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.
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1948-1967) Multi-Role Twin Engined Aircraft – 23 Built
The Ikarus 214 [otpisani.niceboard.com]After World War Two, the new Communist Yugoslavian Air Force Command began a long process of restoring the destroyed aviation industry. The first attempts were made in the late 1940s, when several new and experimental designs were built, including the Ikarus 214. While most of these would remain prototypes or be built in small numbers, they would serve as a base for future developments and the experience gained would be used in the following years.
History
The first steps towards rebuilding the new Communist Yugoslav aviation industry were made during the war on 24th October 1944. Negotiations with representatives of many pre-war aircraft manufacturers about the possibility of reviving the devastated aircraft industry were held at Zemun near the capital city of Belgrade. Many pre-war aircraft industry designers and engineers would survive the war, and would be used to form the base of the future Yugoslav aviation industry.
Ikarus 214 D Prototype in Flight [paluba.info]Two years later (23rd February 1946), the Aeronautical Technical Institute created a competition for the development of four new designs. One was for a flying school and tourism aircraft, while the others were for a two-seater basic trainer, an advanced trainer, and a multi-seat trainer version that could potentially be used as a transport plane. The Aeronautical Technical Institute was a pre-war institution which was responsible for placing orders and monitoring new aircraft development. During the period of 1947 to 1952, several different designs, including the maritime role, what would become the Ikarus 214, were produced.
Constructor Group No.5, under the leadership of the aircraft engineer and professor Sima Milutinović, received orders to design a light two-engined transport and bomber crew trainer aircraft under the military designation 214. After the calculations and drawings were completed, the production of the first prototypes began in 1948 at the Ikarus factory. By 1949, two prototypes were completed and were designated 214P and 214D.
Name
The original military designation of this plane was simply 214. After the first two prototypes were built, the manufacturer’s name, Ikarus, was added to the designation. However, some sources call it the type 214 or simply the 214. This article will use the 214 designation for the sake of simplicity.
Technical Characteristics
The 214 was designed as a low wing, twin engine, mixed construction plane. Despite being primarily intended as a transport and trainer plane, the 214’s fuselage was designed to be able to withstand bomber duties. The fuselage had an unusual design and was built by combining two monocoque “sandwiches” (two light skins placed around a thick core) shell construction (same as on the British de Havilland Mosquito which was in use with the Yugoslavian Air Force.) The 214’s fuselage was large and had plenty of room for use as a transport or passenger aircraft. The 214 passenger version had 7 seats placed behind the pilot’s cockpit. On both sides of the fuselage, there were two rounded and two elongated windows. The 214 (except the later built 214PP and AM-2) had a large and fully glazed round shaped nose with good all round forward visibility.
The Improved 214AM-2 Anti-Submarine VariantThe 214 prototypes were powered by the weaker Ranger SVG-770C engines.
The wings were made of wood and consisted of two box shaped longerons. The whole wing was covered with birch glue. The twin tail vertical and horizontal stabilizers were also made of wood. The rudder and the elevator were made of duralumin and covered with canvas.
The first engine used by the two prototypes was the air-cooled Ranger SVG-770C providing 520 hp, with the two-bladed Hamilton standard type propellers. The second prototype, and all subsequent aircraft were equipped with the stronger nine-cylinder air-cooled Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1, which delivered 600 hp. Four fuel tanks were placed in the wing longerons, with a total fuel load of 780 liters (206 gallons.) The 214 used B-95 gasoline as its main fuel.
The Ranger SVG-770C Engine [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]The landing gear retracted (except on the first prototype) into the rear engine nacelles but was not completely covered. The rear tail wheel was fixed but was provided with a brake system. The landing gear was hydraulically driven.
The pilot’s cockpit was positioned above the front fuselage and provided a good all-around view. In the cockpit there were positions for two crew members (pilot and assistant) and dual controls which were connected with the rudders and elevators with wire. However, this flight control system was flawed, because it took a few seconds before the plane responded to the command given by the pilot, for example during turns, climbs, or descending maneuvers. This made the 214 particularly difficult to fly during harsh and bad weather.
The front glazed nose provided a good all around forward view.
Inside the cabin were several flight instruments, such as the airspeed and altitude indicators (type Teleoptik 456-6 and 452, the 214AS version had two altitude indicators), two variometers (type Teleoptik 26B), a turn and slip indicator (type 441-0), a horizontal situation indicator (type Teleoptik 32C, the 214AS version was equipped with two), a magnetic compass (type 443-0), two engine tachometers, fuel and oil gauges, landing gear indicator, and thermometer. Additional equipment for the crew’s safety included parachutes, fire extinguishers, oxygen bottles, and heating & ventilation. In the first series of aircraft produced in 1958, a SCR-522 radio unit was installed This radio had 8 watts of power with a range of 50-290 km (30-180 mi) depending on altitude. The 214F version was equipped with a Rudi Čajevac radio-telephone.
One of the prototypes was armed with three 7.92 mm MG-15 machine-guns, one forward fixed, one on the side (not specified whether it could be aimed) and one in the rear facing turret. The decision to use older captured German MG-15s was most likely based on the fact that the 214 was to be used as a trainer aircraft, with better and more modern armament reserved for front line aircraft. The 214 could also be equipped with a bomb load of four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. Weapons were rarely installed on the production versions, as they were used mostly for transport.
First Test Flights
The 214 made its first flight on 7th August 1949, at the Zemun airfield near Belgrade. Immediately, there were problems with the lack of an adequate retractable landing gear. As a temporary solution and to speed up the testing process, the engineers simply reused the landing gear from an Il-2 (which was in use by the Yugoslav Air Force), but for technical reasons it was not retractable and remained fixed. There were also problems with inadequate propellers, as the 214 prototypes had to use propellers designed for a single engine aircraft. Despite the fact that it was never intended to be used with a fixed landing gear, military officials demanded that the flight tests begin as soon as possible. During its first test flight, one of the two engines simply stopped working. The pilot made a turn back towards the airfield, but the 214 could not maintain altitude and the plane crashed killing the test pilot Lieutenant Sima Nikolić.
An investigation that was subsequently conducted found that the fixed landing gear and the poor choice of propellers created too much drag. The single working engine could not overcome this drag. In addition, the vertical tail surfaces proved to be inadequate.
Prior to this accident, the engineers and designers predicted, at least in theory, that the 214 could maintain a constant altitude with only one working engine. In case of such a scenario, the test pilots were instructed to fly to the large and open Borča field, Belgrade, and land there. Why the pilot decided to return to Zemun airfield instead of proceeding to the instructed field was impossible to determine. Despite this accident, the development of the 214 would go on.
The second prototype was fully completed by December 1949. In order to avoid accidents, the second prototype spent almost two years being redesigned and tested. Unfortunately, there is no information about any flights made during this period, but it is possible that some were conducted. This plane received larger vertical tail surfaces and a new landing gear. More intense flight tests were made from 1951 on. During this time, different trainer configurations were tested. These were basic training variants with three crew members and no armament, a bomber training variant with four crew members with up to three machine guns and bombs, and as a passenger transport variant with two crew members, six passengers, and no armament.
The Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1 became a standard production engine on the 214. [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]During 1954 and 1955, the second 214 prototype was equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1 engines. It made its first flight with these engines on the 16th of September 1955 without any problems. In 1957, the second prototype was modified for use as a photo-reconnaissance aircraft (serving as the basis for the later 214F variant). This prototype would be used in this role until September of 1959, when the plane was lost in an accident.
In 1955, it was decided to put the 214 into limited serial production. It began in 1957 (or 1958 depending on the sources) and, by the time it ended in 1960, a total of 21 (or 20 depending on the source) 214 planes were produced.
Anti-Submarine role
In 1958, a decision was made by the Yugoslavian Air Force for the adaptation of the 214 for anti-submarine operation. The first series of 214s produced was allocated to the 97th Air Regiment (this unit was renamed into the 97th Anti-Submarine Regiment in November 1958). The first group of pilot officers from the 97th Air Regiment was moved to Zemun airfield for training on the 214 in October 1958. All pilots from the 97th Air Regiment (which was equipped with British de Havilland Mosquitos) completed training by July 1959. In the period of 1959 to 1960, there were 41 pilots in training, but the number was reduced to 25 in 1961 and 1962. The entire training process was carried out under the leadership of World War II veteran Captain Okanović i Semolić.
As the 214 lacked any equipment for anti-submarineoperations, it could be used only in reconnaissance missions, and only weather permitting where visibility was good. In 1960, there were plans to improve the 214’s anti-submarineperformance by adding the necessary equipment. One modified aircraft, under the new 214PP (No. 61004) designation, was tested by Captain Petar Savić on the 6th of May 1960. Two years later, a new anti-submarine version, 214AM2 (No.61015), also known as 214M-2, was tested in June 1962 by pilot Aleksandar Prekrasov. Both versions had a fully enclosed nose instead of the standard glazed one (the sources are not clear, but it appears that other 214 were also equipped with an enclosed nose). In addition, the 214AM2 was provided with a radar placed below the front nose. However, this improved version was still not up to the task of anti-submarine duties. Even if the crew spotted an enemy submarine, it could hardly do anything. Due to equipment delays, more extensive testing was not possible before 1963. The 214AM2 was tested in Batajnica (near Belgrade) and later in Pula on the Croatian coast. The tests of the 214AM2 were completed by 1965, and the results of these tests assessed the variant as partially successful.
Even before these tests were completed, in May 1964, by the order of the Secretary of National Defense, the 97th Anti-Submarine Regiment was reorganized as 97th Auxiliary and Support Regiment and supplied with C-47 transport planes. The 214 was still in use with this unit but mostly in a transport role. This decision to remove the 214 from the anti-submarine role was based on the fact that they were not sufficiently equipped, and could not effectively engage submarines. The 214 would be used by this unit up to 1966, when they were removed from service.
The 214F
Front view of the 214F version.
In 1960, three aircraft, designated as 214F, were built in the Ikarus factory to be used as photo-reconnaissance planes. The main difference was the removal of the seats inside the plane’s fuselage and replacing them with positions for a cameraman, his assistant, and camera equipment.
Limited Operational Service Life
Despite being designed to fulfill several different roles, the 214 (beside the two anti-submarine modifications) was mostly used as a light transport and sometimes for day and night bomber crew training. The aircraft that were used in this role received the 214AC or 214P designations and, in total, 18 were built of this version. The basic transport and training variant had 7 seats placed behind the cockpit, with four on the right, and three on the left side. In some sources, the passenger number is listed as 8. The idea to use the 214 as a light bomber was rejected due to the rapid development of more advanced fighter-bombers. The 214 had many technical problems during its operational use, such as inadequate radio equipment, problems with the control of the wing flaps, inadequate electric equipment for night flights, and cracks that would appear in the propeller spinners after extensive use.
A parachute group in front of a 214 prior to take-off. [vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs]Rear view of a 214. The Yugoslav flag (blue, white and red with a red star in the middle) was often painted on the tail. [otpisani.niceboard.com]
The 214 was mostly used by the Yugoslavian Air Force as a transport plane.
In Civilian Service
By 1966, only six 214 transport versions were still operated by the Yugoslavian Air Force. The next year, these six were withdrawn from service and given to the Aeronautical Association of Yugoslavia for use. They were registered as passenger planes with two crew members and seven passengers. These received the following civilian markings based on their stations: YU-ABN in Ljubljana, YU-ABO in Vršac, YU-ABT in Novi Sad, YU-ABS in Zagreb, YU-ABR in Sarajevo and YU-ABP in Skopje.
In 1968, only four were listed as operational and, by 1970, they were removed from the civilian registers. While they remain stored, some parachute flights were carried out after 1970. In the following years, all except one were scrapped. This aircraft (No.60019) was given to the Yugoslav Aviation Museum near the Capital of Belgrade in 2001. The plane is in a poor state of repair and is waiting for restoration. Due to the financial difficulties of the museum, there is only a small chance that it will be restored in the near future.
