entry into the war on the 10th of June 1940, the number of M.C.200s in the Regia Aeronautica was 156. Of these, only 103 were in the front-line units and not all were combat ready. Similarly, there was in increase in other fighters on hand with 118 FIAT G. 50s and 300 FIAT CR 42s.
A Macchi M.C. 200 of the 81ª Squadriglia, 6º Gruppo of the 1º Stormo in Sicily. This aircraft belonged to the 1st SAI Ambrosini series. It had a fixed rear landing wheel but an enclosed cockpit. Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
These 156 aircraft were split between different units, such as the 16º Gruppo Autonomo da Caccia Terrestre (16th Autonomous Land Fighter Group) of the XVI° Gruppo (16th Group) and the 181ª Squadriglia (181st Squadron) of the 6° Gruppo Caccia (6th Fighter Group) of the 1º Stormo Caccia Terrestre (1st Ground Fighter Wing), based at an unknown airport in Sicily.
7 Saetta had gone to the 369ª Squadriglia, 6 to the 370ª Squadriglia and 6 to the 371ª Squadriglia of the 152º Gruppo commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Giovanni Melotti, based at Vergiate airport in Lombardy. Another 7 Macchi MC 200 were in service with the 372ª Squadriglia, 6 with the 373ª Squadriglia and 6 with the 374ª Squadriglia of the 153º Gruppo of Captain Alberto Benefonti at the Caselle airport. The 152º Gruppo and 153º Gruppo were under the command of the 54º Stormo of Colonel Enrico Guglielmotti, with headquarters in Airasca.
The very first Macchi aircraft were delivered to the 91ª Squadriglia of the 10º Gruppo of the 4º Stormo, which was considered an elite unit. The 4th Wing received the MC 200 shortly before entering the war, but preferred to go to battle in Libya with the old FIAT CR 42 biplanes in late June 1940.
The reason for this downgrade was that the pilots of the 4° Stormo were all veterans of the Spanish Civil War, or possessed years of experience in aerobatic performances around the world, and were far more accustomed to their FIAT C.R. 32 and C.R. 42 biplanes. While they received the latest generation monoplane fighters, they did not have enough time to properly train on them, and subsequently turned down the opportunity to fly the Macchi M.C. 200.
It should also be emphasized that the pilots of the 4th Wing were the only ones not to appreciate the Macchi initially. On October 23rd, 1939, a few weeks after delivery, General Velardi, commander of another air unit, wrote to the General Staff of the Italian Royal Army that his pilots were more than satisfied with the new plane, and that within a few weeks of training they could use the new Macchi for aerobatic performances.
A Macchi M.C. 200 of the 54° Stormo with Italian pilots finishing a pre-mission briefing. Source: pinterest.com
The first victim of the new Macchi MC 200 was a British Short S.25 Sunderland four-engined seaplane on a reconnaissance mission on 1st November 1940, near Augusta in Sicily.
In the last weeks of December 1940, the pilots of the 181st Squadron of the 6th Fighter Group of the 1st Ground Fighter Wing had the task of escorting the Junkers Ju 87 ‘Stuka’ dive bombers of the I/StG.1 and II/StG.2 of the X Fliegerkorps. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 of 7./JG 26, which were supposed to escort the Stukas on their missions to Malta, had not yet arrived in Sicily.
During this mission, the Saettas proved effective and without any particular defects in dogfighting against the Hawker Hurricane. They were able to outclass the old Gloster Gladiator biplanes without much difficulty.
A Macchi M.C. 200AS produced by SAI Ambrosini takes off from a runway in Sicily. Source: pinterest.com
In Sicily, two Saettas of the 70th Squadron of the 23rd Autonomous Fighter Group based at Boccadifalco airport were used for night missions. Lieutenant Colonel Tito Falconi, commander of the group and Captain Claudio Solaro, commander of the squadron, were, according to documents, the only ones to fly the two Macchi at night.
According to the documents, between September and December 1941, these two fighters flew dozens of missions over Palermo, also participating in several engagements against British aircraft, but without managing to shoot any down. By the end of the year, the 23rd Group was sent back to the Turin Mirafiori airport to be reorganized.
After the North African Campaign, in July 1943, Allied troops invaded Sicily. At that time, the Regia Aeronautica had 81 Macchi M.C. 200, 41 with the 2nd Wing, 3 in the 22nd Group, 13 in the 157th Group, 4 in the 161st Group and 20 aircraft in the 82nd and 392nd Squadrons.
A Macchi M.C. 200 produced by Macchi with the 73ª Squadriglia in Sicily. Source: pinterest.com
One of the last battles occurred a few days before the Armistice of Cassibile in September 1943. On 2nd September 1943, while on patrol around the naval base at the port of La Spezia, Lieutenant Petrosellini of the 92nd Squadron of the 8th Group intercepted a group of 24 American Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses that were approaching to bomb the port facilities and industrial areas of the city. Petrosellini carried out two attacks on the behemoth US bombers alone, managing to shoot down one and damage a second. He then performed an emergency landing on Sarzana airport due to damage sustained from heavy defensive fire.
As of the 8th of September 1943, 33 Macchi M.C. 200 were in the ranks of the Regia Aeronautica.
Until September 1943, the ‘Saetta’ was the most widely used Italian fighter on all fronts. The first examples of its successor, the Macchi M.C. 202, entered front-line service in late September 1941, with the first examples of Macchi M.C. 205V appearing in February 1943.
Malta
Malta, or “L’Isola Maledetta” (The Damned Island), a British stronghold in the Mediterranean, was the setting for dozens of air battles in which the Macchi M.C. 200 took part.
Just above the Island of Malta, the first loss of an M.C. 200, a casualty of the Royal Air Force, was recorded on 23rd June, 1940. Nine Macchi M.C. 200s of the 79th Squadron, eight of the 88th Squadron, and one of the 81st Squadron, all belonging to the 6th Group, escorted ten Savoia Marchetti SM.79s of the 11th Bomber Wing to the island.
Immediately, the British launched two Gloster Gladiators to intercept them. Sergeant Major Molinelli of the 71st Squadron attacked one of the two British planes that were, in turn, attacking a bomber off Sliema. The ‘Saetta’ was hit and fell into the sea. It is not clear whether Major Molinelli survived.
Franco Lucchini, an Italian ace of the 90th Squadron of the 10th Fighter Group of the 4th Wing with 26 kills, took off on 27th June 1941 from Trapani Airport in Sicily. He was on an attack mission during which he shot down a Hawker Hurricane. Afterward, he shared many other victories with his companions of the 4th Wing.
Another loss recorded occurred on the morning of 25th July 1941, when about 40 Macchi M.C. 200s of the 54th Wing and were tasked with escorting a CANT Z.1007bis of the 30th Wing for photographic reconnaissance on Valletta. The mission was meant to photograph an English naval convoy that had been attacked the day before by torpedo bombers.
Above the island, about 30 Hurricanes descended upon the formation, causing the CANT Z. 1007 bis to fall into flames. The Saetta of second Lieutenant Liberti was shot down, with the loss of the pilot, as was that of Lieutenant De Giorgi, whose fate is unknown. The Italian fighter pilots declared the downing of four Hurricanes, two by Sergeant Major Magnaghi, one by Captain Gostini and one by Sergeant Omiccioli of the 98th Squadron.
On 27th of October 1940, Carlo Poggio Suasa of the 81st Squadron, 6th Group, assigned to the 1st Terrestrial Fighter Wing stationed at Catania-Fontanarossa airport, shot down a Hawker Hurricane over Malta.
On July 11th, 1941, during an attack on the Maltese airbase of Micabba, three Italian Aces, belonging to the 10th Group of the 4th Wing were engaged by seven or eight enemy Hurricanes. They were Leonardo Ferrulli (with 21 kills between the war), Carlo Romagnoli (11 kills and 6 probable) and Franco Lucchini (22 kills). After a grueling dog fight, the three MC 200s managed to disengage and were pursued for 40 km before the British gave up the chase and, with their aircraft damaged but still able to fly, they were able to return to Sicily safely.
On June 27th, 1941, the same units of the 10th Group, 4th Wing, commanded by Ace Carlo Romagnoli, took off from Catania-Fontanarossa airport in Sicily to escort a Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 on a reconnaissance mission.
Arriving at Malta, they were immediately intercepted by a group of Hawker Hurricane Mark I of RAF No. 46 Squadron that forced them to abort the mission and return to Sicily.
On September 4th, Romagnoli led a reconnaissance mission over Malta with a formation of 17 M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’. Their goal was to confirm the sinking of a merchant ship that had been hit that night by a Junkers Ju.87B Picchiatello of the 101st Autonomous Dive Bombardment Group piloted by Sergeant Major Valentino Zagnoli, in the vicinity of Kalafrana.
Once in Valletta, the Macchi carried out a reconnaissance of the port at 6,000 meters and, having found nothing, returned to Sicily. At this point, 21 Hawker Hurricane Mark II fighters of No.126 and No.185 Squadrons were waiting for them (thanks to Maltese radars) at about 7,500 meters. After the furious battle that followed, Second Lieutenant Andrea Della Pasqua of the 91st Squadron was missing after being seen bailing out with a parachute. He was never found.
The 76th Squadron of the 7th Group of the 5th Terrestrial Fighter Wing took part in the Battle of Pantelleria between 12th and 15th June 1942. There, the Axis forces, with 92 aircraft of the Regia Aeronautica and 48 of the Luftwaffe, destroyed two, and damaged four merchant ships at the cost of 29 lost aircraft and 12 dead pilots.
Due to the three-engined reconnaissance aircraft flying over Malta being easy targets, some mechanics modified about ten Macchi MC 200 with an Avia RB 20/75/30 camera positioned behind the pilot’s seat. This strategy decreased the fighter’s maximum speed, but made the reconnaissance aircraft unrecognizable to the enemy, as well as being far more agile and faster than the three-engined aircraft they replaced.
Greece
For air combat during the Greek Campaign, which started on October 28th, 1940, the 54th Wing was employed. Its 372nd Squadron had 12 Macchi MC 200, based at the Brindisi-Casale Airport in southern Italy.
Between November and December, the 373rd Squadron, with 11 MC 200s, also arrived at the Bari-Palese Airport, the 374th Squadron with 12 MC 200s at the Taranto-Grottaglie Airport and the 370th, with 8 MC 200, at Foggia Airport, all in Southern Italy.
These squadrons mainly carried out escort missions for Italian FIAT B.R. 20 and Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 bombers used against Greek strategic targets.
Sergeant Luigi Gorrini of the 85th Squadron of the 18th Fighter Group of the 3rd Ground Fighter Wing, an Italian ace with 19 confirmed and 9 presumed kills, took training courses to learn how to fly the Macchi M.C. 200 and FIAT G. 50 held at Caselle Torinese and Torino Mirafiori airports between August 29th and December 10th, 1940. After this, he and his squadron were transferred to Araxos airport in Greece, where he flew escort flights for naval convoys and aircraft from Italy to Greece and vice versa.