This is a civilian 214 stationed in Sarajevo. [paluba.info]The only surviving 214 (No.60019) aircraft can be seen in the Belgrade Aviation Museum. [Wikipedia]
Production Run
As previously mentioned, the decision for the production of the 214 was made in 1955. By the time the production ended in 1960, a small series of 21 aircraft was produced (excluding the two prototypes.) Many sources state that around 20 were built but, according to Č. Janić. and O. M. Petrović, 21 were built (18 214AC and 3 214F). The problem with determining the exact number of produced aircraft lies in the fact that, in some sources, the three produced 214F include the prototype which was modified for this role. Despite the fact that the production began during 1957 (by Ikarus), the whole process was slow and, by the 1st of January 1959, only six 214 were built. Only one was built in 1957 and an additional five during 1958. By January 1st 1962, there were 21 aircraft in service with the Yugoslavian Air Force, with 17 fully operational. In the following years, there were no accidents and an average of between 15 and 18 were fully operational at any given time. In order to increase the 214’s operational service life, one additional factory (Vazduhoplovno-Tehnicki Remontni Zavod) was opened in Zagreb for the production of spare parts and repairs. The Ikarus factory, due to its involvement in other projects, was exclusively involved in the production of spare parts from 1962 to 1964.
Due to the small numbers built, the 214 had only a few different variants.
214P and 214D prototypes – Two prototypes built and tested with different engines.
214F – 3 built as photo-reconnaissance planes.
214AC (214P) – Main production version.18 were built as trainer/passenger planes.
214PP – One production aircraft was modified for anti-submarine operation.
214AM-2 – One production aircraft was modified as an improved anti-submarine variant.
Conclusion
Despite not being a successful design, the 214 did see operational use in the Yugoslav Air Force. As only small numbers were built, the model’s role was limited. The 214’s greatest success was that it helped rebuild the destroyed Yugoslavian aircraft industry and the designers and engineers gained additional experience in working with more modern aircraft designs.
Ikarus 214 Specifications
Wingspan
53 ft 2 in / 16.2 m
Length
38 ft 9 in / 11.2 m
Height
13 ft / 3.95 m
Wing Area
320 ft² / 29.8 m²
Engine
Two nine cylinder air-cooled P&W R-1340-AN-1 with 600 hp
Empty Weight
3,740 lbs / 3,970 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
11,080 lbs / 5,025 kg
Fuel Capacity
780 l
Maximum Speed
227 mph / 365 km/h
Cruising speed
186 mph / 300 km/h
Range
670 mi / 1,080 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
23,000 ft / 7,000 m
Crew
One pilot and One copilot
Armament
Three 7.92 mm MG-15 Machine Guns
Bomb load of four 50 kg bombs
Gallery
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Ikarus 214Ikarus 214AM-2 Anti-Submarine VariantIkarus 214 in Civilian Service
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Stan Lucian & Ed Jackson
Illustrations by Carpaticus
B. B. Dimitrijević (2012), Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo 1942-1992, Medija centar Odbrana.
Č. Janić. and O. M. Petrović (2011), Kratka Istorija Vazduhoplovstva u Srbiji, Aerokomunikacije, Beograd.
B. B. Dimitrijević., P. Miladinović and M. Micevski. (2014), Jugoslovensko Pomorsko Vazduhoplovstvo 1918-1991, Institut za savremenu Istoriju Beograd.
The Ba.65 was ultimately an unsuccessful design, and was built in relatively small numbers. [warbirdphotographs.com]The Breda Ba.65 was an Italian ground attack aircraft that first saw action during the Spanish Civil War. It was built in both single and two-seat configurations, and was exported to various nations prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, but only saw large-scale combat operations with the Regia Aeronautica in Northern Africa.
History
During the thirties, the Italian aircraft manufacturer Breda began working on developing several ground attack plane designs based on the theoretical principles set by World War One veteran fighter ace Colonel Amadeo Mecozzi. According to Colonel Mecozzi, the best use of aerial forces was the quick neutralization of military targets deep into enemy territory by using fast and very agile aircraft. Per his request, the major Italian aircraft manufacturers were to present their aircraft proposals for future use by the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica).
The first aircraft design that tested Mecozzi’s idea was the Caproni A.P. 1 monoplane. It was utilized in small numbers during the Spanish Civil War, but the overall performance was underwhelming and, besides the small numbers built, it was not adopted for larger scale service. In the early thirties, Breda built a prototype of a ground attack plane named Ba.64, an all-metal low-wing aircraft powered by a single 700 hp Bristol Pegasus radial engine, license-built by Alfa Romeo. It was armed with four 7.7 mm (0.311 in) Breda-SAFAT guns in the wings, with one additional mounted in the rear gunner position, and a bomb load of around 400 kg (880 lb.) The Ba.64 was built in small numbers and by 1939, only 27 aircraft were reported in the Italian Air Force, which were used for second line duties only.
Side view of the Ba.65 K-14 two seat version. [warbirdphotographs.com]A new improved design was built under the designation Ba.65 as a multi role aircraft, but it would end up being used mostly for ground attack. The prototype made its first flights in September 1935, piloted by Ambrogio Colombo. After a series of test flights, the prototype was handed over to the Air Force for further trials on the 27th October. The Ba.65 prototype made a flight from Milan to Rome, where it was to be handed over to the military, with an average speed of 412 km/h (256 mph). During its evaluation, a doctrinal problem emerged. Neither the Air Force Command staff, nor Mecozzi precisely specified what kind of performance specifications a ground attack aircraft should achieve. In order to solve this dilemma, the Air Force requested that the Ba.65 be flight tested with the results to be compared with those of the Fiat CR.32 biplane. The performance tests were held at the Guidonia Experimental Center near Rome. While the CR.32 biplane proved to have better handling, the Ba.65 was faster.
The production of the first group of 81 aircraft was started in 1936, and as the Ba.65 was produced in sufficient quantities, these were slowly adopted for service. Immediately after introduction to the Air Force, the Ba.65 proved to be a problematic design. From the beginning, pilots had significant problems learning how to control it, which resulted in several accidents, many fatal. Due to these accidents, the Ba.65 gained a bad reputation with Italians pilots. The main causes of the Ba.65’s difficulties mostly lie with poor pilot training, insufficient preparation, poor organization, and a lack of adherence to regulations.
Technical Characteristics
The Ba.65 was designed as a low-wing, single-engine, mixed-construction multi-role aircraft, including light bomber, attack aircraft, reconnaissance, and interceptor. The Ba.65’s fuselage was constructed of welded chrome-molybdenum steel tubes. The front fuselage and cockpit area (and the rear gunner area in the two-seat versions) were covered with sheet metal panels. This was done to make engine, or any other forward fuselage repairs much easier. The remaining fuselage was covered with fabric.
The wings were built using chrome-molybdenum steel tube spars, which were additionally connected with diagonal steel tubes. The leading edge of the wings consisted of duralumin sheets while the rear part was fabric covered. The ailerons and tail were also built using metal tubes covered in fabric. The tail consisted of two parts, the cantilever fin and the strut-braced tailplane.
Breda Ba.65 K-14 (MM 75085) two seat version equipped with the rear turret, which was armed with a Breda-SAFAT 7.7 mm ( 0.311 in) machine-gun. The Ba.65 was a relatively heavy aircraft, so the rear machine gun position was removed in the hope of reducing weight. [warbirdphotographs.com]The Ba.65 had a then-modern retractable landing gear. It consisted of two larger front wheels, both of which retracted to the rear under-wing fairings. The landing gear system could be operated hydraulically or mechanically if needed. The smaller rear tail wheel was fixed. The landing gear was usually protected from damage by metal covers, but in some cases these were removed, probably due to damage, or to make repairs easier.
The cockpit was well placed, with ample forward visibility. It was protected by a large fully glazed canopy which could be opened to the rear. The canopy did see a number of design changes during the Ba.65’s service life. Beside the standard control panel, the Ba.65 was also equipped with oxygen tanks, a voicepipe for communication between the pilot and the rear gunner (two-seat version only,) an electric generator, and fire extinguishers. There was space inside the cockpit for additional equipment, such as a radio or cameras, but these were never installed in any Ba.65. In the two-seat versions, the rear position housed the gunner/observer (depending on the mission.) The rear position would also undergo many design changes during the Ba.65’s operational service life, from being protected by a fully enclosed turret, to being open and later even removed in the hopes of reducing weight.
Isotta Franschini K 14Fiat A 80
The engine used on the prototype and the first series of 81 planes was the 870 hp Isotta Fraschini K-14 fourteen-cylinder engine. There are differences in the engine strength depending on the source, with some indicating, 700 hp, 870 hp, or even 900 hp (D.. Monday, G. Garello., J. W. Thompson., respectively) Later, it was replaced with the stronger 1,000 hp (746 kW) Fiat A.80 RC.41 eighteen-cylinder engine. The engine was placed in a steel housing that was connected to the fuselage by four bolts.
The aircraft’s fuel was held into two tanks located behind the pilot, with a total capacity of 650 l. An additional fuel tank could be added in the bomb bay with a capacity of 370 l. With the standard fuel tanks, the Ba.65 had a flight endurance of 3 hours and 25 minutes. With the additional fuel tank, flight time increased to 5 hours. The main fuel tank was equipped with a “Semape” self-sealing system.
The two left wing machine guns. [warbirdphotographs.com]The main armament consisted of two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns and two 7.7 mm (0.311 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns. The machine guns were placed in the central parts of the wings. For the two-seat version, one additional 7.7 mm (0.311 in ) machine gun was placed in a ring mounted turret. During development, there were several different rear turret designs, either partially or fully enclosed. There is some disagreement in the sources about the designation of these turrets. Gabrielo G. named the fully enclosed version as type M and the partially enclosed one as the type L. Author David M. mentions the enclosed turret as type L. The standard ammunition load was 350 rounds for the heavier machine guns and 500 for the smaller caliber machine guns (without the rear machine gun). According to some sources, the type L turret was armed with one 12.7 mm (0.5 in ) heavy machine gun.
The interior bomb bay could be equipped with either four 50 kg (110 lb) or two 100 kg (220 lb ) bombs placed vertically. Another optional loadout consisted of a container with 168 smaller 2 kg (4 lb). Additionally, 200 kg (440 lb) of bombs could be carried on the bomb racks located under the wings, but these were not always used. The theoretical maximum bomb load was 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) but, due to the plane’s excessive weight and the poor engine performance, this loadout was never used operationally nor in combat. The bombsight was located in the cockpit.
Further Development
Due to its poor performance, the Italian Air Force formed a commission with the aim of determining if the Ba.65 could be modified or improved to justify its continued production. The commission was made up of five Air Force officers and was led by Engineer Parano. After a short analysis, the commission noted that the Ba.65’s two-seat configuration was too heavy. This, combined with an underpowered engine, were the main reasons for the Ba.65’s poor flight performance. The commission made several modification suggestions which would be implemented in the second Ba.65 production series.
Engine Cowling for the K14Engine Cowling for the A80
The previous K-14 engine was replaced with a stronger 1,000 hp eighteen cylinder Fiat A.80 engine. This resulted in an increase in the overall performance during climbing, take-off and cruising at top speed. The maximum speed with the stronger engine was 430 km/h (270 mph) with an effective range of some 550 km (340 mi ) and a service ceiling of up to 6,300 m ( 20,700 ft). The two engines had different cowling designs. The K-14 had 28 (14 pairs) smaller cylinder covers, and the A.80 had 18 longer cylinder covers. The new improved version is often designated simply as Ba.65 A.80 but, in some sources, it is also called “Ba.65 bis”.
The Ba.65 was also tested with the Piaggio P.XI engine, which was some 100 kg (220 lb) lighter than the K-14. The overall flight performance was improved, but due to the high cost, the proposal that all aircraft should be equipped with this engine was rejected. Additionally, a Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engine was allegedly tested on the Ba.65 (intended for Chinese export), but it is unknown if it was actually installed, or just planned.
Other improvements were made to the A-80 version. The rear machine gun mount was replaced with a new ring mounted machine gun turret. The landing gear was redesigned and improved. Great attention was given to reducing the weight as much as possible. To solve the problem with the overloaded wings, two Handley-Page slats were installed at the wings’ leading edges, which also improved the flight performance. On the tail, additional weighted ballasts were added to help with stability during flight.
Despite these modifications, the newly produced Ba.65 was criticized by pilots who were unhappy with its flying performance. There were also a number of accidents which forced the Air Force to issue special orders in October 1938, according to which it was forbidden to fly unnecessary aerobatics unless it was approved or for training purposes. By April 1939, the Italian Air Force Command, in the hope of finally solving the problems with weight and flight performance, ordered the removal of the rear machine gun position and equipment. In July, additional orders extended this modification to the older Ba.65 K14 versions. Despite these modifications, the Ba.65 never achieved the potential the Air Force High Command hoped for, and the Italians entered the Second World War without a dedicated ground attack aircraft.
Training Version
Small numbers of Ba.65, together with Ba.64 and A.P.1 planes, were used for a short time as trainers at the Foggia Flying School. As the concept of ground assault was abandoned by the Regia Aeronautica in November 1939, all remaining Breda aircraft at this school were scrapped.
In Italian Operational Service
In Italian military service, the Ba.65 saw action in small numbers during the Spanish Civil War, while the only other major engagement was in North Africa. Allegedly, according to author J.W. Thompson, it was also used during the Axis forces attack on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941, but this is unlikely as there is no proof to corroborate this.
Pre-War Use
Front view of the Ba.65 (MM 325) prototype aircraft. [warbirdphotographs.com]In June 1936, the Ba.65 (MM.325) prototype was allocated to the 160a Squadriglia (Squadron) stationed near Ciampino for operational use. After the flight testing at Furbara, the first production aircraft was allocated to the 167a Squadriglia. At this time, the Italian Air Force began reforming the “Assalto” (attack) units into the 5a Brigata Aerea, which consisted of 5° and 50° Stormo (regiment) commanded by Colonel Mecozzi himself. At the time of formation, the 5a Brigata Aerea was equipped with older Caproni A.P.1 and Ba.64’s.
Due to slow production of the Ba.65, by 1937 only 20 were available for operational service. In 1938, the newer and improved Ba.65 A.80 version was ready for service. Immediately after sufficient numbers of the A.80 were produced, the 5° and 50° Stormo were reequipped with them and the older K-14 versions were given to 2° Fighter Stormo.
The improved A.80 version, stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. [warbirdphotographs.com]In May 1938, during Adolf Hitler’s visit to Italy, a live strafing exercise was organized at the Furbara airfield with 18 Ba.65 and 7 A.P.1 aircraft. During this exercise, a single Ba.65, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Savarino, was flight tested with a payload over 1,000 kg (2,500 lbs) of equipment and bombs) of 1,160 kg (2,560 lb). After his first test flight, the pilot noted that it was nearly impossible to fly the fully loaded Ba.65. In a second test, the load was reduced to 900 kg (1,990 lb). This time, the flight was more successful, but the aircraft was still reported as uneasy and unpleasant to fly.
During 1938, there were many flight accidents in which eight pilots lost their lives. This forced the Air Force to ground all Ba.65 from October 1938 to January 1939. Because of this decision, training of all pilots in the ground attack role was reduced, which affected combat readiness. At this time, the order for a further 33 aircraft was put on hold until a final decision was made about the fate of these units and the type of aircraft with which they should be equipped. The introduction of the new Breda Ba.88 (which turned out to be an even more disappointing design) persuaded the Italian Air Force Command to replace the Ba.65 with this aircraft. The 5° Stormo was reequipped with the new Ba.88, while 50° Stormo still operated Ba.65 aircraft in a limited role by early 1939.
A Ba.65 flying above Rome during a training flight. These were part of 5° Stormo. [warbirdsphotographs.com]
In Spain
During the Spanish Civil War, Italy and Germany actively supported Francisco Franco’s fascist forces by sending significant military support which consisted of military equipment like small arms, tanks, aircraft, troops, engineers and trainers. This war would be used as a testing ground for many new military aviation designs, including the Ba.65.
In April 1937, the first group of 13 single seat Ba.65 K-14 arrived in Seville. They were attached to the 65a Squadriglia (Sq) Aviazione Legionaria under the command of Captain Desiderio. This unit’s entry into operational service would be delayed until August 1937. This unit was later relocated to Tudela in order to help fascist forces during the battle of Teruel in late December 1937. During this battle, the 65a Sq, under the new leadership of Captain Fanali, performed large, aggressive sorties against Republican forces. The 65a Sq was also very active during the Republican Ebro offensive in July 1938. The battle ended after 115 days with a Republican defeat, with over 80,000 casualties and the loss of large numbers of planes. The Ba.65s were used during the capture of Barcelona in late January 1939.
As the Spanish Civil War ended, the Ba.65 crews were sent by ship to Italy, with the remaining 11 aircraft given to the new fascist Spanish state. During the war, Italy sent around 23 Ba.65 aircraft, of which half were lost. Only three Ba.65 aircraft were destroyed by enemy action. The Breda was used in several different roles during the war. It performed poorly in the role of interceptor due to its inadequate handling and the slow climb rate. Due to stiff controls, lack of an oxygen mask, and the ensuing physical fatigue of the pilots, high altitude scouting missions were also unsuccessful. The only real success was achieved in the fighter-bomber role.
During the war, the Italian crews added bomb racks under the wings. The bomb load was increased with two 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs which were dropped at an angle of 30-35°. An additional 168 smaller 2 kg (4 lb) fragmentation bombs (carried in the position of the second crew member) could be dropped during the climb. After the bomb load was dropped, the Ba.65 could engage ground targets with its four machine guns (two were heavy machine guns). During the Spanish Civil War the single seat version was mostly used, with the exception of a few missions when a rear observer or specialist was requested.
In Africa
Routine aircraft maintenance was necessary during the North African campaign. This picture was taken near Tobruk in November 1940. [warbirdphotographs.com]Prior to the beginning of the War in Africa against the British, the 50° Stormo was plagued by a general lack of adequate training, poor organization, and bad mechanical condition of the Ba.65 aircraft. By June 1940, the Italians had around 160 Ba.65 aircraft, but only 11 were actually fully operational and could be used for front line service.
The 50° Stormo was moved to Benghazi in Libya. Once there, mechanical problems cropped up as the A.80 proved to be prone to overheating and the desert sand caused significant issues for the engines. In Libya, a series of accidents forced Air Marshal Balbo to order the Ba65 removed from operational frontline service. All Ba.65 were dismantled and were to be sent to Italy, with assault units to be equipped with any available aircraft capable of assault sorties. The only planes fit the role were the Caproni Ca.310, a twin-engined bomber trainer aircraft, which was far from ideal, and the older Fiat CR.32 biplane.
The 50° Stormo (with no Ba.65) was relocated to Sorman airfield near Tripoli in order to provide support to the ground forces during attacks on Tunisia. Due to the rapid British advance, this unit (with only seven Ca.310B) was moved to the T.2 military airfield near Tobruk. The Ca.310B proved to be inadequate for the task, and after only two bombing attacks on the British armored columns in June, they were removed from these units. Due to this, the Italian Air Force commander in North Africa, General Porro, was forced to order the return of all available Ba.65 planes to operational service.
The A.80 version, possibly somewhere in North Africa. [warbirdphotographs.com]They were to be relocated from Benghazi to the T.2 airfield as soon as possible. Besides the 50° Stormo, the Ba.65 would be supplied to 12° (150th and 160th Squadrons) and 16° (167th and 168th Squadrons) Gruppo (Group). The 12° Gruppo saw heavy action and high attrition rate, and by the end of June only five Breda Ba.65 and five Fiat CR.32 were operational. In July, the 16° Gruppo arrived at T.2 airfield equipped with the CR.32 and a few older Ba.65 K-14 collected from Italy. These units achieved great success when attacking the British forces near Sidi Rezegh (25-27 July 1940), inflicting heavy damage. In August, six Ba.65 A.80 (with fighter cover of unknown type and numbers) attacked a British supply depot but were intercepted by British Gladiators. The engagement ended with three lost Gladiators, but the Italian losses (if any) are unknown. During General Graziani’s short offensive action toward Sidi Barrani in September, all Ba.65 equipped units were active. By the end of the Italian offensive, only 10 Ba.65 and 18 CR.32 were still operational.
On 18th October, a formation of six Ba.65 and seven CR.32 managed to attack a British airfield far behind the front line, in Egypt at Siwa Oasis. This air raid was repeated on 7th November 1940, with six Ba.65 and eighteen CR.32. Bombing actions continued throughout November. By the end of the month, the 12° Gruppo was sent to the rear for rest, recreation, and aircraft overhauls. At the same time, the British launched Operation Compass, which eventually led the attacking Italian Army to collapse. The 12° and 16° Gruppo were allocated to the A.3 airfield near Amseat.
In early December, Britain’s 7th Armoured Division under the command of General O’Connor managed to break the Italian line of defense and began racing to the west. The 50° Stormo, along with all its planes, was dispatched to stop British armored attacks. This attempt failed and the unit lost all its aircraft. The same fate was met by the 16° Gruppo, which was evacuated to Italy on 2nd January 1941, without any operational aircraft. The 12° Gruppo lost most of its aircraft in January and, by the 14th of February, it also was relocated to Italy. With its departure, the Ba.65’s combat service ended.
In Foreign Service
After World War I, Italy became known around the world for the production and export of aircraft, especially during the thirties. This was mostly achieved due to a successful commercial strategy in the international aviation market. Despite the Ba.65 being an unsuccessful design, several countries showed interest in buying this type of aircraft, but their use was very limited. These include Iraq, China, Portugal and Chile. Italians also presented the Ba.65 to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but nothing came from this.
In Iraqi service
Iraq was under the great political and military influence of Great Britain, which meant that they were more or less forced to accept any British Foreign Office decision, including the acquisition of weapons. For a long time, the Iraqis wanted to break away from British influence, or at least reduce it. For this reason, the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff Colonel Jewad visited Italy in 1937, in the hopes of concluding a contract for the purchase of new aircraft types which would be used to equip the Iraqi Air Force. During the negotiation with the Italian Aeronautical Export Committee (AEROCONS) in 1938, it was agreed that Iraq would buy 15 (25 according to David M.) Breda Ba.65 aircraft, two of which were the dual control version. In addition, 25 A.80 engines were also bought. All combat aircraft were two-seaters, equipped with the rear mounted Breda turret.
These aircraft were shipped and disassembled into smaller parts, arriving by ship in Iraq. Along with them, a group of Breda engineers under the leadership of Lieutenant Guza, were sent to help with assembly. The transportation process was slow due to the long distance, and the need to test each aircraft after assembly meant that these planes could not enter operational service before November 1938. After this, the process of training the Iraqi pilots began. The Iraqis did not have any problems adapting to the Ba.65 and only one accident was recorded with the loss of the pilot’s life. In May, Guza and his team returned to Italy, with a positive report about the Ba.65 in Iraqi service.