On December 17th, 1940 during a patrol over the island of Cephalonia, Gorrini spotted two Bristol Blenheims, hitting one of them (which he considered probably shot down) and damaging the second.
In March 1941, the 22nd Autonomous Land Fighter Group was sent to Greece. Its 371st Squadron went to Vlora, while the rest of the group, with 36 Macchi MC 200s and an unknown number of FIAT CR42s, moved to the airport of Tirana, both cities of occupied Albania. During their first fights, they went up against the Hawker Hurricanes and Gloster Gladiators of the RAF.
Macchi M.C. 200 of the 372ª Squadriglia. These planes were produced by Breda. The 153° Gruppo coat of arms is visible. Source: asisbiz.com
Thanks to reinforcements that arrived in Albania in April, the 18th Group was sent back to Italy to train on the Macchi MC 200CB. The training lasted until mid-July, by which time the Greek Campaign was over. The Group was subsequently transferred to North Africa.
During the Greek campaign, which lasted until April 1941, Royal Italian Air Force fighters claimed to have shot down 77 Hellenic Air Force (HAF) aircraft (plus another 24 presumed), of which 52 were shot down and 25 destroyed on the ground, at a loss of 64 Italian aircraft. During engagements against the RAF, the British claimed to have destroyed 93 Italian aircraft (and another 26 probable) for just 10 aircraft lost. However, at the end of the campaign, the British losses amounted to 150 pilots (dead or prisoners) and 209 aircraft lost, 72 shot down by Italian fighters, 55 destroyed on the ground and 82 destroyed or abandoned during the evacuation.
Yugoslavia
At the outbreak of hostilities against Yugoslavia, the only air units assigned to the sector were the 4th Wing, equipped with 96 Macchi MC 200, the 7th Group in Treviso, and the 16th Group in Ravenna, which had 22 each, the 9th Group in Gorizia and the 10th Group in Altura di Pola, which had 23 each, and, finally, 6 that were in service with the 256th Squadron in Bari.
At dawn on April 6th, 1941, before the Declaration of War, four M.C.200s of the 73rd Squadron took off without an exact mission, flew over the port of Pula and then arrived at the island of Cres, attacking a tanker and setting it on fire.
Macchi M.C. 200 of the 73ª Squadriglia after a landing accident. The pilot, Sub Lieutenant Albano Carraro, came out unscathed. The plane was repaired and put back into service. Source: asso4stormo.it
There were no noteworthy actions for the rest of the brief Yugoslavian campaign. The Macchi of the 4th Wing flew against Yugoslavia for the last time on April 14th, when 20 Saetta of the 10th Group patrolled the airspace 100 km south of Karlovac, but without encountering enemy aircraft.
In March 1941, in order to counter the new British Hawker Hurricanes, the Regia Aeronautica was forced to withdraw the FIAT CR 42 of the 150th Group from Albania, replacing them with 36 Macchi MC 200s of the 22nd Group based at Tirana airport and the 371st Squadron, which moved from the Rome-Ciampino Airport to Valona.
Despite its lower top speed compared to the Hurricane, in the hands of experienced Italian pilots who were well trained in aerobatic flight, the Macchi MC 200 proved to be a tough adversary for the British pilots.
Ground operations on the Yugoslav front ended on April 17th. According to the official report of the 4th Wing, in eleven days there were no losses, 4 enemy aircraft were shot down and 45 Yugoslav aircraft were destroyed on the ground, damaging another ten.
Other victories were achieved by destroying an oil tanker, a tanker truck and an unspecified number of mechanized vehicles, as well as destroying airport facilities.
Another 5 Yugoslav aircraft, Dornier Do 17Ks, were destroyed on the ground at a Greek airport where they had taken refuge during an Italian attack.
North Africa
The North African desert was the most important theater of operations for the Italian pilots and their Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’.
At the end of the operations in Yugoslavia, the 153rd Group returned to Italy. It was based at Grottaglie airport, in southern Italy, with the task of defending the Port of Taranto against RAF attacks.
One of its squadrons, however, was ordered to go to North Africa to support Rommel’s offensive in Cyrenaica.
The first eleven M.C.200s of the 374th Squadron, under Captain Andrea Favini (later to become Wing Chief), arrived on April 19th, 1941 at Castel Benito airfield, 35 km south of Tripoli. Until the end of June 9th, the Macchi aircraft remained under Favini’s command. During the period of activity, the squadron never reached more than 7 operable Macchi at the same time.
An interesting fact is that Captain Andrea Favini was still using a pre-production Macchi MC 200 with a FIAT-Hamilton 34D-1 spinner and propellers. This is very strange, as all the pre-production aircraft and the very first production series should have been modified by that point.
Given the continuation of operations, on July 2nd, 1941, Macchi M.C. 200 of the 372nd Squadron of the famous 153º Gruppo ‘Asso di Bastoni’ (Eng: 153rd Group ‘Ace of Wands’) arrived in North Africa. Later, the 373rd Squadron from Greece, together with the 157th Group, also arrived.
The 76th Squadron of the 7° Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre, commanded by Major Marcello Fossetta, also arrived with 22 Macchi M.C. 200. However, they lost almost all of their fighters during a British air attack on the Benina base 19 km east of Benghazi, where the unit was stationed.
The data of both Italian and British units report some skirmishes between Macchi and British aircraft.
On December 8th, 1941, a Macchi MC.200 of the 153rd Group clashed with Hawker Hurricanes of the British 974th Squadron. During a fight, a Macchi engaged a Hurricane. After a succession of very tight turns, the Macchi struck the Hawker’s cockpit, which then flipped over and plummeted in a dive, killing New Zealand RAF Flight Lieutenant Owen Vincent Tracey, who had 6 kills credited to his name.
The 153rd Group, in its July-December report, claimed to have flown 359 missions for a total of 4,686 flight hours by its pilots, and 19 enemy aircraft destroyed in flight, plus 12 probable, in addition to 35 aircraft destroyed on the ground.
In December 1941, the Macchi M.C. 200 began to be accompanied by Macchi M.C. 202 of the 8th and 150th Groups based at El-Nofilia airport.
In the early months of 1942, the 8th, 13th and 150th Groups were mainly used on escort missions for FIAT CR 42s in the ground attack configuration.
On July 20th, 1942 the 18th Group of the 3rd Wing arrived in Tripoli with the 83rd, 85th and 95th squadrons, with a total of about 40 MC 200s, of which 21 in the M.C. 200CB configuration. These new arrivals, which were positioned at the Abu-Aggag airbase, 370 km from Cairo, meaning that the Macchi 200 was still the most numerous Italian fighter in North Africa, with 76 units (of which about three quarters were operational), 37 of which were in the 2nd Wing.
The Macchi M.C. 200CB of the 18th Group carried out dozens of ground attack missions. One of the most famous was stopping the British attempt to recapture Tobruk by sea in July 1942, sinking the destroyer Zulu and seriously damaging two troop carrier ships.
On April 18th 1942, between 1725 hrs and 1830 hrs, five Macchi M.C. 200CBs attacked a column of tanks of the 1st Armored Division of the British 8th Army at Sidi Bou Ali, in the governorate of Susa, in Tunisia. 22 M.C. 202s of the 54th Wing escorting the ‘Saetta’ clashed with a formation of P-40s and Spitfires that had arrived to support the armored units. Captain Sergio Maurer, Lieutenant Giuseppe Robetto and Sergeant Mauri each shot down a Spitfire, while Sergeant Rodoz brought down a P-40.
Macchi M.C. 200 of the 373ª Squadriglia of the 153º Gruppo ‘Asso di Bastoni’ (with the playing card symbol on the frame) on an airstrip in North Africa. Source: pinterest.com
Despite the Regia Aeronautica’s gradual transition to the Macchi MC 202, the ‘Saetta’ remained the most widely used fighter aircraft. It was widely used as a secondary fighter by pilots when their MC 202s were undergoing repairs.
The 364th Squadron of the 150th Fighter Group, 52nd Wing, equipped with the Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’, operating from the airports of El Agheila, Benghazi and Martuba, participated intensively in intercept operations, surveillance flights, strafing ground targets, and escorting bombers.
The Macchi MC 200s were also able to successfully deal with Allied four-engined aircraft, despite their armament. On 14th August, Lieutenant Vallauri of the 2nd Wing intercepted four Consolidated B-24 Liberators during a reconnaissance mission in the skies above Tobruk. Instead of waiting for support from other fighters, he attacked them alone, managing to shoot down one of them.
A few days later, on 23rd August 1942, three M.C.200s intercepted and attacked a group of B-24 Liberators en route to Tobruk. Sergeant Zanarini and Second Lieutenant Zuccarini shot down one Liberator while the third pilot damaged another. The entirety of the 2nd Wing was 198 aircraft in August 1942 (including Macchi M.C. 200 and M.C. 202,) which flew an unspecified number of missions that lasted a total of 394 hours of missions over Tobruk and 1,482 hours escorting 77 Axis convoys from Southern Italy to the North African coast.
The Allied air superiority was becoming more and more overwhelming. Unfortunately, precise data for the actions of the following months is not available. In October, ten Macchi 200 were lost by the 2nd Wing.
Macchi M.C. 200 of the 372ª Squadriglia while refueling before take-off. The pilots discuss the mission. Source: pinterest.com
At the beginning of November 1942, there were only 15 ‘Saetta’ on the front line in the 2nd and 3rd Wings (there is no data on the losses of the 54th Wing during the period). This was a very limited number. In July, there had been 76, meaning an average loss rate of about 12 aircraft per month.
The M.C. 200s were now outclassed in speed and armament by the latest versions of the Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss P-40s, and the more powerful Supermarine Spitfires. Despite this, the Macchi still managed to score a few victories.
In November, Lieutenant Savoia and Sergeant Major Baldi shot down two Bristol Beaufighters, while Sergeant Turchetti managed to shoot down two aircraft.
During the same month, some replacements arrived but they were not enough. On the 1st of December, the 2nd Wing had only 42 ‘Saetta’, of which 19 were in flying condition, while the others were under repair.
A Macchi abandoned on the side of a runway after a botched landing. Source: pinterest.com
After the Battle of El Alamein, the Macchi were used to cover the retreat of the Italian-German troops. However, the lack of spare parts, fuel and the overwhelming technological and numerical Allied superiority meant that many aircraft were lost.
In October 1942, the 18th Group received the Macchi MC 202 of the 4th Wing, which, after months of actions, had been repatriated for reorganization.
On 11 January 1943, units of the 3rd Wing were used in the attack against some British airbases in the Wadi Tamet area.
The Macchi MC 202 escorted the Macchi MC 200CB fighter-bombers in bombing operations. Luigi Gorrini managed to shoot down the Spitfire Mark V of Flying Officer Neville Duke of the 92nd Squadron, as reported by the British pilot himself in one of his books.
In January 1943, all non-operational units were repatriated, with very few Macchi MC 200s remaining in North Africa as part of the 384th Squadron in Tunis and the 13th and 18th Groups in El Hamma.