In 1941, there was an uprising led by Rashid Ali, who, with the promise of Axis support, began preparations to expel the British Forces from Iraq. During the Anglo–Iraqi War in May of 1941, all Ba.65s were allocated to the 5th Squadron. This unit saw action against the British forces, but after several attacks only two were left operational. The Italians sent a CR.42 squadron to help the Iraqis but it arrived too late to change the war’s outcome. This unit, seeing the poor Iraqi situation, returned home after a short time. The fate of the surviving Ba.65s is unknown.
Production Attempts in China
For some time, the Italians were trying to negotiate with Chinese authorities about opening an aviation production factory in China. After initial negotiations in June 1934, the Chinese signed a contract with the Aeronautico Italiano per la China (Aerocina). This company was owned by the Italian Government in conjunction with Caproni, Breda, Fiat and SIAI. According to this contract, the Italians were to build the SINAW (Sino-Italian National Aircraft Works) factory in Nanchang. With this agreement, the Italians were to provide tooling, parts, and machines necessary for the factory to work. The head of the soon-to-be factory was the Italian Luigi Acampora and the Director was General Chu Lin. The production of the first operational aircraft was to begin from July 1937 and all Italian personnel were to return to Italy after five years of cooperation.
SINAW officially started production in November 1936 with six Savoia-Marchetti SM.81B bombers. Future plans included local assembly of 30 Breda Ba.65s and 50 Fiat G.50s. Immediately after the start of the Italian-Chinese corporation, there was a disagreement about the assembly of the Ba.65. The Chinese officials insisted that it should be powered by the Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engine in place of the Italian K-14. The Italians were against this, but there was a compromise to equip them with the stronger A.80 engines. Despite this, the Chinese later on insisted on the Pratt and Whitney engines which led to delays in the realization of the project.
The factory was slightly damaged during the Japanese bombing action of Nanchang on the 20th of October, 1937. By November, the Italian Government made a decision to discontinue any further cooperation, and stopped all further deliveries of equipment and materials. This was done mostly due to Japanese military actions, and poor relations with the Chinese side. By early December 1937, all Italian personnel returned home, and the deal with the Chinese was abandoned without a single Ba.65 being built.
In Chilean Service
Rear view of a Chilean Ba.65. Chile bought 17 single-seaters and 3 dual control training versions in 1938. These were powered by the Piaggio P.XI engine instead of the weaker K-14 and armed with 12.7 mm Madsen type heavy machine guns. [warbirdphotographs.com]In the summer of 1937 representatives of the Chilean Air Force force were sent to Italy to begin negotiations for the purchase of several different Italian aircraft designs. These negotiations were successfully completed, and a purchase was arranged for nine Nardi 305 trainers and seventeen single engine and three dual control training versions of the Ba.65. These were to be powered by Piaggio P.XI engines instead of the K-14. Also, the Chileans demanded that the 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda SAFAT heavy machine guns be replaced with Madsen machine guns of the same caliber. Due to these changes and the long voyage to Chile, the Bredas reached their destination on 14th December, 1938. The aircraft were stationed at El Bosque airfield, awaiting the training of the pilots to begin, but due to many delays this only began in March 1939. During these training flights, there were two accidents due to pilot errors. The Chilean Air Force was under great pressure from the press about the quality of these planes, which eventually led to the suspension of any further flights of the Breda. These accidents were caused mostly due to the poor quality of pilot training. Not willing to admit their mistake, the Chilean Air Force began negotiation with the Italians to exchange the Ba.65 with the CR.32. But the negotiations were delayed and were never resolved as the war in Europe broke out. The Ba.65 would be used up to the end of 1941, when the last flight was recorded. These would be replaced with more modern American planes later on.
In Portuguese Service
In January 1937, the Portuguese showed interest in the Ba.65. After some negotiations, the Portuguese Air Force ordered 10 Ba.65 A.80, some of which were equipped with the Breda M turret. The inexperienced Portuguese pilots were to be sent to Italy for extended flight training.
The Ba.65 would be used in the coming year, but due to the lack of resources and maintenance, the Portuguese had problems keeping them in working condition. In February 1941 a heavy storm caused the hangar that all the Bredas were stored in to collapse. As all were damaged beyond repair, the Portuguese Air Force ordered them to be scrapped.
Production and Modifications
Besides the prototype, serial production of the Ba.65 began in 1936, with an initial production run of around 81 (MM 75091-75161) being produced by Breda. The second and the last production series was completed by July 1939. In the second series, Breda produced an additional 80 with an additional 57 built by Caproni. The total production run was 218 operational aircraft, in addition to the single prototype. Of the total produced, around 60 were sold to Iraq, Chile and Portugal.
Only one major modification to the original aircraft was ever made on the Ba.65, as it was used for only a short time.
Ba.65 – Prototype
Ba.65 K-14– Single and two seat versions
Ba.65 A.80 – Single and two seat versions
Ba.65 Trainer Version – Small numbers were used as training aircraft for a short time before being scrapped
Ba.65 P.XI – One aircraft was tested with the 1.000 hp Piaggio P.XI engine, but was not adopted for service.
Operators
Italy – Operated less than 160 Breda Ba.65 in total.
Iraq – Bought around 15 A.80 aircraft, of these two were modified as dual control trainers.
China –There were negotiations with Italy to domestically assemble thirty Ba.65s, but this was never achieved.
Fascist Spain – Used all surviving Ba.65s left by the Italians after the end of the Civil War.
Chile – Bought some 17 single-seaters and 3 dual control training version in 1938. These were powered by Piaggio P.XI engines and armed with 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Madsen type heavy machine guns.
Portugal – Bought 10 mostly two-seat versions, while some were equipped with the Breda M turret.
Breda Ba.65 A.80 Specifications
(Single Seat Version)
Wingspan
39 ft / 11.9 m
Height
10 ft 2 in / 3.10 m
Length
32 ft 4 in / 9.9 m
Wing Area
252.96 ft² / 23.50 m²
Engine
One 1,000 hp (746 kW) Fiat A.80 RC.41 18-cylinder radial piston engine.
Empty Weight
5,510 lb / 2,500 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
6,950 lb / 3,150 kg
Fuel Capacity
650 + 370l
Maximum Speed
267 mph / 430 km/h
Cruising Speed
220 mph / 350 km/h
Range
340 mi / 550 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
20,670 ft / 6,300 m
Crew
1 Pilot
Armament
Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns and two 0.311 in (7.7mm) Breda-SAFAT machine guns.
Four 110 lbs (50 kg) or 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs
168 smaller 4 lb (2 kg) bombs
Additional two 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs carried under the wings
Gallery
Ba.65 during the Spanish Civil WarBa.65 from 2° Stormo 1938Ba.65 from 5° StormoBa.65 from the 2° Stormo
Credits
Article by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
Illustrations by Pavel
D. Monday (1984, 2006), The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft of World War II, Aerospace Publishing
G. Garello (1997), Breda Ba 65, La Bancarella Aeronautica – Torino
D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija,, Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
United States of America (1945)
Observation Scout Floatplane – 10 Built
XOSE-1 taking off. Notice it is painted in the wartime colors. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]The XOSE-1 was an observation float plane built by the Edo float company during World War II and was intended to be a possible replacement for the OS2U Kingfisher. Before being built, the type seemed promising and ten prototypes were ordered. Although development was slow, the aircraft would finally fly after the war had ended. Testing showed the design was riddled with flaws and, with the end of the war making the observation floatplane obsolete and unnecessary, the XOSE-1 program was cancelled.
History
Photo of the mockup XOSE-1.
Before America had entered the Second World War, it was realized that many assets in the United States arsenal were outdated to some degree. Many aircraft were unable to compete with their contemporaries around the world. One such piece of equipment would be the ship launched floatplane. A concept that originated in the 1920s and 1930s, it involved the use of small floatplanes that were carried aboard large warships and could be deployed via catapults for a number of tasks to assist their mothership. These missions included long range scouting, spotting for the warships’ main guns and also providing anti-submarine protection using depth charges or torpedoes. Most of America’s larger warships were equipped with catapults at the time for this purpose. The dedicated ship-based floatplanes the United States Navy (USN) operated at their entrance to the war was the aging Curtiss SOC biplane and the Vought OS2U Kingfisher. The latter would soon replace the former and would enter widespread service after the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Although the Kingfisher was just entering service, the search for a modern seaplane that would eventually replace the aircraft began. The new type was expected to carry out the same duties as its predecessor but also be able to effectively protect itself if needed. The OS2U only had one .50 caliber machine gun for offense, which wasn’t very helpful when against newer fighters. The first and most prominent aircraft that would rise to meet this role would be the Curtiss SC Seahawk, but it would not be the only type that would be built. In fact, a competitor would come from a little known company called Edo.
The Edo Aircraft Company is not a company often mentioned in history regarding the Second World War. The company was founded in 1925 by Earl Dodge Osborne, with the name being an acronym of his own name. Despite being rarely discussed among historians, Edo was immensely crucial to the war effort for the USN. Edo was a primary producer for aluminum floats before the war and would be the main producer for the floats on Navy floatplanes, like the OS2U. It was estimated that up to 95% of floats used on USN aircraft were built by Edo. Not only was Edo responsible for the production of the floats, they were also known for adapting said floats for use on the aircraft that would use them. Edo had become known for their work on floats, but they worked on a handful of their own floatplane designs in the years before WWII had started. However, this was around the time the company was created in 1925, and aircraft design had changed drastically since then. Given their background and knowledge with designing and fitting floats, the USN requested that the Edo company should attempt to design their own modern floatplane for the ship-based observation role. Eager to attempt building a modern aircraft, Edo eagerly accepted the request. On January 11th, 1944, they would begin work on their floatplane, which would be called the XS2E-1.
Frontal view of an XOSE-2 or XTE-1. The two were visually identical from the outside. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]The preliminary design of the XS2E-1 was deemed acceptable by the Navy and an order for ten prototypes was made. The XS2E-1 would be a two seat design with a Ranger V-770-8 engine. The engine mount and cowling would also both be designed by Ranger (this company would become Fairchild after the war.) Additionally, a Westinghouse 19 turbojet was to be installed in the rear of the aircraft to offer increased thrust for evasion or to give chase to an enemy aircraft. This would make the aircraft a mixed powerplant type. Another order for eight more units was made some time after the first order, but an exact date is unknown. On March 16th, 1944, the USN opted to change the floatplane’s design. The Westinghouse 19 turbojet that was planned for the project was experiencing its own difficulties in development.
When the XS2E-1 was drafted, the turbojet, due to its development, had become much heavier than what Edo was expecting. Due to this weight increase and a high demand for the jet engine on other aircraft projects, it was removed from the XS2E-1. This caused a weight problem in the aircraft’s design, as it no longer had the additional thrust needed to operate with its then-current weight. Edo changed the aircraft’s design drastically to make the XS2E-1 lighter. A significant revision done was the removal of the second seat, making the aircraft a smaller, single-seater aircraft. This, however, meant all the work the 2nd crewmen was intended to do was now transferred to the pilot, which would include operating the radar system in addition to flying and observing.
A frontal shot of an XOSE-1 demonstrating its folding wings. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]After the loss of the turbojet and the switch to a single seater design, it was decided to change the aircraft’s role to an Observation Scout floatplane. Another reason for the change was that, developing parallel to the XS2E-1, was the Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk mentioned earlier, an aircraft that was meant to fill the Scout role for the USN. Finding that developing two aircraft with the same role was redundant, the USN authorized the role change on the XS2E-1. With the new role, the XS2E-1 was redesignated as the XOSE-1. Not long after the role and design change, a full-scale wooden mockup of the new XOSE-1 was built and an inspection was held on November 24th, 1944. An early criticism of the design was linked to the removal of the second seat, as would-be operators complained the intense workload was too much to put onto the pilot. A variant was soon conceived, the XOSE-2, which would address this workload issue by reintroducing the second seat for another crewman. This second crewmen would be tasked with operating the onboard radar system and performing observation duties. An order for two XOSE-2s to be built, as well as for a derivative of the XOSE-2 that would be a dual-control training version, soon followed after conception of the two-seat variant. The trainer would be named the XTE-1. Progress on the program overall was slow up to this point, but Edo had added many innovative features to the design to improve its performance.
Side view of an XOSE-1 taking off. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]The war came to an end before the XOSE-1 could take flight. The end of the war saw most of the projects the USN was working on be terminated immediately, as there was no purpose in developing them anymore. The XOSE-1, however, was saved from this fate, as the USN allowed the floatplane to continue development after the end of the war. The XOSE-1’s first flight took place on December 28th of 1945, only a few months after the war had ended. Since there was no urgency to press this new type of aircraft to the frontlines anymore, funding to the program was cut and work slowed down in accordance. The XOSE-2 version finally flew on September 24th, 1947, two years after the war was over. Two XOSE-2s were built. It is unknown exactly when the first XTE-1 was completed and flew, but two of this type were built as well. Originally, during its debut, the XOSE-1 was painted in the standard blue-on-the-top-white-on-the-bottom that mid war USN aircraft used, but would later be colored in the dark blue that late/post-war Navy aircraft were painted in.
Rear view of an XOSE-1 with the floats detached and the wheels attached instead. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]Despite being a company that had only built a handful of planes two decades prior, the XOSE-1 was very promising from the outset, but problems soon began to arise during testing. The XOSE-1 experienced trouble with the Ranger built engines. The two seater XOSE-2 experienced many more problems and major changes had to be implemented in the design. Some remedies to the problems included increasing the height of the tailfin and the addition of a ventral strake below the tail to help with stability. Stability issues were found to be caused by the two seater’s larger canopy installed on the largely unmodified fuselage. By the time the stability issues were resolved, it was almost for naught, as the aircraft program was going nowhere.The shipborne floatplane type itself was beginning to show its obsolescence compared to newer technology. Exactly when the program ended or the whereabouts of the ten XOSE built are unknown, as details about the program during this time are sparse. It is unknown if the XOSE-1 was ever even tested from a ship, as many warships postwar would have their catapults removed. Most of the testing was done via land or sea takeoff, with wheels attached to the floats or a landplane conversion where the floats were replaced with a conventional landing gear. The type would be slowly replaced by ship-based helicopters, an idea that had begun during the Second World War and expanded upon thereafter. The era of the scout floatplane, especially shipboard ones, was over. It is most likely all of the XOSE-1s and its derivatives were scrapped before 1950, as all shipboard seaplane squadrons had been disbanded in 1949.
Design
An Edo XOSE-1 in flight [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]The Edo XOSE-1 was a single-seat floatplane design of all metal construction. It’s floatation was provided by one large aluminum float under the hull, and two smaller aluminum floats on the wingtips. This layout was used on almost every USN floatplane. In addition to floats, the aircraft was also able to be launched via catapult aboard a ship. An optional wheeled undercarriage was also available for ground based takeoffs.
The body of the aircraft would be constructed of metal and would contain 135 lbs (61 kg) of armor. The overall weight of the aircraft would be 5,316 Ib (2411.3 kg) standard and 3,973 Ib (1802 kg) empty. The fuselage would have a length of 31 ft 1 in (9.5 m) and a height of 14 ft 11 in (4.5 m). The XOSE and its variants had a unique construction that allowed many parts of the aircraft to be easily accessible for maintenance.
A rear view of an XOSE-1 with its wings folded back. [shu-aero.com]The Edo XOSE-1 and all of its variants were equipped with the Ranger V-770-8 inline engine that gave it a top speed of 188 mph (302 km/h), a cruising speed of 111 mph (178.6 km/h) and a stall speed of 61 mph (98.2 km/h). The aircraft would have a climb rate of 1,350 ft/min (411.5 m/min) and a maximum service ceiling of 22,300 ft (6797 m). The XOSE-1 would also have a range of 600 mi (965.6 km).
The cockpit would allow protection for the pilot, as the canopy was bulletproof. The canopy was one piece and would slide down and behind the cockpit for easy movement in. On the XOSE-2/XTE-1, the cockpit would be lengthened to accommodate the additional crewman, who would do observation and radar tasks. The canopy on the two seater versions would be two parts and the forward segment would slide back over the rear section.
Fuel would be stored in the fuselage in self-sealing fuel tanks. The tail section of the aircraft would be of metal construction as well. The only differences between the two versions were on the two seaters, in which the tail of the aircraft had to be extended height-wise and a vertical strake beneath the tail was added. Both of these changes helped in the stabilization of the two seaters. The wings of the aircraft were also constructed of metal and would have a wingspan of 37 ft 11 in (11.6 m). The wings would utilize a unique feature for some of its control surfaces. The flaps, that extended outwards from the folding line, would retract automatically if enough water impacted them. This was put in place to prevent damage to these flaps. Additionally, there were retractable slats on the leading edge of the wings to increase drag. The wings themselves could be folded inward for easy storage aboard ships or hangars. Interesting to note, the wings had a manual folding system instead of a hydraulic system most aircraft at the time had.
For armament, the XOSE-1 was equipped with two M2 .50 caliber machine guns as standard. Two hardpoints were equipped on the wings that could allow the XOSE-1 to carry two 350 Ib depth charges or two 50 gallon drop tanks. Additionally, two emergency rescue racks could also be carried on the underside for air to sea rescue missions. A single hardpoint could also be used to carry a radar pod. There is also mention of the XOSE-1 having smoke projectors as well. The two-seat XOSE-2 would lose one of the M2 machine guns and only carry a single gun. The XTE-1 variant would be completely unarmed, given it was only a trainer.
Conclusion
With the Edo XOSE-1 program being terminated, this would be the last time Edo would build an aircraft all on their own. However, Edo would propose a very interesting concept to the US Navy in the 1950s for an amphibious fighter similar to the Convair F2Y Sea Dart. However, this type would never be built.
Variants
XS2E-1 – Initial design of the XOSE-1. The XS2E-1 was a two seater and mounted a larger engine as well as a Westinghouse J19 jet engine. This design was changed and became the XOSE-1.
XOSE-1 – Single seat reconnaissance floatplane. The XOSE-1 had two .50 Cal M2 machine guns mounted in the wings and two hardpoints for depth charges. 6 were built.
XOSE-2 – Two seat version of the XOSE-1. The E-2 version would have a radar operator, a lengthened canopy, and only a single .50 cal for defense. Two were built.
XTE-1– Tandem control version of the XOSE-1. This version would be unarmed and would be used for training purposes. Two were built.
Operators
United States of America – The XOSE-1 and its variants were only tested by the United States Navy.
Edo XOSE-1 Floatplane Specifications
Wingspan
37 ft 11 in / 11.6 m
Length
31 ft 1 in / 9.5 m
Height
14 ft 11 in / 4.5 m
Wing Area
237 ft² / 22 m²
Engine
520 hp (387.7 kW) Ranger V-770-8 Inline Engine
Propeller
2-blade Hamilton Standard constant-speed propeller (9ft / 2.7m diameter)
Powerplant Ratings
Horsepower output
Altitude
Take Off
550 hp
Sea Level
Normal
(Approx. 84% Throttle)
500 hp
800 ft / 244 m
Fuel Capacity
120+58 US Gal / 454+219 L
Weights
Empty
3973 lb / 1802 kg
Gross
5316 lb / 2411.3 kg
Maximum
6064 lb / 2750.6 kg
Climb Rate (at sea level)
1,350 ft / 411.5 m per minute
Maximum Speed
188 mph / 302.6 kmh
Cruising Speed
111 mph / 178.6 kmh
Stalling Speed
61 mph / 98.2 kmh
Range
600 mi / 965.6 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
22,300 ft / 6797 m
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
2x 12.7x99mm / .50 cal Browning AN/M2 machine guns
Edo XOSE-1 in Standard Wartime ColorsEdo XOSE-1 with the additional ventral stabilizers addedA view showcasing the retractable flaps on the engine.
Two Edo XOSE-1s in flight together [shu-aero.com]A side view of the XOSE-1 in flight A side view of the XOSE-1 in flight. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]Rear view of an XOSE-2 or XTE-1. [axis-and-allies-paintworks.com]
Credits
Article written by Medicman11
Edited by Stan L. and Ed J.
Illustrated by Ed Jackson
Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1947
Norton, Bill. American aircraft development of WWII : special types, 1939-1945. Manchester: Crécy Publishing Ltd, 2016. Print.
Wagner, Ray. American combat planes of the 20th Century : a comprehensive reference. Reno, NV: Jack Bacon & Co, 2004. Print.
With the development of new designs for the Italian Air Force, the need for a more advanced reconnaissance aircraft became apparent. Italians mostly used older biplanes for this role, which was far from a perfect solution, and thus a new design was needed. For this reason, one Re.2000 would be rebuilt and tested as a reconnaissance aircraft. Despite an initial order for serial production, only a few prototypes were ever built.
History
Officine Meccaniche Reggiane SA (Reggio Emilia in Northern Italy) was a WWI-era aircraft manufacturer. After the war it was not involved in any significant aircraft production or design work. Large scale production only began during the thirties, when Reggiane became a subsidiary of the much larger aircraft manufacturer Caproni, which was led by the well known engineer Gianni Caproni. Thanks to him, Reggiane was aided by Caproni’s larger and well qualified aircraft design department. Reggiane and Caproni were involved with several experimental pre-war designs, like the Ca.405 Procellaria and P.32bis, in addition to the licensed production of the S.M.79. In 1938, the development of the Re.2000 began with a request from the Italian Aviation Ministry (Ministero dell Aeronautica) under the codename “Programme R.” This was intended to upgrade the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) with new and modern designs.
Despite the time and resources involved in development, the resulting Re.2000 would not be adopted for the Italian Air Force. It would see service in countries like Sweden and Hungary in some numbers. Due to the demand for long range fighters and shipboard versions, a small number was adopted for service by the Italian Air Force. From the small number of Re.2000s seized by the Italian Air force, most were from the Series II and III. At least one was used as a base for the experimental two-seat Re.2003 version.
The Re.2003
In early 1941, Italian Air Force officials placed an order for a two-seater reconnaissance aircraft. Reggiane responded by simply reusing the already produced Re.2000 in order to speed up development and to streamline a potential production run. One Re.2000 (MM.478) was modified by adding an additional seat behind the pilot.
The prototype was completed very quickly, and by July it was ready for its first test flight. The test flight was carried out by Captain Francesco Aggelo. The flight was considered successful, but certain modifications were required. These include redesigning the rear observer’s cockpit and the installation of camera equipment. Once these modifications were made, the test flights were resumed in November 1941 with two new pilots.
The Re.2003 seems to have fulfilled all requirements that were demanded. On the 16th of December 1941, an official order for the production of 200 Re.2003 was placed at Reggiane. Production was to commence before September 1942.
Reggiane engineers and designers began working on an improved second prototype in 1942, based on the Re.2002 (MM.12415). The decision to use the Re.2002 was probably based on the fact that it was put into production and was in (very limited) use during the war. In addition, while the Re.2000 was being produced for the export market, it was not adopted for Italian aviation use. Simply put, production in larger quantities was not possible.
Technical Characteristics
The Re.2003 was originally based on the Re.2000, and for this reason, the cosmetic and structural differences were minimal. The Re.2003 was a low wing, mixed construction, but mostly metal, two-seater reconnaissance plane. The fuselage consisted of a round frame covered with aluminum sheets held in place by flush-riveting. The Re.2003’s wings had a semi-elliptical design, with five spars covered with stressed skin. The wings were equipped with fabric-covered Frise type ailerons. The tail had a metal construction, with the controls surfaces covered with fabric. The fuel was stored in the wings, but the precise quantity is not known.