The last group to be equipped with MC 200s was the 18th Group of Major Mario Becich, which fought with the ‘Saetta’ until the end of the campaign. The last major air battle of the Macchi MC 200 in North Africa was on 29th March 1943. Then, in the Gabès sector, 15 M.C.200s of various units intercepted an unknown number of P-40s and Spitfires, shooting down 4 enemy aircraft at the cost of one damaged aircraft forced to land on the way back.
The remains of three Macchi M.C. 200 and a FIAT C.R. 42 abandoned at the Castel Benito airport in late 1942. Source: pinterest.com
Soviet Union
A contingent of Macchi M.C. 200s was sent to the front in the Soviet Union, despite the fact that they had an open cockpit.
The Comando Aviazione del Corpo di spedizione italiano in Russia (Aviation Command of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia) was officially constituted on July 29th, 1941 at the Tudora airport. Major Giovanni Borzoni Group landed at this airport on 12th August with the 359th Squadron of Captain Vittorio Minguzzi, which had 11 other pilots, including Captain Carlo Miani and Lieutenant Giovanni Bonet. The 362nd Squadron of Captain Germano La Ferla also arrived with 11 other pilots. The 369th Squadron, commanded by Captain Giorgio Jannicelli, which had 13 pilots, and, finally, the 371st Squadron of Captain Enrico Meille, which had 11 pilots, completed the setup, all belonging to the 22nd Autonomous Land Fighter Group.
On August 16th, the 61st Aerial Observation Group arrived with 32 Caproni Ca.311 (34th, 119th, and 128th Squadrons) and a Savoia-Marchetti S.M.82 for support.
Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’ of the 22º Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre, 359ª Squadriglia in Krivoi Rog, Soviet Union, 1941. Note the tarpaulins covering the cockpits to prevent rain or dirt intrusion. Source: asisbiz.com
The 22nd Autonomous Land Fighter Group had a total of 51 MC 200s, two Savoia Marchetti S.M. 81 and three Caproni Ca. 133s. It was sent to the Eastern front from the Tirana Airport ( where they were located after March 1941). For its first missions, starting from August 27th, 1941, it was stationed at the Krivoi Rog airport.
On the same day, some aircraft of the 22nd Autonomous Group and some others of the 6th Group assigned to the 1st Ground Fighter Wing arrived in the Soviet Union. In total, eight Soviet aircraft, two Poliakov I-16s and six Tupolev SB-2s. were shot down.
Carlo Poggio Suasa, of the 81st Squadron of the 6th Group, shot down two Poliakov I-16s in a single day.
Due to the lightning advance of Axis troops in the Soviet Union, at the end of August, the unit had to move to the Kryvyi Rih airport and to Zaporižžja by the end of September. On 9th November, the 371st Squadron moved to the Donetsk sector, breaking away from the rest of the group.
Between August and the beginning of December, the 22nd Autonomous Fighter Group shot down another 8 Soviet fighters and bombers, apparently without suffering any losses. 4 more Soviets were downed in December.
Macchi M.C.200 of the 53° Stormo, 22° Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestri, 362ª Squadriglia near a Bf 109 in Novo Orlovka, Soviet Union, 1941. Source: pinterest.com
During the Soviet Christmas ground offensive against Italian troops at Novo Orlovka, Italian pilots attacked Soviet troops in the Burlova sector. During these actions, they also shot down five Soviet fighters without any losses.
During one of these missions on December 28th, the ‘Saetta’ of the 359th Squadron shot down nine Soviet aircraft in the Timofeyevka and Polskaya areas, including six Polikarpov I-16 fighters and three bombers, without suffering losses.
On December 29th, 1941 the 369th Squadron lost its commander, Captain Giorgio Jannicelli. During a solo reconnaissance mission, he was intercepted by more than ten I-16 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 fighters and, after a grueling air battle, he was shot down. For his bravery, he was awarded the posthumous Gold Medal.
The Italian Macchis in the Soviet Union were unable to carry out any missions throughout January, and the first few days of February 1942 due to bad weather. On February 4th and 5th, the Regia Aeronautica launched an operation to destroy Soviet air bases. The first was at Kranyi Liman, where the MC 200 destroyed 21 Soviet aircraft on the ground and another 5 fighters were shot down during dogfights over the airport.
Between March and April, the airports of Luskotova and Leninsklij Bomdardir were also attacked.
By the end of March 1942, the 22nd Gruppo Autonomo Caccia Terrestre had scored a further 21 aerial victories against the Soviet Air Force.
On May 4th, 1942, the 22nd Autonomous Land Fighter Group, which still had a few operational aircraft, was replaced by the 21st Autonomous Land Fighter Group, consisting of the 356th, 382nd, 361st and 386th Squadrons. The 21st Group, commanded by Major Ettore Foschini, brought with it 12 new Macchi M.C. 202 fighters and 18 new Macchi M.C. 200s, probably the fighter-bomber version.
During the second battle of Kharkov, fought between May 12th to 30th 1942, Italian pilots carried out escort missions for German scouts and bombers. They earned the admiration of the commander of the German 17th Army, in particular for their daring and effective attacks in the Slavyansk area on Soviet fighters trying to shoot down German bombers.
In the summer of 1942, following the German advance, the 21st Group moved first to the Makeyevka airfield, and, later, to those of Tazinskaya, Voroshilovgrad and Oblivskaya.
The group shoots down 5 enemy aircraft in May, 5 in June and 11 in July.
Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’ of the 369ª Squadriglia, Soviet Union, 1942. Source: ww2aircraft.net
Increasingly, Italian pilots were asked to escort German planes, but the Macchi aircraft wore out very quickly because of the lack of spare parts. On July 25th and 26th, five M.C.200s were shot down during aerial combat with the Soviets.
In the summer, 17 Macchi 202 ‘Folgore’ arrived from Italy to reinforce the line-up of ‘Saette’, by then worn out by incessant use. At the beginning of December, the Macchi MC 200s still on the line numbered 32 plus 11 Macchi MC 202s. The losses suffered became more and more consistent due to the technological advancement of the Soviet aircraft.
On 6th August 1942, some MC 200CBs carried out a bombing mission east of the Don, hitting Soviet artillery and infantry with their 50 kg bombs.
In December, only 32 Macchi M.C. 200s and 11 Macchi M.C. 202s were available. The Soviet Air Force, which was starting to become better combat trained, as well as the increasing prevalence of anti-aircraft fire also caused additional losses. In fact, over half of the missions that the Macchi were requested to carry out were ground attacks against Soviet tanks and infantry.
The last Italian action that employed a large number of aircraft was on 17th January 1943, when 25 Macchi MC 200 and MC 202 machine-gunned troops on the ground in the Millerovo sector.
Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’ of the 21 Gruppo. Pilot Elis Bartoli shows the damage that resulted from Soviet anti-aircraft fire. Source: asisbiz.com
On January 18th, 1943, commander Ettore Foschini received the order to withdraw, first to the airport of Stalino in Donetsk, and from there to Zaporižžja. On February 20th, 1943, the Group was at Odessa airbase, waiting to return to Italy. On 15th April, the Group left Odessa and, after four stops, arrived at the Florentine airport of Peretola at the end of the month.
Thirty Macchi M.C. 200s and nine M.C. 202s returned to Italy, while 15 damaged aircraft were dismantled and used for spare parts, abandoning them at airfields during the retreat.
A total of 66 Italian fighter planes had been lost on the Eastern Front for various reasons, but they managed to shoot down 88 enemy aircraft during 17 months of operation in the theater of war.
In a postwar document written in Italy, it is stated that, in 17 months, the fighters of the Regia Aeronautica on the Eastern Front carried out 3,759 actions against the Soviets, 511 in support of the infantry by dropping bombs, 1,310 machine-gun attacks on ground targets, 1,938 escorts to bombers or scouts. 88 enemy planes were destroyed at the expense of the loss of 15 Macchi M.C. 200 lost in combat. The best Italian unit in the Soviet Union was Captain Germano La Ferla’s 362nd Squadron, which destroyed 13 Soviet aircraft on the ground and shot down 30 fighters and bombers in air engagements.
Luftwaffe
After the armistice of September 8th, 1943, the German Army managed to recover a small number of Macchi M.C. 200s from Italian airports and put them in service with the Luftwaffe, mostly as training aircraft.
As far as known, these never took part in actions against Allied targets.
A destroyed Macchi M.C. 200 which was in service with the Luftwaffe. Source: british-eevee.tumblr.com
Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana
After the Armistice of 1943, of the 33 Macchi MC 200s operational at the time, 10 remained in the German-occupied territories. Not much is known about these 10 units, but it can be assumed that almost all of them were confiscated by the Luftwaffe.
Several Macchi M.C. 200s remained in service with the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana (Eng: National Republican Air Force) for training purposes. Some of these vehicles had probably been recovered from depots or hangars and returned to service after an overhaul period.
Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana
Macchi M.C. 200AS with sand filters and Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana coats of arms and the Savoia cross on the vertical stabilizer. The registration number looks like MM 4337. Source: pinterest.com
As many as 23 Macchi MC 200s managed to reach the south of Italy after the Armistice of September 8th, 1943. Almost all of these belonged to the 8th Group, which had escorted the Regia Marina fleet (Eng: Italian Royal Navy) from La Spezia to Malta. In the summer of 1944, the 23 Macchi were assigned to the Fighter School of Leverano, where they were used for training until they could no longer be maintained.
Two Macchi M.C. 200 of the Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana in South Italy. The one in the foreground was equipped with wing pylons and a sand filter. The registration number was removed. Source: pinterest.com
Aeronautica Militare
Unfortunately, not much is known about the Macchi M.C. 200 in service with the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) after the war. A number of these, probably the surviving aircraft from the 23 Saettas used by the Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana, were kept in service using spare parts found all over the Italian peninsula, some with new parts that were produced after the war. They were used until 1947.
Being obsolete by the war’s end, the Macchi MC 200s were used in the 2ª Squadriglia of the Scuola Caccia (Fighter School) of Lecce for the training of a new generation of Italian fighter pilots.
Others
The MM337 prototype was presented at the Yugoslavian Belgrade Air Show in June 1938 and immediately attracted worldwide interest.
The MM. 337 exhibited at the Belgrade Air Show in June 1938. Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
Spain, Finland, Sweden and Romania asked to evaluate the aircraft but, due to political problems and the Italian government’s ban on exports, these negotiations did not move forward.
Only the request of the Royal Danish Navy for 12 Macchi M.C. 200 to replace their old Hawker Nimrods was accepted. However, when Germany invaded Denmark in 1940, the delivery was canceled and the aircraft remained in Italy.
Switzerland also requested 36 examples. Italy responded by offering the first batch of 24 and the second one of 12. All examples would have been without radios and would have cost 58,000 USD (equivalent to about 1.1 million USD today) each without ammunition. Due to the imminent entry into the war, the General Staff of the Royal Army blocked the negotiations before Switzerland allocated the funds.
The USAAF 86th Fighter Squadron of the 79th Fighter Group of the 9th Air Force Division came into possession of a Macchi MC 200 at Grottaglie. This one had belonged to the 357th Squadron, from where it was later transferred to Gerbini in Sicily. It was piloted by Captain Jack H. Kauffman, who used it to train his fellow soldiers to fight against Italian aircraft.
The Macchi M.C. 200 of the 357ª Squadriglia used by USAAF pilots. Source: pinterest.com
British Evaluation on the Macchi M.C. 200
Former Squadron Leader D. H. Clarke wrote in 1955 in one of his books that, in Sorman, North Africa, he came into possession of a Macchi M.C. 200, serial no. MM 5285. After three days of overhaul, the British officer boarded the Macchi and took it to their base at El Assa.
Clarke stated that the Macchi had excellent visibility, a spacious cockpit with an open cabin (which he regarded very positively), was rustic but simple and had comfortable controls. The engine was quiet and easy to maintain and the vehicle was very maneuverable.
During simulated combat against a Hawker Hurricane II, a Curtiss P-40 and a Spitfire V, it could outturn all three. The downsides that Clarke pointed out were the poor armament (although he considered the ammunition reserve adequate) and the flipping problem.
The RAF captured more aircraft during the war. Another one was captured in North Africa and was shipped to the USA, while other aircraft were captured intact in Sicily and used for training British pilots, to familiarize them with enemy aircraft.
A Macchi MC 200AS captured by British troops with RAF coats of arms at an airport in Sicily. The identification number was MM. 5815. Behind it is a Savoia Marchetti SM 79. Source: pinterest.com
Camouflages and Coat of Arms
Being one of the most long-lived and most produced aircraft of the Regia Aeronautica during the Second World War, it is easy to understand that the Macchi M.C. 200 had many camouflage schemes during its operational life on the various fronts on which it operated.
The prototypes, at the time of their test flights and their presentation to the Army Staff in Guidonia, had no camouflage or paint applied, with the natural aluminum being exposed. On the rudder, there was the Italian Tricolour with the Savoia symbol in the middle. This was the flag of the Kingdom of Italy until 1947. On the side of the cockpit, there was the Fascio Littorio painted inside a round frame with a blue background.
The Fascio Littorio was the symbol of the Partito Fascista Italiano (Eng: Italian Fascist Party) which, after Benito Mussolini’s rise to power, became the symbol of the dictatorship, like the swastika for Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party.
On both sides of the wings, there were also the “Fasci Littori Alari” (Eng: Wing Fasci Littori), circular rosettes 96 cm in diameter with a black outline and white background inside which were painted 3 stylized Fasci Littori. As the war progressed, the Fasci Littori Alari were slightly modified. The ones on the underside were painted white, with a black background.
Various italian coat of arms, 1 is the Fasci Littori Alari, 2 the Fascio Littorio painted on the fuselage, 3 the Croce di Savoia and 4 the Cockade of the Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana. Source: wikipedia.it and author collage
The first examples produced by Macchi and then used in Italy and those used in the Soviet Union were painted in dark green (Verde Mimetico 2; Eng: Green Camouflage 2) with dark brown spots (Bruno Mimetico; Eng: Brown Camouflage) with yellow outlines (Giallo Mimetico 4; Eng: Yellow Camouflage 4).
Some variations existed.. For example, the brown spots could be covered by small yellow mottling or, as in the case of the 79th Squadron of the 6th Group of the 1st Wing, the dark green background was covered with yellow spots and brown spots.
Starting from June 1940, the planes of the Regia Aeronautica received a new feature. In order to avoid incidents of friendly fire, the Italian Tricolor, which could be confused with the tricolor of French planes, was replaced by the Croce di Savoia (the Italian Savoia royal family symbol), a white cross by ministerial order.
However, the dispatch did not specify the exact dimensions of the cross and the units painted different types before a standard model of the Croce di Savoia was chosen.
Also, the Macchi, Breda and, later, SIA Ambrosini production plants painted the crosses differently. Macchi painted a cross with longer vertical arms, while Breda painted a Greek cross (all arms of equal length) and SIA Ambrosini painted the cross on the whole height of the rudder.
The white band on the fuselage was introduced at the beginning of 1941 with the same purpose.
The Croce di Savoia of different origins, the 1st is from Macchi, the 2nd from Breda, the 3rd is from SAI Ambrosini and finally, the 4th is an example made by a unit. Source: Macchi MC 200 Saetta and author collage
Between the spring and summer of 1941, a rule issued by the Ministry of War ordered that all Regia Aeronautica fighters be painted with a yellow nose to avoid incidents of friendly fire.
The order lasted only a few months, but many pictures show Italian aircraft with a characteristic yellow nose.
Also, in this case, the dispatch was misunderstood and some units (especially in the Soviet Union) painted the fuselage line and the wingtips in yellow.
The two planes of the 70th Squadron of the 23rd Autonomous Group were repainted by the unit completely in pitch black. They also covered all the markings.
SIA Ambrosini painted its M.C. 200 in dark green (Verde Oliva 2; Eng: Olive Green 2) and only in rare cases did the units repaint them. In North Africa, there were many camouflages, all on a khaki base (Nocciola Chiaro 4; Eng: Light Hazelnut 4 or Giallo Mimetico 4; Eng: Yellow Camouflage 4) with dark green spots (Verde Mimetico 2; Eng: Camouflage Green 2).
Three examples of camouflage used in North Africa. The first is a Macchi M.C. 200AS produced by SAI Ambrosini. It belonged to the Brigadier General, aircraft number 9 of the 373ª Squadriglia of the 153° Gruppo Autonomo. The second was a Macchi M.C. 200AS produced by Macchi. The third Macchi M.C. 200AS was the 2nd aircraft of the 363ª Squadriglia of the 150° Gruppo of the 53° Stormo Caccia Terrestre produced by Breda. Source: pinterest.com with author’s collage
After the fall of Fascism in Italy, on July 25th, 1943, pilots were ordered to obscure the Fascio Littorio, which were covered with the paint the units had available.
After the Armistice of 8th September, a number of Macchi MC 200s remained in the hands of Italian pilots who fought for the Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana. They were ordered to cover the tricolor coat of arms on the wings and on the fuselage, and to obscure all previous insignia, such as the white band on the fuselage, the coat of arms of the unit and the Croce di Savoia (although some were retained). The Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana used Macchi MC 200 with both dark green monochrome camouflage and that used in North Africa, khaki with dark green irregular spots.
After the war, the few surviving examples were used in aluminum color with tricolor cockades on the fuselage and wings.
The specimens captured by the British and the Americans had Allied coat of arms to cover the Italian ones. For example, the US specimen retained squadron identification numbers, but all other symbols were obscured or covered with US symbols.
The upper right wing and lower left wing beams were covered with paint while the upper left and lower right wing were covered with the United States Army Air Forces insignia.
The fuselage fascia was repainted yellow and received another USAAF insignia and the tail received a British tricolor.
Production
A Macchi M.C. 200, serial number MM. 5192, at the Bresso plant of the Società Italiana Ernesto Breda per Costruzioni Meccaniche. Source: pinterest.com
In total, 1,153 examples of Macchi M.C. 200 ‘Saetta’ were produced between May 1939 and October 1942 ,including the two prototypes and 12 different production series.
It is difficult to classify the production of MC 200 fighters based on “series” because the plane was produced by 3 different companies. Different “series” have to be defined per company.
With the slow rate of production, some updates were initiated by one company in one production series, and by another company in another production series. Some series had substantial differences, others only small changes to speed up production or to try to keep the aircraft up to date with the most modern Allied fighters.
The companies that produced them were Aeronautica Macchi, which produced 395 planes plus the two prototypes starting from May 1939 in the Varese plant, the Società Italiana Ernesto Breda per Costruzioni Meccaniche, which produced 556 planes, and the Società Aeronautica Italiana Ambrosini, which produced a total of 200 planes.
In late 1939, it was proposed thay FIAT should produce the Macchi M.C. 200 in their factories in Turin. Needless to say, FIAT refused, criticizing the Macchi as too complex to produce.
Production line of Macchi M.C. 200 at the Bresso Plant of Breda. Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
In 1939, 62 Macchi 200 were produced, 10 between May and July, 26 between August and October and another 26 between November and December. An interesting fact is that these aircraft were ‘produced’ but not ‘tested’ or ‘delivered’ to the Regia Aeronautica.
In fact, as in many other cases with the Italian war industry of that period, small components were missing that forced the aircraft to be kept in depots for weeks. There were also problems with a lack of test pilots or, even worse, a lack of air force pilots to deliver the new aircraft.
Finished Macchi M.C. 200 at the Bresso Plant of Breda, ready for the delivery to the units. Source: Aer.Macchi C. 200
Variants
Macchi M.C. 200 prototype – With fully retractable landing gear and closed cabin, 2 planes were produced by Macchi. Their first flight was on 24th December 1937.
Macchi M.C. 200 Pre-series – Serial numbers MM. 4495 to MM. 4520. Like the prototypes, it had retractable landing gear and a closed cabin, solved the overturning problems, and had a FIAT-Hamilton 34D-1 propeller with a hub cap.
Macchi M.C. 200 – Serial numbers MM. 4520 to MM. 4641. After the 146th model, the rear wheel of the landing gear was fixed.
Macchi M.C. 200 – Serial numbers from MM. 4641 to MM. 4736. After the 241st model, the cabin was left open.
Macchi M.C. 200 A2 – Equipped with wings and retractable landing gear taken from the successor, Macchi M.C. 202. The wings, redesigned by Mario Castoldi, no longer needed to be ballasted and solved the problem of overturning.
Standardized in 1942 to speed up production at Breda and SIAI, which were producing the Macchi M.C. 202 simultaneously. It also simplified the logistic line of front-line units.
Macchi M.C. 200 B2 – This version received only the wing attachment of the M.C. 202, the rest of the wing was of the Macchi MC 200. Like the A2 version, it was produced to speed up production and simplify the logistic line.
Macchi M.C. 200 AS – AS stands for Africa Settentrionale (Eng: North Africa). It was equipped with a sand filter for the carburetor.
Macchi M.C. 200CB – CacciaBombardiere or CB (Eng: Fighter-Bomber). With two wing pilons for bombs up to 160 kg or 150-liter auxiliary tanks.
Proposal
Better armed Macchi M.C. 200 – Proposal by engineer Castoldi to equip the M.C. 200 with two 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the wings.
The idea was not approved by the Regia Aeronautica.
Macchi M.C. 200 Bis
Designation of a prototype produced by Breda (MM. 8191) with a 14-cylinder Piaggio P. XIX engine delivering a maximum power of 1,175 hp. It was derived from the Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major and used on the Reggiane Re. 2002. It was tested during April-May 1942 by test pilot Acerbi. Castoldi was very annoyed because he did not approve the project.