The landing gear system was unusual. When it retracted backward, it rotated 90° (a copy of the Curtiss type) before it moved into the wheel bays. For better handling when landing, the landing gear mechanism was provided with hydraulic shock absorbers and pneumatic brakes. The smaller rear wheel was also retractable and could be steered if needed.
The Re.2003’s engine was the stronger Piaggio P.XI bis RC.40, which had around 1025 hp. Due to being used in limited test flights, precise engine performance is not clear. Author Jonathan Thomson noted that the maximum speed was around 471 km/h (293 mph). The first prototype had the Re.2000’s original engine cowling. The second prototype had a more aerodynamically-shaped cowling, as it was based on the Re.2002.
The most obvious difference was the larger canopy. The front pilot canopy section was more or less the same as the Re.2000. The rear section was somewhat larger in order to provide the observer with a better view. In addition, two small glass windows were added on both sides of the fuselage sides for the observer.
Side view of the Re.2003. Below the rear cockpit, the two small windows placed to provide the observer with a better view of the surroundings can be seen. Source: www.vvsregiaavions.com
The main armament was not changed and consisted of two Breda-Safat 12.7 mm ( 0.5 in) heavy machine guns. The machine guns were placed in the top of the front cowling and fired through the propeller arc. For each machine gun, a provision of 300 rounds was provided. The machine guns could, depending on the combat situation (lack of ammunition, for example), be fired together or individually. The Re.2003 was also tested with a bomb load of 500 kg (1100 lb) placed on the ventral rack.
Operational Use
The Re.2003 first prototype was used by the 1st Gruppo Reserve Aerea (Reserve 1st Air Group), possibly from late 1942 up to the Italian capitulation in 1943. It was then captured by the Germans, who used it as a trainer aircraft. This aircraft, while in German hands, was stationed at the Caproni-Taliedo airfield. Its final fate is unknown.
To make the development of the new Re.2003 fast and easy, Reggiane simply reused the Re.2000 and later Re.2002 for this purpose. While it had a short operational life, it appears that no major problems were encountered during its development and that it could fulfill the designated role as a reconnaissance plane. Source: www.vvsregiaavions.com
Cancellation of the Project
The following year, due to the rapid military deterioration of the Italian Air Force, the need for more advanced fighters had greater priority over other projects. Work on the Re.2003 was slow and, by late 1942, little progress had been made. The second prototype’s development was also proceeding at a slow pace. It made its first test flight in October 1942. Some historians note that the second prototype was never fully completed. In order to increase the production of fighter designs, Reggiane was asked to stop the development of the Re.2003, and instead focus on the production of fighter planes. Only the two prototypes were ever built.
Re.2003 first prototype (MM.478) – One prototype built and used in a limited role. Re.2003 second prototype (MM.12415) – Based on the Re.2002, one built.
Operators
Italy – Operated the first prototype during the war.
Germany – Captured one prototype in 1943. It was used as a trainer plane.
Conclusion
Due to the Re.2003’s short development life, it is not known if it could have fulfilled the purpose the Italian Air Force officials had intended for it. It appears that no major problems were encountered during its development, so there is no indication it had any problems fulfilling its role as a reconnaissance plane. However, without ever being properly tested in real combat conditions, this will never be known.
Re.2003 Specifications
Wingspan
36 ft 1 in / 11 m
Length
26 ft 5 in / 8 m
Height
10 ft 4 in / 3.15 m
Wing Area
220 ft² / 20.4 m²
Engine
One Piaggio P.XI RC.40bis, 1025 hp
Maximum Takeoff Weight
7,210 lbs / 3,270 kg
Maximum Speed
293 mph / 471 km/h
Range
447 miles / 720 km
Crew
Pilot and observer
Armament
Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) heavy machine guns
Bomb load of 1,100 lb ( 500 kg) bombs.
Gallery
The Re.2003 Prototype – Illustration by Carpaticus
Sources:
D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija. Beograd.
M. Di Terlizzi (2002) Reggiane RE 2000 Falco, Heja, J.20, Instituto Bibliografico Napoleone.
J. W. Thompson (1963) Italian Civil And Military Aircraft 1930-1945, Aero Publisher
G. Cattaneo (1966) The Reggiane Re.2000, Profile Publication Ltd.
J. F. Bridlay (1972) Caproni Reggiane Re 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete and Re 2005 Sagittario, Profile Publications
Kingdom of Italy (1936)
Ground Attack Aircraft – 148 ~ 155 Built
A Ba.88 during a flight, possibly a training exercise. Despite having an excellent aerodynamic shape, it performed so poorly that it had to be removed from service. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
The Ba.88 was an Italian twin-engine aircraft design built in 1936. Despite managing to break a few world speed records, it was an unsuccessful design. When it was adopted for military service, its performance deteriorated and only a small number of aircraft were ever built.
History
On 20th January 1936, the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) made a request for the development of a new twin-engine multipurpose aircraft. This new aircraft design was meant to be capable of achieving a top speed of least 470 km/h (290 mph). Heavy armament was also required, which would have to consist of two to four 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns or two 20 mm (0.78 in) cannons. It was requested to have an operational range of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) and to be able to reach a height of 6 km (20,000 ft) in around 9 minutes. The cockpit also had to have a good all-around field-of-view.
Italian Air Force officials invited all Italian aviation companies to submit their proposals for the new multi-role design. Many companies responded to this request with their own suggestions. These included the I.M.A.M Ro.53, Fiat CR.25, Bonomi BS.25, Chiodi CH-2 and the Breda Ba.88. As the Breda Ba.88 showed the most promise, at least on paper, it was chosen as the winner of the competition.
Beginnings
Work on the first prototype began soon after. The development of the Ba.88 was given to a team led by Antonio Parano and Giuseppe Panzeri. The Ba.88 was influenced by an earlier Breda design, the single engined Ba.75, with which it shared some similarities, such as the tail and fuselage design.
The first Ba.88 prototype, named M.M. 302, was completed relatively fast and was ready in Autumn 1939. A series of flight tests began in October 1936, piloted by a young test pilot named Furio Nictol Doglio. During these initial tests, the Ba.88 was shown to have potential weight issues, but development continued.
Ba.88 prototype under construction. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
In early February 1937, the prototype was moved to the Guidonia Experimental Centre for further testing. Once there, it was tested by several Breda test pilots. In April of 1937, Furio Nictol managed to achieve an average speed of 518 km/h (322 mph) during a 100 km (61 mi) long flight from Fiumicino, Toraianica to Ancio. This was actually a world speed record at the time. On the 10th of April, Furio Nictol managed to reach an average speed of 476 km/h (295 mph) over a much longer distance of 1,000 km (620 mi). Of course, the Fascist regime was quick to take advantage of these results and used them for propaganda purposes around the world.
To further improve the Ba.88’s performance, the engines were replaced with stronger 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI. In addition, the single vertical tail was replaced with twin fins and rudders. In November 1937, the modified Ba.88 made many more test flights in order to determine its performance. In early December, two new speed records were made, the first with 555 km/h (345 mph) and then 523 km/h (326 mph).
The Ba.88 prototype, easily identified by the tail assembly. https://comandosupremo.com/breda-ba-88/
Initial Problems
During this time, the Italian Air Force began showing interest in a heavy fighter design (like the German Me-110, for example) and asked Breda to adapt the Ba.88 to this role. During 1938, testing on the Ba.88 continued. During this time, many issues with its design began to arise. In October, when adopted for military testing, the plane was shown to have many issues. The pilots noted that the Ba.88 was difficult to fly, maneuvering was slow and heavy. A report made by General Pinna, dated 21st November, states that the Ba.88’s maximum realistic speed was around 464 km/h (290 mph) at heights of 5.2 km (17,000 ft). He also noted that there is only a small probability that the speed could be improved and that the achieved speed was inadequate for a military aircraft of this type.
While Breda’s test pilots tried to defend the Ba.88, the army pilots were not so impressed. Colonel Lippi echoed General Pinna’s concerns, noting in his report that the Ba.88’s overall performance was poor and it was difficult to control. He also noted that the canopy could not be opened during flight, which was a significant problem if the pilot needed to initiate an emergency bail out. The situation worsened with the installation of military equipment, like the weapons, ammunition, cockpit equipment, extra fuel etc. The weight problem was so severe that the installation of bombs was only possible after removing internal equipment. The lower heavy machine gun was rarely installed in order to save weight. For these reasons, the Italian Air Force put Ba.88 production on hold.
Technical Characteristics
The Ba.88 was an all-metal, high wing, two engine ground attack aircraft. The fuselage was built by using welded chrome-molybdenum steel tubes. Its overall fuselage design could be divided into three sections: the front nose section, the lower section where the bomb bay was placed and the longer section that covered the remainder of the aircraft. The whole fuselage construction was covered with duralumin sheets held in place by longitudinal stringers, rivets and bolts.
The wings were made using chrome-molybdenum tube spars held in place by tube beams. This wing construction was then covered with sheet metal plates. The wings were connected with the Ba.88’s fuselage by using conical wrist pins and bolts. The original prototype had a standard single vertical tail assembly, but this was later changed to a new modified tail unit with twin fins and rudders.
Ba.88 side view. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
The Ba.88 had two landing wheels that retracted backward into the engine nacelles. The rear tail wheel was also retractable, and could be steered if needed. The landing gear wheels were equipped with shock absorbers in order to ease landing.
The prototype was powered by two 900 hp Fraschini K14 engines. The production version was powered by two 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 14-cylinder radial piston engines. Two 10.5 ft (3.2 m) duralumin three blade propellers, which could rotate in opposite directions, were used. The engine mounting was made using welded steel tubes. There were plans to test different engines in order to reduce the overall weight and improve performance. This included the less powerful but lighter and more aerodynamic Fiat A 74, and stronger 1,000 hp A 76 and Isotta Fraschini L.121. Foreign engine designs were also proposed, like the German Daimler Benz DB.601 or even the French Hispano Suiza 12Y. There were twelve armored fuel tanks with a total capacity of 1,379 liters (365 gallons). These were arranged with two in the engine nacelles, four in the fuselage, and six in the wings.
The Ba.88 had more or less a standard cockpit layout, with a rear sliding canopy. The pilot was provided with all instruments needed to efficiently fly the Ba.88. The radio used was the R.A.350/II, supported by an A.R.8 receiver. Additional equipment, like a photo camera, could be added in the fuselage nose. To the rear of the pilot was the machine gunner’s position. He was seated with his back to the pilot.
The main armament consisted of three 12.7 mm heavy Breda-SAFAT machine guns with 1,250 rounds of ammunition each. The rear gunner operated one 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun with 250 rounds of ammunition and an additional 250 rounds in reserve. The bomb bay was semi-exposed and could accomodate a few different bomb load configurations: Three 50 kg (110 lbs) bombs, three 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs or two 250 kg (550 lb) bombs. There was also the option to install 40 small 2 kg (4.4 lb) bombs. Theoretically, the Ba.88 could be equipped with a total bomb load of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), but this was never done due to the airframe’s weight problems.
The rear machine gunner position with its 7.7 mm (0.31 in) machine gun can be clearly seen. In addition, despite the prototype having a simple single vertical tail assembly, the production version would have a new modified tail unit with twin fins and rudders. Source:www.warbirdphotographs.comA good top view of the Ba.88. www.warhistoryonline.com
A New Chance
With no other options, the Regia Aeronautica ordered the Ba.88 to be put into small production on the 20th of April, 1939. Production was to start in May of 1939, and by October 1939 some 80 had been produced. During 1938 and 1939, the Ba.88 was advertised abroad and several countries showed interest namely Sweden, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and Lithuania, but no orders were placed.