The Macchi M.C. 200 Bis. Source: pinterest.com
Macchi M.C. 201
Two prototypes were built, with serial numbers MM 437 and MM 438. Given the availability of other, more powerful engines, Castoldi and Macchi spent very few resources on this project.
It was planned to equip the aircraft with the 1,000 hp FIAT A.76 RC.40 14-cylinder radial engine and some aerodynamic improvements, such as a more streamlined fuselage and a pressurized cabin.
Since the engine was not yet available, the prototypes were equipped with the 840 hp FIAT A.74 RC.38. The first prototype was flown for the first time on August 25th, 1941, by test pilot Guido Carestiato. It reached a speed of 512 km/h, while the second prototype was flown in September of the same year.
The two homologated vehicles, MM 8616 and MM 8617, were flown to Guidonia by Marshal Gori and Sergeant Staube on June 28th, 1942. The aircraft was not pursued because the expected engine was not available until 1943, by which time Italy had already started producing German inline engines under license for more than a year.
The Macchi M.C. 201. Source: wikipedia.com
Surviving Macchi M.C. 200
Given the large production numbers, there are still three MC 200s exhibited in museums.
A destroyed fuselage and radial engine are exhibited at the Museo dell’Aeronautica Gianni Caproni in Trento, North-East Italy. Serial number unknown.
An example is exhibited at the Museo Storico dell’Aeronautica Militare in Vigna di Valle near Rome. Original serial number MM.8307, serial number exhibited MM.7707.
The last surviving example is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Riverside, Ohio. This aircraft belonged to the 372ª Squadriglia of the Regia Aeronautica. In order to replace losses, the plane was transferred in November 1942 to the 165ª Squadriglia in North Africa.
Due to the Battle of El Alamein and the hasty retreat from the Benghazi airport, the plane was abandoned with the coat of arms of the 372nd Squadron and did not receive the 165th Squadron coat of arms. It was captured by British troops and was subsequently shipped to the United States, where it was displayed around the country to sell war bonds.
It was later sold to the New England Air Museum, where it remained on display until 1989, when it was purchased by a private owner who had it restored in Italy by a team from Aermacchi (the new name of the company) and then sold to the US museum. Fortunately, the aircraft is displayed with the original coat of arms of the 372nd Squadron of the Regia Aeronautica and MM. 8146 serial number.
Conclusion
The Macchi M.C. 200 was one of the most produced fighters in Italy during the Second World War. It proved to be a reliable fighter, easy to produce and fly, with adequate power and speed and served on all fronts where the Regia Aeronautica was employed.
As the war progressed, it became increasingly obsolete against newer, more powerful types, but still saw service until the end of the war and even after.
Climb speed: Climb to 6,000 m in 7 minutes and 33 seconds
Crew: One pilot
Armament: 2 Breda-SAFAT 12,7 mm with 370 rounds each
Gallery
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Macchi M.C. 200 Serial Number M.M. 336, December 24, 1937Macci M.C. 200 1st Series 91st Squadron, 10th Squadron. Gorizia 1939Macchi M.C. 200 1st Series of the 88th Squadron, 6th Group. Catania, winter 1940Macchi M.C. 200 23th Series of the 362th Squadron, 22th Autonomus group. August 1941, Krigoriov, Soviet UnionMacchi M.C. 200AS of the 373th Squadron, 153th Autonomus Group, North Africa, Summer 1941Macchi M.C. 200 of the first series produced by Breda in Milan before its delivery to unitsMacchi MC 200AS captured by British troops in Sicily, September 1943Macchi M.C. 200AS of the 93th Squadron, 8th Autonomus Group piloted by Marshal Bruno Batazzi of the Aeronautica Cobelligerante Italiana in Gerbini, October 1, 1943Macchi M.C. 200 of the Italian Air Force of the 2nd Fighter Squadron of the Fighter School in Lecce, 1946
Credits
Written by Arturo Giusti
Edited by Ed J. & Stan L.
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Aermacchi C.200 – La Bancarella Aeronautica Torino, Gianni Cattaneo
Macchi MC 200 Saetta – Maurizio Di Terlizzi
Macchi MC. 200/FIAT CR. 32 – Italo De Marchi and Pietro Tonizzo
Macchi MC 200 Saetta, pt. 1 (Aviolibri Special 5) – Maurizio Di Terlizzi
Macchi MC 200 Saetta, pt. 2 (Aviolibri Special 9) – Maurizio Di Terlizzi
Aermacchi, Bagliori di guerra (Macchi MC.200 – MC.202 – MC.205/V) – Nicola Malizia
The Macchi-Castoldi Series, Famous Fighters of the Second World War-2 – William Green
I brutti Anatroccoli della Regia – Daniele Lembo
The Macchi MC.200 (Aircraft in Profile number 64) – Gianni Cattaneo
France (1936-1940)
Fighter – 25 Built & ~200 Incomplete [Destroyed]
The VG.33 on an airfield. Colorized by Amazing Ace
Arsenal de l’Aéronautique was one of the more peculiar plane manufacturers of interwar France, though it is also one of the somewhat more obscure ones. Arsenal was a state company which was created towards the end of 1934. Its goal at the time was to provide a way to train aviation engineers employed by the French state, and to help them evaluate design proposals. It would also be tasked with studying aircraft designs without the profitability constraints of a private company, meaning Arsenal de l’Aéronautique would typically be used to study experimental projects not necessarily meant to see mass-production. Following the mass nationalization of France’s aircraft industry ,which began in August 1936 under the Popular Front’s government, Arsenal was given eight hangars built by Bréguet in Villacoublay, near Paris, to install its design bureau and production facilities.
Roots in Tandem-Engine Fighter Designs
The timeline of the VG 33’s predecessors tends to be somewhat unclear. It is generally considered that the fighters hold their roots in tandem-engine designs, which were being studied at the request of the French state in the mid to late 1930s. The VB10, which would be manufactured postwar, was one result of these studies. However, orders to design such tandem designs appear to date from 1937 according to some sources, while a mockup of the VG 33’s direct predecessor, the VG 30, appeared in November of 1936.
The Arsenal VG.30 mockup, the beginning of the VG.3X series of fighters, at the Paris air show of November 1936. [arsenalvg33.free.fr ]In any case, the engineers of Arsenal, led by lead engineer Michel Vernisse, presented their new plane at the 15th Paris Air Show in November 1936. The design they had worked on appears to date from early 1936, and was an attempt to compete with contemporary fighter designs, such as the MS.405 or LN 161 . This aircraft would be designated the Arsenal de L’aéronautique VG.30.
The VG.30: An Impressive First Draft
The VG.30 mockup which was first presented at the Paris air show was a low cantilever-wing monoplane powered ,originally, by the Potez 12dc 610 hp in-line engine. The plane was to use an almost exclusively wooden construction, which would save on cost and strategic resources (though this would prove less so the case than expected when it was found France lacked the spruce wood reserves to build the aircraft and had to purchase large quantities abroad to compensate for this issue). It had a capable armament of one 20 mm HS-404 firing through the propelled hub, and four wing-mounted 7.5 mm MAC 34 machine-guns. The wings had a surface of 14 m². When first unveiled, the VG.30 had a very modern appearance and drew considerable interest from France’s air ministry. So much so that, in early 1937, the Air Ministry set requirements for a competition, the “A.23”, for French aircraft designers to offer light fighter aircraft designs. This opened up some competition to the VG.30, which would materialize in several prototypes, such as the (Bloch MB.700, SNCAO CAO.200, Roussel R.30).one design, Caudron’s C.714, would enter production (Caudron’s very light C.714)
Arsenal worked on adapting their VG.30 to these requirements and then manufactured a prototype. Manufacturing of the prototype started during the summer of 1937, and faced some considerable delays. Notably, the Potez engine could not be delivered, which pushed the Arsenal designers to switch to another engine, Hispano-Suiza’s 12Xcrs, which would provide a considerable power increase up to 690 hp. This change would start the association between Arsenal’s VG.3X series fighters and Hispano-Suiza in-line engines.
A small but nonetheless rare view of the VG.30 prototype during flight. [Internet Movie Plane Database]The first prototype of the VG.30 had its first flight on the 15th of October 1938. It would still have to wait several months for official state trials, in which some subsequent modifications were made to the aircraft. in July of 1939 were the state trials undertaken. The VG.30 proved to have decent performance for a light fighter with a Hispano-Suiza powerplant that was not the most powerful of these available; up to 485 km/h in level flight. In a dive, the VG.30 was found to reach 805 km/h.
The VG.30 prototype on the ground during trials. [arsenalvg33.free.fr ]
Improving Upon the VG.30
The VG.30 had been found to be a rather capable design, but it had room for improvement. This was done by designing the VG.31. An issue with the VG.30 was that the radiator was fairly far forward. Being further in front than the cockpit, it was found not to be ideal for the plane’s aerodynamic profile. The VG.31 had its radiator moved back by two meters, and also had the wing surface reduced by two square meters. A more powerful engine was fitted in the form of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 860 hp, which did not however feature a 20 mm gun firing through the propeller hub. Two of the wing machine-guns were also removed, with only two 7.5 mm MAC 34s remaining as armament.
The VG.31 was never flown. It appears a fuselage was built, but was then converted to a VG.33 which was also never flown, but used as a model to base production upon.
The VG.33: First Production Model
Wind tunnel trials of the VG.31 showed that its reduced wingspan resulted in aerodynamic instability. Its reduced armament was also a major issue. However, its radiator, pushed back to the rear, appeared to be a good design choice in order to reduce drag and improve the aerodynamic profile of the series.
In designing a more advanced version, the best parts of the VG.30 and VG.31 were combined. The new fighter, the VG.33, would combine the wingspan and armament of the VG.30, with the fuselage and engine of the VG.31 – modified to mount a 20 mm HS-404 firing through the propeller hub.
Production of the VG.33 prototype started in 1938, and the prototype took flight for the first time on the 25th of April 1939. The official trials would last from July of 1939 to March of 1940, and were generally very positive.
Design: The Structure of the VG.33
A photo of the first VG.33 prototype during production in late 1938, showing the wooden structure of the aircraft before the plywood cover was applied. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]Schematics of the wing structure of the VG.33, which was mostly made using spruce. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]The VG.33 was designed using a largely wooden construction, made mostly of spruce. Almost all of the plane’s internal structure was wooden, and then given a plywood skin. The VG.33 used a semi-monocoque fuselage and a one-piece wing structure. The plane had a wingspan of 10.80 m, with each wing having a surface of 14 m². The plane was 8.55 m long, and 3.35 m high. Empty, it would weigh around 2,050 kg. When loaded, it would be between 2,450 and 2,896 kg (the second prototype would be weighed at 2,680 kg in seemingly standard configuration, with guns, fuel and pilot). The VG.33’s landing gear deployed outward.
The mounting of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 engine onto a VG.33. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]The VG.33 used a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31. This was a V12 engine producing 860 hp maximum at a critical altitude of 3,320 m, and at 2,400 rpm. This engine was fitted with a three-bladed Chauvière variable pitch propeller with a diameter of 2.95 m. This propeller would rotate at up 1,600 rpm. The water radiator was located below the cockpit,and was recessed into the fuselage as a way to reduce drag as much as possible. Upon take-off, a VG.33 would weigh 2,680 kg.
Firing through the propeller hub was the plane’s heaviest armament: a 20 mm HS-404 autocannon. Found on most French fighters of the era, this cannon fired 250 grams projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s. It was fed by a 60-round drum magazine, which would typically be expended quite quickly considering the weapon typically fired at 570 to 700 rpm. Additionally, two MAC34M39 machine-guns were located in each wing. The M39 was the belt-fed version of the original MAC34 aircraft machine-gun, which initially used drum magazines. The 9 gram 7.5 mm projectiles were fired at 830 m/s, and 1,200 to 1,450 rpm. With a larger ammunition provision of 850 rounds per gun, the machine-guns could be kept firing much longer than the cannon.
The VG.33 featured the standard radio of the French air force at the time, the RI 537.
Performance
The VG.33 on an airfield, giving a good angle on the plane’s sleek profile and radiator. [Pinterest]The trials undertaken from July of 1939 to March of 1940 gave a very good impression of the Arsenal VG.33, which could reasonably be considered the best French single-engine fighter of the era.
At its optimal altitude of 5,200 m, the VG.33 could reach a maximum speed of 558 km/h. This was faster than the newest French fighter of the time, the D.520, by about 20 km/h. The take-off speed would be of about 135 km/h, with a take-off distance of about 550 m. The landing speed was 125 km/h. The plane’s climb-rate was also a strength of the design. It would reach 1,000 m in 1.17 minutes, 2,000 in 2.34, 5,000 in 6.26 and 8,000 in 13.26. The plane had an operational ceiling of roughly 9,500 m.
The VG.33 had a maximum range of 1,060 km with its full fuel load of 400 litres. At an altitude of 5,000 m, it had an endurance of two hours and forty minutes There were trials for additional fuel tanks on the VG.30, which could perhaps have been applied to the VG.33 as well. The plane would then have a fuel load of 600 litres, and it was expected a VG.33 could cross up to 1,560 km, or fly for four hours and twenty minutes.
A view of the instrument board in the VG.33’s cockpit. [Pinterest]Posessing superb performance, forgiving flight characteristics, and good maneuverability, the VG.33 was a great fighter for its day . The first report made by the CEMA, the French Air Force’s evaluation service, in September in 1939, found the plane had excellent and well-balanced control surfaces which were effective at all speeds. Even at low speed, the plane remained very controllable all the way down to the stall speed, which made it easy to perform landings with. Furthermore, there was no particular imbalance and no risk of the plane losing control and nosing over. Taking-off was also not hard on the VG.33. The plane had no issues keeping a straight trajectory on the runway,and was considered very controllable even on the ground. The landing gear was found to be reliable and safe. The only somewhat lacking element was found to be the plane’s brakes, which were perhaps not as powerful as would be appreciated.
In comparison to the D.520 – which was already a decent fighter – the VG.33 compared favorably in pretty much all areas. This was even more of an achievement when taking into account the weights and powerplants of the two planes. The D.520’s weight was about equal to the VG.33 (2,050 kg empty, 2,740 kg fully loaded), however, it used a more powerful version of the same series of Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine, the 12Y-49. In comparison to the VG.33’s 12Y-31, the 12Y-49 producded 90 hp more, with a maximum output of 950 hp. This did not prevent the VG.33 from being faster than the D.520, climbing at a higher rate, and being more manoeuvrable, while featuring the exact same armament. In other words, the VG.33 would be, by the standards of 1939 and1940, a stellar fighter, very much able to compete with the newest designs from Germany or Great-Britain, the likes of the Bf109E and Spitfire. The plane would also have enough evolutionary potential to birth a series of fighters lasting potentially well into the war
A view of the uncovered 12Y-31 engine of a likely unfinished VG.33, the photo likely being of German origin. The 12Y-31 was not the most powerful version of the 12Y engine available by 1940, yet it was sufficient for the VG.33 to outclass fighters such as the D.520 powered by more powerful models of the same engine family. [hisaviation.com]
Production Orders and Setting Up the VG.33’s production
The outbreak of the Second World War in September of 1939 led to Arsenal’s fighter,which had been undertaking trials for several months at this point, being ordered into production. A first order was placed on the 12th of September, for 220 VG.33s.
Arsenal de L’Aéronautique lacked any facilities suited for mass-production. As such, production of the VG.33 would be undertaken by the SNCAN factory of Sartrouville, South-West of Paris. Five days after the first order, an additional 200 VG.33s were ordered, with the fighter being thought of as a good potential replacement for the aging Morane-Saulnier MS.406.
In the following months, orders and scheduled production of the VG.33 would evolve considerably, with the type quickly being seen as a future mainstay fighter for the French air force. By late September 1939, it was planned that the first 10 serial-production VG.33s were to be delivered in April of 1940, with production gradually rising to 150 planes a month by the autumn. The schedule was revised in November, with the 10 examples then being scheduled for February, and production to be set at 50 planes a month from April onward at the SCAN factory. It was already understood that a second assembly line would be required at this point. It was planned to open an assembly line in Michelin’s factories of Clermont-Ferrand, in the region of Auvergne in Southern France. This facility would not produce the VG.33, but one of its derivatives, the VG.32, of which the first were to be completed in December of 1940. There were also plans to set up a VG.33 production chain in Vendée, Western France.
VG.33 fuselages (top) and wing structures (bottom) during production. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]The flap of a VG.33 during production in a workshop. [arsenalvg33.free.fr ]Production of the VG.33 required a large number of small producers. The aircraft’s largely wooden construction meant that a lot of parts could be supplied by cottage industry sources. Nonetheless, the production of the plane was quite consuming in terms of resources. To produce a single VG.33, 1,166 kg of spruce, 110 kg of plywood, 880 kg of steel, 436 kg of aluminum and duralumin and 125 kg of magnesium was required. Even if mostly wooden, a large quantity of steel was still consumed in the aircraft’s production. The most significant efforts in providing the materials needed to produce the VG.33 were not spent in acquiring any of the steel though, but rather the spruce wood. The French Air Force only had a reserve of 750 tonnes, and the wood was also used to manufacture some reconnaissance or training aircraft, meaning this available reserve would only be sufficient to provide for about 500 VG.33s. France had to start a scramble to acquire spruce from foreign sources. In November, the acquisition of 500 m3 of spruce from Great-Britain was negotiated. In the meantime, France also bought spruce not only from its traditional suppliers, the USA and Canada, but also from an additional source, Romania. Romanian spruce was soon found to be lacking in comparison to the North American-sourced material. However, it would still be sufficient for less strategically important reconnaissance or training aircraft, freeing up better quality spruce for the VG.33, which had become an absolute priority of the French air ministry by the spring of 1940. In terms of cost, the airframe of the VG.33, without engine or armament, cost 630,000 French francs to produce. This was less than the D.520 (700,000) or MB.152 (800,000), and the VG.33 could be considered to be a fairly economical fighter – though not as much as the much lighter, and less capable, Caudron C.714, born from the same specifications .
Too Little, Too Late
The first production schedule for the VG.33 evolved considerably over the months.At the outbreak of the war, it was expected that the first VG.33s would be delivered in April 1940. In November 1939, the date for the first expected deliveries was changed to February 1940. In January of 1940, it appeared obvious this schedule would not be met and the new set date for the first VG.33 deliveries was March. Finally, in March, the first VG.33 were not yet completed, and the schedule was moved again to April of 1940, where it originally was at the start of the war. Finally, the first production aircraft would take flight on the 21st of April 1940. The next two production aircraft followed in early May. Eventually, 7 production aircraft would be taken into the French Air Force’s registry. The aircraft’s production and service was cut short by the German invasion of the Low Countries and France, with the production facilities at Sartrouville being occupied by German troops around the 14-15th of June 1940.
Side view of a VG.33. Taken in Toulouse, Southern France, in 1942, this photo shows one of the few production aircraft which could be evacuated to Southern France in time. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]The first squadron the VG.33 was supposed to enter service with was the GC ½, which previously operated the MS.406, far outclassed by the D.520 or Bf.109E. This squadron was allocated its two first aircraft, the 2nd and 4th production VG.33s, on the 10th of June 1940. The squadron, already engaged in the campaign, could not allocate any pilots to recover the aircraft. In the end, pilots of a reconnaissance group, GR 1/55, took them and relocated them from the under threat airport of Villacoublay, near Paris, to the far-away Toulouse-Francazal, deep in Southern France. Production planes n°1 and n°7 were moved to Clermont-Ferrant, where they were supposed to serve as models for the future VG.32 assembly chain. A fifth aircraft was moved to Southern France, n°7, in uncertain conditions.
Two VG.33s were reportedly part of an ad-hoc defensive squadron created in Bordeaux in June, GC I/55 active from the 17th to the 24th. According to some scaint claims, they may have been engaged in a few combat missions in the last days of the campaign of France. Two VG.33s are known to have been captured by German forces on Mérignac airfield, in Gironde, the same region as Bordeaux. These may have been the same aircraft.
Two production VG.33s captured intact by the Germans in Mérignac, Gironde. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]Outside of these 7 aircraft taken in by the French air force, production at SCAN’s facilities in Sartrouville had been starting to pick up steam, and a number of aircraft were at various stages of production. It appears a total of 19 fighters had been completed. 20 more lacked only their landing gear and were near completion. Seemingly, at least 120 more fuselages were at various stages of production. The vast majority of these were sabotaged in extremis to prevent advancing German troops from capturing them. Notably, the completed fighters, that had yet to be taken in by the French air force were destroyed by the crew of a Potez 540 reconnaissance bomber on the 14th of June using sledgehammers, mere hours before German troops would seize the facilities. This did not prevent the Germans from getting their hands on a few VG.33s. Two VG.33s were seemingly captured in Mérignac airfield. Located near Bordeaux, these two planes may have been those part of an ad-hoc defensive squadron. At least one aircraft would be repainted in German colors and tested extensively, likely at Rechlin airfield, Germany, and given the registration number “3+5”. According to some sources, the Germans would capture a total of five serial production VG 33s as well as the original prototype.
An uncompleted VG.33, likely photographed by the picture services of Germany’s armed forces in Sartrouville. [Le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]The VG.33 which would be tested by German pilots at the Rechlin airfield. [Armedconflicts.com]Another photograph of the VG.33 which was captured by the Germans [Armedconflicts.com]
A Series of Derivatives, France’s Potentially Mainstay World War Two fighter
Though the VG.33 was already a very potent fighter by 1940, there were already plans to improve upon it, generally by improving its powerplant. A variety of prototypes, mostly based on VG.33 airframes and given alternative designations as VG.33 prototypes, were flown in the Spring of 1940 and would have given Arsenal’s new series of fighters a more promising fate, were it not for the German occupation of France.