In Autumn of 1938 and early 1939, three newly produced Ba.88 were moved to Guidonia for more testing. The first Air Force units to be equipped with Ba.88s were the 7° Gruppo and the 19° Gruppo. In early May 1939, the first five Ba.88s were reallocated to the 76° Squadriglia of the 7° Gruppo. By September 1939, the 7° Gruppo (76°, 86°, 98° Squadriglia) and the 19° Gruppo (100°, 101°, 102° Squadriglia ) were equipped with 27 Ba.88 aircraft each, with 9 aircraft in each Squadriglia.
This Lince was part of the 7° Gruppo. Source:www.warbirdphotographs.com
With the installation of additional military equipment and armament, the performance and flight characteristics deteriorated dramatically. The top speed achieved with full military equipment and armament was much lower than that during the test flights. Italian army test pilots expressed concern about its flight characteristics, since even simple maneuvers were hard to achieve. In the hope of fixing some of these issues, a number of weight saving modifications were done during the war, but these problems would never be completely solved.
The Ba.88 During the War
During the war, the Ba.88 would be used only during the limited Italian attack on France and in North Africa. A small number were modified as experimental ground attack planes stationed in Italy but none were used operationally. Despite being originally designed as a multi-purpose aircraft, it would only be used in the ground attack role.
On the Western Front
After the German attack in the West in May 1940 and the rapid defeat of Allied forces in Holland and Belgium, the Italians tried to take advantage of the situation and declared war on the Allies. On 16th June, some 12 planes from the 7° Gruppo (or 19° Gruppo, depending on the source) made several bombing raids on airfields in Corsica. The next day, the attack was repeated with 9 Ba.88s. By 19th June, the battle was over. Italian combat analysis of these air attacks had led to the conclusion that the Ba.88 had only limited value as an effective operational aircraft.
In North Africa
The next use of the Ba.88 in combat was in North Africa, starting in August 1940. The Ba.88s of the 7° Gruppo were moved to Libya in August, and were part of the 5° Squadra Aerea. Due to the need to adapt them for desert conditions (with sand filters, for example), they were not combat ready until September. On 14th September, the 7° Gruppo was tasked with attacking Sidi El Barrani, a British airfield about 250 km (155 mi) behind the front. For the first attack, a group of three fully equipped Ba.88s, with full fuel load and ammunition, and carrying 250 kg (550 lb) of bombs were used. The attack failed as the Ba.88s were not able to take to the sky successfully. One Ba.88 had to return to the airfield as the aircraft could not maintain flight and another did not even manage to take off from the airfield. The last one, piloted by the unit commander, managed to take off but was constantly losing altitude and he was also forced to abandon the mission.
While the Ba.88 was used in the North African theater, its operational service life was disappointing due to it being mostly unusable for effective military service. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html
Many planned flights were also halted due to the Ba.88’s poor performance. Due to the heavy weight, low engine performance and increased drag (due to the addition of externally mounted bombs), the Ba.88’s performance fell dramatically. In a desperate attempt to improve its performance, all unnecessary internal equipment and the rear gunner positions were removed. In addition, many modifications to the design were also added but, in the end, none of these efforts made any appreciable difference.
By October only 10 Ba.88s were fully operational, down from a total of 29. On the 14th October 1940, three Ba.88s from the 98° Squadriglia were ordered to attack British armored forces around Sidi El Barrani and Bir Emba, but they failed to locate their targets. The next day, while on a reconnaissance mission, one was damaged by Italian anti-aircraft fire, as it was mistaken for a British plane.
Due to its disappointing performance, the Ba.88s were ordered to be removed from service. By the 16th of November, the 7° Gruppo had only 2 or 3 fully operational Ba.88 aircraft left. Because of the problems, most if not all surviving Ba.88 had been stripped of all useful equipment and armament, and were scattered around major airfields mostly to act as decoys for British attack aircraft.
Further Modifications: Ba.88 A74 and Ba.88 A74Bic
Despite being rejected from further military use, a second series of 60-70 Ba.88s was completed by Breda and I.M.A.M. None were used to equip any military units, and most were scrapped or used as target practice.
In a desperate hope of reusing the surviving operational Ba.88s, the Italian Air Force ordered them to be modified as dive bombers. The first tests were carried out at the Guidonia Experimental Centre air tunnel. There, different types of under wing brakes were tested, including the ones used on the German Junkers Ju-87. In order to save weight, the Piaggio engines were replaced with less powerful but much lighter Fiat A.74s. Great attention was given to reducing the weight as much as possible. This started with the engine, followed by reducing the fuel capacity by 117 liters (31 gallons), removing the rear machine gun turret position, the wing mounted bomb racks and the lower front machine gun.
Four Ba.88s (M.M. 3985, 3971, 3963 and 4034), together with one dual-control version, were modified with the A.74 engine. These received the Ba.88 A.74 and Ba.88 A.74 Bic (for the dual-control version) designations from Breda. These improved Ba.88 A.74 planes were equipped with modified wing mounted bomb racks in order to increase their offensive capabilities. It was possible to equip one larger 500 kg (1,100 lb), two 250 kg (550 lb) or three smaller 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs. In March 1942, these were given to the 1° Nucleo Addestramento Tuffatori stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. For further intensive testing, two Ba.88 A74 were allocated to the 101° Gruppo Tuffatori also based at Lonate Pozzolo. The tests proved to be disappointing and this unit was instead equipped with the older CR.42.
The Ba.88M
A last ditch attempt was made in the summer of 1942. One Ba.88 A.74 was modified with an 80 cm (31.5 in) longer fuselage and a wider wingspan of 2.3 m (7.55 ft). Parts of the metal wing construction were replaced with wooden panels. These modifications were done by Magni and Augusta. They received orders to modify an additional 6 Ba.88s. These received the Ba.88M designation, where M stands for ‘Modificato’, modified.
The Italian Air Force gave orders to these manufacturers to modify as many Ba.88 as possible. According to the original plan, a group of 40 improved Ba.88s was to be formed. Half of these would have been the single seat version and the other half two seat versions. In March 1943, additional modifications were required (by order of Air Force General Eraldo Ilari) in order to adapt the Ba.88 for dive bomber operations. These included the installation of only one 12.7 mm machine gun with an additional three that could be added if needed (two in the wing roots and one the fuselage), the possibility of adding armored plates for the pilot’s protection, removing parts of the wing’s leading edge in order to provide the pilot with a better view etc. Despite these improvements, the weight was actually increased by some 200 kg (440 lb).
By the end of July 1943, around 12 Ba.88s were gathered for modification. A few completed Ba.88Ms were allocated to 103° Gruppo Autonomo Tuffatori (independent dive-bombing group). This unit was also equipped with the German Ju-87. In August 1943, it was moved to Lonate Pozzolo and all its Ju-87s were given to 102° Gruppo. None of the Ba.88M were used in combat and, as the Germans occupied Italy, all surviving Ba.88s were scrapped for materials. Only one Ba.88M (MM 4605) was operated by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana in Northern Italy under German markings.
This is the Ba.88 that was operated by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana.Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html
Production and Modifications
Production of this aircraft began in May 1939 the Breda Bresso 81 workshop. In the first production series (around 80 aircraft), eight Ba.88 were built as dual-control trainers, with the added rear cockpit for the instructor, in place of the rear machine gunner. In addition, one modified single seater was built to be tested with an anti-tank cannon. An additional 24 aircraft were built by I.M.A.M. Later, in 1940, some 67 (or 42) new aircraft were built, 19 by Breda and 48 (or 23) by I.M.A.M. In the end, the total production was (depending on the source) 148 to 155 aircraft plus the prototype.
Newly produced Ba.88s. While difficult to spot, the last six aircraft (to the picture’s left) are actually the two-seater version. Sourcewww.warbirdphotographs.com
Variants:
Ba.88 Prototype – One built.
Ba.88 – Production version.
Ba.88 Single seat prototype – One built to be tested with an anti-tank cannon.
Ba.88 Dual-control trainer – Eight were built.
Ba.88 A.74 – Experimental dive bomber version. A few were modified, but were not adopted for production. This model served as a base for the Ba.88M.
Ba.88 A.74 Bic – Two-seat version of the previous model, one built.
Ba.88M – Three modified aircraft in order to improve the Ba.88’s flight performance.
Operators
Regia Aeronautica – Operated small numbers of the Ba.88, but were quickly withdrawn from front service.
Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana – Operated one Ba.88M given to them by the Germans.
Germany – After the surrender of Italy, seized all surviving Ba.88s, but none were ever used operationally.
Sweden, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and Lithuania – These countries showed interest in the Ba.88, but buying orders never came from any of them.
Conclusion
Despite a promising start with excellent speed records, the Ba.88 would never fulfill the role which the Italian Air Force had hoped for. The greatest problem was the Ba.88 was a combination of excess weight coupled with underpowered engines, as it showed in Africa where even limited combat flights were nearly impossible with the aircraft barely able to take off with a full load of fuel and bombs. Later attempts to adapt it for dive bombing operations were also unsuccessful. In the end, the Ba.88 proved to be an ill-fated design and a complete failure.
Ba.88 Specifications
Wingspans
50 ft 5 in / 15.4 m
Length
35 ft 3 in / 10.75 m
Height
9 ft 10 in / 3 m
Wing Area
358.88 ft² / 33.34 m²
Engine
Two 1000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 14-cylinder radial piston engine
Empty Weight
10,250 lbs / 4.650 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
6,750 lbs / 6.750 kg
Fuel Capacity
1,397 l / 370 Gallons
Climb Rate to 3 km
In 7 minutes 30 seconds
Maximum Speed
304 mph / 490 km/h
Cruising speed
273 mph / 440 km/h
Range
1,020 miles / 1640 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
26,245 ft ft / 8,000 m
Crew
One pilot and the rear gunner
Armament
Three 0.5 in (12.7 mm) and one 0.3 in (7.7 mm)
Different configuration bomb loads – Three 110 lb (50 kg) bombs
Three 220 lb (100 kg) bombs
Two 550 lb (250 kg) bombs
40 small 4.4 lb (2 kg) bombs
Gallery
Ba.88 Lince 100-7 – 100 Squadriglia, 19 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – Lonate, Pozzolo Italy – July 1940Ba.88 Lince 100-4 -100 Squadriglia, 19 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – Lonate Pozzolo Italy – July 1940Ba.88 Lince 11 – 7 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – St. Castel Benito, Libya – September 1940
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. and Ed J.
Nešić, D. (2008). Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija. Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
The modified Yakovlev EG prototype in flight. (Yakovlev OKB) Colorization by Amazing Ace
The EG (also known as the Yak-M-11-FR-1, Sh or Yak-EG) was a prototype helicopter designed in 1946 by the Yakovlev OKB. The EG was designed with a coaxial rotor configuration and had an ambitious performance estimation. Through manufacturer testing, it was revealed that the EG had very undesirable handling characteristics and excessive vibrations when the helicopter reached around 20 mph (30 km/h). These flaws caused the cancellation of the EG project and the completed prototype was converted to an aerosani in 1955 and donated to a farm in the Kazakh SSR. The Kamov OKB would later go on to develop the coaxial rotor configuration further.
History
Lessons of the Second World War showed the world the importance of adopting and developing modern technologies. Throughout the war, autogyros and helicopters became increasingly relevant with several countries’ militaries and saw a dramatic increase in development. The Soviet Union had a very limited selection of these machines during the war, and looked to develop this technology and expand their arsenal. In 1946, the esteemed Yakovlev OKB initiated a project for an experimental coaxial rotor helicopter design. The project was given the nickname of “EG”, for “Experimental Helicopter” (Экспериментальный Геликоптер / Eksperimentahl’nyy ghelikopter). When the task of designing the EG was first announced to the design team, a flabbergasted staff member exclaimed “Shootka?” (шутыш), which roughly translates to “Are you kidding?”. This then led the EG to unofficially be referred to as the “Sh”, a running joke in the design team. Another designation which referred to the EG was “Yak-M-11FR-1”, which referred to the engine that the helicopter would use. The origin of this designation is unknown, but it does not appear to be official.