The VG.32, developed before the VG 33, but never flown, replaced the 12Y-31 engine with an American-sourced Allison V-1710-C15 1,150 hp engine. A model from the same series of engines would be fitted into the American P-40 Warhawk fighter. While also being more powerful than the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, the most significant advantage of the Allison engine was that it would relieve France’s strained engine industry. By producing the relatively easy to build VG.33 airframe and giving it an engine which would not strain the local industry, France would have a fighter that would require comparatively few work hours. The fifth VG.33 prototype airframe, VG.33-05, was supposed to receive the Allison engine and be the VG.32 prototype. However, the engine was not delivered before the armistice and, as such, the prototype was never flown. Nonetheless, the VG.32 had been ordered for serial production. Production was to be set-up in Michelin’s facilities of Clermont-Ferrant. It was hoped the first dozen would be delivered in December of 1940, with 25 to be manufactured in January of 1941, 40 in February, 70 in March, 100 in April, and 150 monthly from May 1941 onward. This obviously never materialized. As it was never flown, there is no good way to estimate the VG.32’s performance. The Allison engine reportedly required lengthening the engine cover by 42 cm and may have made the plane somewhat heavier, but its significantly higher power output may still have resulted in the VG.32 being at least comparable, if not somewhat superior to the VG.33.
A rear view of the first VG.33 derivative to take flight, the VG.34, parked aside a LeO 451 bomber on a French airfield. [Aviafrance]The first VG.33 derivative to take flight would be the VG.34. Built using the second VG.33 prototype airframe (VG.33-02), the VG.34 mounted a more powerful version of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine, the 12Y-45. Producing 960 hp, this was enough to give the VG.34 a maximum speed of 576 km/h at 6,000 m, and likely improve upon its climb rate as well. The VG.34 had its first flight on the 20th of January 1940. It appears to have been at an airfield near Toulouse by the armistice, with its further fate unknown.
The VG.35, made from VG.33-04, received a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 engine producing 1,000 hp. Sadly, it is a lot more elusive than the VG.34. Its recorded performances do not appear to be known, nor do any photo survive, despite the VG.35 having its first flight on the 25th of February 1940. The plane was known to be in Orléans by the point German forces captured the city. Its further fate is unknown.
A front view of the fairly impressive-looking VG.36 prototype. [Old Machine Press]The VG.36 could be said to be a more mature version of the VG.35. Using the same 12Y-51 engine, the VG.36 was not built from a converted VG.33 airframe, but instead had a new one, incorporating a number of changes. Its radiator was wider but presented a smaller profile, and was more integrated into the fuselage in an effort to reduce drag. Taking its first flight on the 14th of May 1940, the VG.39 could reach 590 km/h at 7,000 m. Very satisfying in terms of its performance, it appears to have been scheduled to replace the VG.33 on the production lines at some point. As for the prototype, it was reportedly withdrawn to an airfield in La-Roche-Sur-Yon during the campaign, before being destroyed to avoid capture.
The VG.37 was never built; a further development of the VG.36, it was to feature a supercharger and be modified for long-range operations. The VG.38 was never built either, and was to feature an improved version of the 12Y engine – the exact model being unknown.
The sleek and impressive looking VG.39, often considered to be the most brilliant example of the future of French fighter design to have reached prototype stage by 1940, parked in front of a LeO 451 bomber. [ww2.sas1946.com]The VG.39 was the most advanced model which took flight. Its main improvement was in terms of its powerplant. It received the advanced Hispano-Suiza 12Y-89 ter, with an output of 1,200 hp. It appears this engine did not allow for a cannon firing through the propeller hub in this version. To somewhat compensate for this, the wings were redesigned, keeping the same surface area but having a vastly modified structure which enabled for the mounting of one additional MAC34 machine-gun in each wing. Taking its first flight on the 3rd of May 1940, it could reach an impressive 625 km/h at 5,750 m. A very well performing plane for the time, the VG.39 was, as the VG.36, intended to enter production. This would, however, likely have been in the form of an improved version still on the drawing board by 1940. Designated as the VG.39bis, this improved VG.39 would feature an even more powerful Hispano-Suiza 12Z-17 engine producing 1,600 hp and allow for a 20 mm HS-404 to fire through the propeller hub, with the 6 wing machine-guns being retained. The VG.39bis would also incorporate a lower and widened radiator design similar to the one found in the VG.36. It would likely have been a very high performing aircraft, but it stayed on the drawing board due to the German occupation of France. As for the VG.39 prototype, its eventual fate is unknown.
The Undying Shadow of a Promising Fighter: Vichy Regime Studies
As can be seen, the VG.33 was an aircraft with promising performance, and an already well-developed series of variants which would have guaranteed the aircraft good evolutionary potential. Had France not been knocked out of the war by 1940, it is likely the Arsenal VG.3X series would have become for France what the Spitfire was to Britain or the Bf.109 to Germany: a mainstay able to continue to evolve and remain relevant for pretty much the entirety of the conflict.
This promising future was cut short by German wings, tracks and feet occupying France in 1940. Nonetheless, the armistice regime known as Vichy continued some studies upon the base of the VG.33. A few of the fighters, seemingly five production models as well as the original prototype, were indeed re-located in the unoccupied part of France at the end of the 1940 campaign. Though they were not put into service, they appear to have been taken as a basis to continue working on future fighters.
A series of profile views of Arsenal’s series of fighters. There is little in common to be found between the original VG.30 or VG.33 and the later VG.50 or VG.70 projects undertaken by the Vichy regime. [le Fana de l’Aviation n°199]Under the Vichy regime, studies would continue, leading to the VG.40, 50 and then VG.60. The definitive aircraft designed by 1942 would have featured larger 16.25 m² wings, and a completely redesigned fuselage which had little to do with the old VG.33. It would feature a new version of the Hispano-Suiza 12Z engine. Studies stopped after the occupation of the unoccupied part of France in November of 1942, but would resume after the liberation of France, with a VG.60 fitted with a German Jumo 213E 1,750 hp engine being considered. This would have been a fighter vastly different from the original VG.33. Armed with eight wing-mounted M2 Browning 12.7 mm machine-guns and a cannon of unknown model firing through the propeller hub, it would have weighed up to around five tons and was expected to reach over 700 km/h. This would never materialize, as Arsenal would end up manufacturing a version of a pre-war project in the form of the tandem engine VB.10. The design bureau would also design some jet fighters in the form of the VG.70 and VG.90, though these would not result in any Arsenal aircraft being adopted by France before the bureau was absorbed into the larger SNCAN in December of 1954.
A Fighter Mystified and Fantasized-About, Cut Short by France’s Defeat
The Arsenal VG.33 was a particularly interesting French piece of equipment. Having its roots in a venture by Arsenal de L’Aéronautique to design the VG. 30 light fighter, the type would evolve into a solid fighter by 1939-1940. Having both promising performance and evolutionary potential, the VG.33’s future was cut short by the German invasion which happened right as the very first production aircraft were taking their first flights. Even more so than the D.520, often described by this sentence, the VG.33 arrived too few and too late, and couldn’t provide the French air force an aircraft able to compete with Germany’s Bf.109 . It has since become a fairly mystified piece of French engineering. An elegant fighter with a sleek design, it has become a sort of ambassador for the large variety of advanced military equipment which France was to field by 1940, but never got the chance. In this fashion, it is not too different from the Somua S40 and B1 Ter tanks or MAS 40 rifle in the psyche of French military enthusiasts.
Two production VG.33s on a French airfield. The majestic and sleek fighter design that is the VG.33 has attracted the eyes of many French military enthusiasts for decades. Though the reality is somewhat more complex, it is certain the VG.33 would have provided the French air force with a better performing asset than the MS.406, MB.152, and even D.520 and H.75. [Old Machine Press]
Replica Construction
This heavily mystified status of the VG.33 likely played a role in the creation of a project to produce a replica of the French fighter aircraft. An association, Arsenal Sud Restoration, was created with the goal of building a replica. With the original plans unavailable, the team had to recreate them using new tools. As of November 2020, while far from complete, the shape of the replica’s fuselage is starting to take shape, while the rudder has been painted and given its markings.
A view of the state of the project in October of 2020 [Facebook]
Variants
VG.30: Original light fighter prototype
VG.31: Planned modified variant of the VG.30, with Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 860 hp engine, radiator moved to the back, and only two 7.5mm machine-guns. Never flown, a fuselage built and converted to a VG.33 prototype
VG.32: Planned variant fitted with Allison V-1710-C15 1,150 hp engine. A VG.33 prototype fuselage was set aside to receive the engine and serve as the VG.32 prototype, but it had not yet been mounted in June of 1940. Production was scheduled to begin in December 1940.
VG.33: Main production variant, using the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 860 hp engine and armed with one 20mm HS-404 autocannon and four 7.5mm MAC 34 machine-guns.
VG.34: Prototype converted from the second VG.33 prototype airframe, using the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 engine producing 960hp.
VG.35: Prototype converted from the fourth VG.33 prototype airframe, fitted with the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 1,000hp engine.
VG.36: Prototype, an improved iteration of the VG.30 series with the 12Y-51 engine in a modified airframe, with a radiator designed to reduce drag and significant other changes. Was to replace the VG.33 on the production lines at some point
VG.37:Planned variant of the VG.36 fitted with a supercharger and optimized for longer-range operations, never built
VG.38: Fighter design with an unknown iteration of the 12Y family of engines, never built.
VG.39: Prototype using the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-89 ter, producing 1,200hp but not fitted with an engine cannon, and instead using six 7.5mm machine-guns instead of four.
VG.39bis: Further evolution of the VG.39, powered by the Hispano-Suiza 12Z-17 1,600hp engine which would allow for a 20mm firing through the engine, while retaining six 7.5mm machine-guns. Never built
VG.40: First variant studied under the Vichy regime, using a Roll-Royces Merlin III 1,030hp engine on an airframe based on the VG.39bis. Never built
VG.50: Variant studied under the Vichy regime, using the Allison V-1710-39 engine. Never built
VG.60: Variant studied under the Vichy regime, with a new version of the Hispano-Suiza 12Z series of engines. Never built.
Arsenal VG.33 Specifications
Wingspan
10.8 m / 35 ft 6 in
Length
8.55 m / 28 ft 1 in
Height
3.55 m / 11 ft 8 in
Wing Area
14 m² / 46 ft² (One Wing) 28 m² / 92 ft² (Total)
Engine
Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31
Engine Output
Take Off – 760 hp Optimal Altitude – 860 hp at 5,200 m / 17,000 ftMax RPM – ~1,850 Standard
Propeller
Three-bladed Chauvière Variable Pitch Propeller (2.95 m diameter)
Empty Weight
2,050 kg / 4,519 lb
Takeoff Weight
2,450 to 2,896 kg (2,680 kg standard) 5,400 to 6,385 lb (5,908 lb standard)
Wing Loading
95.7 kg/m² / 19.6 lb/ft² (at standard 2,680 kg weight)
Fuel Capacity
400 liters / 105 US gallons 600 liters / 158 US gallons with proposed additional non-droppable fuel tanks
Maximum Speed
558 km/h / 347 mph
Cruising Speed
385 km/h / 239 mph
Cruising Range
1,060 km / 620 mi with Standard 400 liter fuel load
1,560 km / 970 mi with Extended 600 liter fuel load
Endurance
2h40 at 5,000m with 400 liter fuel load
4h20 at 5,000m with 600 liter fuel load
Maximum Service Ceiling
9,500 m / 31,000 ft
Time to Altitude
1.17 minutes to 1,000 m
2.34 minutes to 2,000 m
3.51 minutes to 3,000 m
5.07 minutes to 4,000 m
6.26 minutes to 5,000 m
8.02 minutes to 6,000 m
10.11 minutes to 7,000 m
13.26 minutes to 8,000 m
Crew
One Pilot
Armament
20 mm HS-404 firing through the propeller hub center with 60 rounds
4x MAC34M39 machine-guns with 850 rounds per gun in the wings
Production
1 prototype + 4 completed derivative prototype
Around 20 production aircraft fully completed of which 7 were taken in by the French Air Force
40 airframes very close to completion
About 200 aircraft in various stages of production in total by June of 1940
Gallery
Arsenal VG.30 PrototypeArsenal VG.33 PrototypeArsenal VG.33 in Standard Camouflage for 1940German Captured VG.33 – Depicted as seen in testing at Rechlin
Germany (1944)
Experimental VTOL Fighter – Paper Project
The bizarre looking Focke-Wulf Triebflügel fighter design. [luft46.com]During the war, German aviation engineers proposed a large number of different aircraft designs. These ranged from more or less orthodox designs to hopelessly overcomplicated, radical, or even impractical designs. One such project was a private venture of Focke-Wulf, generally known as the Triebflügel. The aircraft was to use a Rotary Wing design in order to give it the necessary lift. Given the late start of the project, in 1944, and the worsening war situation for Germany, the aircraft would never leave the drawing board and would remain only a proposal.
History
During the war, the Luftwaffe possessed some of the best aircraft designs and technology of the time. While huge investments and major advancements were made in piston engine aircraft development, there was also interest in newer and more exotic technologies that were also being developed at the time, such as rocket and jet propulsion. As an alternative to standard piston engine aircraft, the Germans began developing jet and rocket engines, which enabled them to build and put to use more advanced aircraft powered by these. These were used in small numbers and far too late to have any real impact on the war. It is generally less known that they also showed interest in the development of ramjet engines.
Ramjets were basically modified jet engines which had a specially designed front nozzle. Their role was to help compress air which would be mixed with fuel to create thrust but without an axial or centrifugal compressor. While this is, at least in theory, much simpler to build than a standard jet engine, it can not function during take-off. Thus, an auxiliary power plant was needed. It should, however, be noted that this was not new technology and, in fact, had existed since 1913, when a French engineer by the name of Rene Lorin patented such an engine. Due to a lack of necessary materials, it was not possible to build a fully operational prototype at that time, and it would take decades before a properly built ramjet could be completed. In Germany, work on such engines was mostly carried out by Hellmuth Walter during the 1930s. While his initial work was promising, he eventually gave up on its development and switched to a rocket engine insead. The first working prototype was built and tested by the German Research Center for Gliding (Deutsche Forschungsinstitut für Segelflug– DFS) during 1942. The first working prototype was tested by mounting the engine on a Dornier Do 17 and, later, a Dornier Do 217.
The Dornier Do 217 was equipped with experimental ramjets during trials. [tanks45.tripod.com]The Focke-Wulf company, ever keen on new technology, showed interest in ramjet development during 1941. Two years later, Focke-Wulf set up a new research station at Bad Eilsen with the aim of improving already existing ramjet engines. The project was undertaken under the supervision of Otto Ernst Pabst. The initial work looked promising, as the ramjets could be made much cheaper than jet engines, and could offer excellent overall flying performance. For this reason, Focke-Wulf initiated the development of fighter aircraft designs to be equipped with this engine. Two of these designs were the Strahlrohr Jäger and the Triebflügel. The Strahlrohr had a more conventional design (although using the word conventional in this project has a loose meaning at best). However, in the case of the Triebflügel, all known and traditional aircraft design theory was in essence thrown out the window. It was intended to take off vertically and initially be powered by an auxiliary engine. Upon reaching sufficient height, the three ramjets on the tips of the three wings would power up and rotate the entire wing assembly. It was hoped that, by using cheaper materials and low grade fuel, the Triebflügel could be easily mass-produced.
A model of the Triebflügel. This is how it may have looked if completed. [Wiki]
The Name
Given that these ramjet powered fighter projects were more a private venture than a specially requested military design, they were not given any standard Luftwaffe designation. The Triebflügel Flugzeug name, depending on the sources, can be translated as power-wing, gliding, or even as thrust wing aircraft. This article will refer to it as the Triebflügel for the sake of simplicity.
Technical Characteristics
Given that the Triebflügel never left the drawing board, not much is known about its overall characteristics. It was designed as an all-metal, vertical take-off, rotary wing fighter aircraft. In regard to the fuselage, there is little to almost no information about its overall construction. Based on the available drawings of it, it would have been divided into several different sections. The front nose section consisted of the pilot, cockpit, and an armament section for cannons and ammunition, which were placed behind him. Approximately at the centre of the aircraft, a rotary collar was placed around that section of the fuselage. Behind it, the main storage for fuel would be located. And at the end of the fuselage, four tail fins were placed.
A drawing of the Triebflügel’s interior. [luft46.com]This aircraft was to have an unusual and radical three wing design. The wings were connected to the fuselage while small ramjets was placed on their tips. Thanks to the rotary collar, the wings were able to rotate a full 360o around the fuselage. Their pitch could be adjusted depending on the flight situation. For additional stability during flight, the tail fins had trailing edges installed. The pilot would control the flying speed of the aircraft by changing the pitch. Once sufficient speed was achieved (some 240 to 320 km/h (150 to 200 mph)), the three ramjets were to be activated. The total diameter of the rotating wings was 11.5 m (37 ft 8 in) and had an area of 16.5 m² (176.5 ft²).
This unusual aircraft was to be powered by three ramjets which were able to deliver some 840 kg (1,1850 lb) of thrust each. Thanks to ramjet development achieved by Otto Pabst, these had a diameter of 68 cm (2.7 ft), with a length of less than 30 cm (0.98 ft). The fuel for this aircraft was to be hydrogen gas or some other low grade fuel. The estimated maximum speed that could be achieved with these engines was 1,000 km/h (621 mph). The main disadvantage of the ramjets, however, was that they could not be used during take-off, so an auxiliary engine had to be used instead. While not specifying the precise type, at least three different engines (including jet, rocket, or ordinary piston driven engines) were proposed.
In the fuselage nose, the pilot cockpit was placed. From there the pilot was provided with an overall good view of the surroundings. The main issue with this cockpit design wass the insufficient rear view during vertical landing.
Close up view of the Triebflügel landing gear assembly. [Secret Jets of the Third Reich]The landing gear consisted of four smaller and one larger wheels. Smaller wheels were placed on the four fin stabilizers, while the large one was placed in the middle of the rear part of the fuselage. The larger center positioned wheel was meant to hold the whole weight of the aircraft, while the smaller ones were meant to provide additional stability. Each wheel was enclosed in a protective ball shaped cover that would be closed during flight, possibly to provide better aerodynamic properties. It may also have served to protect the wheels from any potential damage, as landing with one of these would have been highly problematic. Interestingly enough, all five landing wheels were retractable, despite their odd positioning.
The armament would have consisted of two 3 cm (1.18 in) MK 103s with 100 rounds of ammunition and two 2 cm (0.78 in) MG 151s with 250 rounds. The cannons were placed on the side of the aircraft’s nose. The spare ammunition containers were positioned behind the pilot’s seat.
Final Fate
Despite its futuristic appearance and the alleged cheap building materials that would have been used in its construction, no Triebflügel was ever built. A small wooden wind tunnel model was built and tested by the end of the war. During this testing, it was noted that the aircraft could potentially reach speeds up to 0.9 Mach, slightly less than 1,000 km/h. The documents for this aircraft were captured by the Americans at the end of the war. The Americans initially showed interest in the concept and continued experimenting and developing it for sometime after.
In Modern Culture
The Triebflügel taking off in the movie. [marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com]Interestingly, the Triebflügel was used as an escape aircraft for the villain Red Skull in the 2011 Captain America: The First Avenger movie.
Conclusion
The Triebflügel’s overall design was unusual to say the least. It was a completely new concept of how to bring an aircraft to the sky. On paper and according to Focke-Wulf’s engineers that were interrogated by Allied Intelligence after the war, the Triebflügel offered a number of advantages over the more orthodox designs. The whole aircraft was to be built using cheap materials, could achieve great speeds, and did not need a large airfield to take-off, etc. In reality, this aircraft would have been simply too complicated to build and use at that time. For example, the pilot could only effectively control the aircraft if the whole rotary wing system worked perfectly. If one (or more) of the ramjets failed to work properly, the pilot would most likely have to bail out, as he would not have had any sort of control over the aircraft. The landing process was also most likely very dangerous for the pilot, especially given the lack of rear view and the uncomfortable and difficult position that the pilot needed to be in order to be able to see the rear part of the aircraft.
The main question regarding the overall Triebflügel design is if it would have been capable of successfully performing any kind of flight. Especially given its radical, untested and overcomplicated design, this was a big question mark. While there exist some rough estimation of its alleged flight performances, it is also quite dubious if these could be achieved in reality. The whole Triebflügel project never really gained any real interest from the Luftwaffe, and it is highly likely that it was even presented to them. It was, most probably, only a Focke-Wulf private venture.
Triebflügel Estimated Specifications
Rotating Wing diameter
37 ft 8 in / 11.5 m
Length
30 ft / 9.15 m
Wing Area
176.5 ft² / 16.5 m²
Engine
Three Ramjets with 840 kg (1,1850 lb) of thrust each
Empty Weight
7,056 lbs / 3,200 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
11,410 lbs / 5,175 kg
Climb Rate to 8 km
In 1 minute 8 seconds
Maximum Speed
621 mph / 1,000 km/h
Cruising speed
522 mph / 840 km/h
Range
1,490 miles / 2,400 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
45,920 ft / 14,000 m
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Two 3 cm MK 103 (1.18 in) and two 2 cm (0.78 in) MG 151 cannons
Gallery
A rendition of how the Triebflugel may have looked had it been built. Illustration by Pavel ‘Carpaticus’ Alexe.
Credits
Article by Marko P.
Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Sharp (2015) Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich, Dan Savage
Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009) Aircraft of the Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company
J.R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putham
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, MidlandSome 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.
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 setswere 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 227Flensburg 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])
(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.
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.
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 camouflageJu 87A-1 from the Dive bomber school 1, operated during winter 1940-1941Ju 87A used for pilot training in late 1939Ju 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
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.
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 WarFP-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.
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.