A detailed cutaway drawing of the modified Yakovlev EG prototype. (Yakovlev OKB)
Responsibility over the project was given to chief designer S.A. Bemov, with I.A. Erlikh as his aide. The EG was envisioned as a coaxial rotor configuration while powered by a 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR-1 radial engine producing 140 hp. When the initial design was completed in early 1947, the design team built a flying scale model of the EG to prove the viability of the coaxial rotor design. The scale model was given the designation of ED 115, with the digits referencing OKB-115, the plant designation for Yakovlev OKB.
The modified prototype Yakovlev EG sits on the Yakovlev OKB’s premise with it’s rotor fins folded. (Yakovlev OKB)
After verifying the EG’s design, construction of the actual prototype commenced. The prototype was completed sometime in the summer of 1947 and was promptly subjected to manufacturer’s trials. The EG prototype performed 40 tethered flights (total of 5 hours flight time) before being authorized to perform the first free flight test on December 20, 1947. Through extensive testing, it was revealed that the center of gravity was too far to the rear, which led the team to remove the tail and tailskid and relocate the oil tank behind the cockpit. In early 1948, the M-11FR-1 engine was removed, replace by an experimental M-12 radial engine, a development of the M-11. The first test flight with this engine was conducted on April 9th, but the engine proved troublesome and forced the team to refit the M-11FR-1 engine. Flight tests continued until July 8, 1948, with a total of 75 free flights conducted (total of 15 hours flight time).
Despite the EG showing relatively decent results, it suffered from excessive vibration, loss of stick force and phugoid instability once the machine approached 20 mph (30 km/h). This severely restricted the EG’s practicality and thus warranted the project’s cancellation. The coaxial rotor design configuration was given to Kamov OKB to further develop, while the Yakovlev OKB moved onto more conventional helicopter configurations. A second prototype was in construction but was never completed and was scrapped when the program was canceled. The sole completed prototype was preserved at the Moscow Aviation Institute for a couple of years before being converted to an aero-sleigh by students between 1954 and 1955. The converted sleigh was then donated to a farm in the Kazakh SSR and the fate beyond that is unknown. Photos of this new conversion do not exist. Though ultimately ending up as a failure, the EG was an important stepping stone in Soviet helicopter development and was quite special in the sense that it was the Yakovlev OKB’s first helicopter design.
Design
The original configuration of the Yakovlev EG with a horizontal tail, tail bumper and endplate fins. (Yakovlev OKB)
The Yakovlev EG was a coaxial rotor helicopter powered by a 5-cylinder air-cooled Shvetsov M-11FR-1 radial engine producing 140 hp. The engine drove co-axial two-bladed rotors using a transmission system which featured a centrifugal clutch, a 90-degree gearbox and a cooling fan. Fuel tanks were placed under the gearbox while the oil tank was next to the engine. The rotors (made of laminated pine and hardwood) spun in opposite directions at 233 rpm. Both collective and cyclic pitch control was provided through the rotor’s fully articulated hub mount. The EG’s fuselage consisted of simple welded steel tubes which had D1 duraluminium skin all around except for the engine compartment. The rear fuselage, which was covered with fabric, gradually tapered off to form a fin which was accompanied by a horizontal stabilizer supplemented by two endplate tips. The tail and the horizontal stabilizer would be removed later on in the test phase due to the offset center of gravity. The EG had a non-retractable tricycle landing gear with vertical shock absorber struts. The glazed cockpit compartment could house two pilots, which would enter through doors on either side of the fuselage.
Operators
Soviet Union – The Yakovlev EG was designed with the intent of serving the Soviet Union. The EG was evaluated by Yakovlev OKB but was deemed to be unfit for service due to the excessive vibration and loss of stick control and phugoid instability when the helicopter reached speeds around 20 mph (30 km/h).
146 mi / 235 km – Estimation based on 58 mph / 93 kmh Top Speed
Hover Ceiling
820 ft / 250 m
Flight Ceiling
8,860 ft / 2,700 m – Estimated*
* – Testing never exceeded 590 ft / 180 m
Crew
1x Pilot
1x Co-Pilot
Gallery
Side View Profile of the Yakovlev EG by Ed JacksonA desktop model of the Yakovlev EG. This model does not have the tail components presented. (Yakovlev OKB)The modified Yakovlev EG prototype in flight. (Yakovlev OKB)A side view of the original configuration of the Yakovlev EG with a horizontal tail, tail bumper and endplate fins. (Yakovlev OKB)A side view of the modified prototype Yakovlev EG sitting on the Yakovlev OKB’s premise with it’s rotor fins extended. (Yakovlev OKB)
Nazi Germany (1936)
Shipborne and coastal reconnaissance aircraft – 98~118 Built
The He 114 Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
In the mid-thirties, the German Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium – RLM) tasked the Heinkel company with developing a replacement for the He 60 shipborne and reconnaissance aircraft. While Heinkel fulfilled the request by building the He 114, its overall performance was deemed insufficient for German standards.
History
During the early thirties, the He 60 was adopted for service as the main German shipborne and coastal reconnaissance aircraft. As it was considered outdated, in 1935, the RLM issued to Heinkel a request for a new shipborne and coastal reconnaissance aircraft that was to replace the He 60. The next year, two prototypes were completed. While it was originally planned to test these aircraft with the BMW 132 engine, due to lack of availability, this was not possible. The first prototype (with D-UBAM marking) made its maiden flight in September 1936. It was powered by a Daimler Benz DB-600A which gave out 900 hp. The test results of the first flight were disappointing, as it proved difficult to control on the water but also in the air. The second prototype, V2 (D-UGAT), powered by a 740 hp Jumo 210 E, made its first flight in December 1936. It was used to test the catapult launching capabilities of this aircraft. It had some modifications in comparison to the first prototype, like having a larger tail and redesigned floats. Despite some improvements, the catapult launch testings from the Gneisenau showed that the He 114 was not suited for this role.
Despite not having a promising start, further prototypes were ordered. The V3 (D-IDEG) prototype was powered by an 880 hp BMW 132 K (or D, depending on the source) engine. The floats were once again redesigned and the pilot had a better-glazed shield. This aircraft was tested in April 1937 with similar performance as previous versions.
V4 (D-IHDG) made its maiden test flight in August 1937. It had many modifications in order to improve its performance. The wing’s edges were redesigned, new floats were used and it was also fitted with machine gun armament. V5 (D-IQRS) had new improved floats which enabled it to take-off even from ice. While most sources mention only five prototypes, some note that there were two more. The V6 and V7 prototypes were tested with similar equipment and were armed with two machine guns, one firing through the propeller and the second mounted to the rear. Additional armament tested consisted of two 50 kg (110 lb) bombs.
A side view of the V4 prototype, during a test flight. Source www.warbirdphotographs.com
Technical characteristics
The He 114 was designed as a single-engine, all-metal, twin crew biplane aircraft. It had a monocoque oval-shaped fuselage design. It was powered by one BMW 132K 960 hp nine-cylinder radial engine. The fuel load consisted of 640 l.
The He 114 BMW 132K 960 hp nine-cylinder radial engine. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
Somewhat unusual for biplanes of the era, the lower wings were much smaller than the upper ones. They had a half-elliptical design and were thicker than the upper wings. The upper wing was connected to the fuselage by two ‘N’ shaped struts. There were also two ‘Y’ struts connecting the lower and the upper wings. The upper wing was constructed using three parts with two ailerons. The upper wing could, if needed, be folded to the rear. The landing gear consisted of two floats which could also act as auxiliary fuel storage tanks with 470 l each.
On later models, the floaters were used as auxiliary fuel tanks. Source www.warbirdphotographs.com
The crew consisted of the pilot and the rear positioned machine gunner/observer. The armament consisted of one MG 15 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine gun placed to the rear. The ammunition load for this machine gun was 600 rounds. Additionally, there was an option to externally mount two 50 kg (110 lb) bombs.
Close up view of The He 114 pilot control table. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos
Further development
Despite being shown to have poor performance, a small production run was made by Heinkel. Some 10 (or 6 depending on the source) aircraft of the A-0 series, together with 33 of the A-1 series would be built. The only difference was the use of a larger rear tail design on the He 114A-1 series. The small number of He 114 built were given to various test units and flight schools, where its performance was often criticized by all. During its introduction to service, the much more promising Ar-196 was under development, but it would need some time until production was possible. As a temporary solution, the Luftwaffe officials decided not to retire the He 60 from service yet. Heinkel was informed that, due to the He 114’s overall poor performance, it would not be accepted for service and that it would be offered for export if anyone was interested. For this reason, Heinkel developed the He 114A-2 series. The He 114A-2 had a reinforced fuselage, floats that could be used as fuel storage tanks, and, additionally, it was modified to have catapult attach points. The He 114A-2, while tested, was not operated by the Luftwaffe, and it was used for the export market.
The following B-series (including B-1 and B-2) were actually just A-2 planes with some slight improvements, meant primarily for export. The history of the C-series is somewhat unclear, as it appears to be specially developed for Romania. It was much better armed, with either two 20 mm (0.78 in ) MG 151 cannons, two 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 heavy machine guns, or even two MG 17 7.92 mm (0.31 in) (the sources are not clear) placed inside the lower wings. Some sources also mention that additional machine guns were installed inside the engine compartment and could be fired through the propeller. Additionally, it appears that its fuselage was modified to be able to carry two additional 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. The rear positioned MG 15 was unchanged. This version also had a new Junkers type 3.5 m diameter propeller. The floaters were also slightly redesigned and it received smoke screen trovers. Additionally, to provide better stability while positioned near shore, a small anchor could be realized.
Operational use
Despite not being accepted by the Luftwaffe, due to the Kriegsmarine’s (German war navy) lack of sufficient seaplanes, some He 114 had to be used for this purpose. The distribution of the He 114 began in 1938 when the 1./Küstenfliegergruppe 506 was equipped with this aircraft. In 1939, it was 43equipped with the older He 60, as these proved to be better aircraft. Some German ships, like the Atlantis, Widder, and Pinguin, received these aircraft. During their use, the He 114 floater units proved to be prone to malfunctions. These were reported to be too fragile and could easily be broken down during take-off from the sea during bad weather.
While designed to be able to take-off from German ships, the He 114 construction was not strong enough and was prone to breakdowns with many aircraft being lost this way. Source /www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotosDespite intended as a replacement of the He 60 this was never implemented due to He 114 poor performance. Source www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos
A group of 12 He 114 C-1 aircraft that were to be sold to Romania were temporarily allocated to the 2nd Squadron of the 125th Reconnaissance Group (2/125 Aufkl.Sta.). These units operated in the area of Finland’s shore. When the Bv 138 became available in sufficient numbers, the He 114 C-1 was finally given to Romania.
Foreign use
While the He 114 failed to get any large production orders in Germany, it did see some export success. These included Denmark, Spain, Romania and Sweden. The B-series was sold, which was more or less a copy of the A-2 series.
In Danish service
The Danish use of the He 114 is not clear. Depending on the source, there are two versions. In the first, Denmark managed to buy 4 He 114 aircraft and even ordered more, but the German occupation stopped any further orders. In the second, while Denmark wanted to buy some He 114, nothing came of it, once again due to German occupation.
In Spanish service
During 1942, Spain obtained some 4 He 114s from the Germans. In Spanish service, these were known as HR-4. Despite their obsolescence and lack of spare parts, these would remain in use up to 1953.
Small numbers of He 114 were supplied to Spanish State during 1942. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
In Romanian service
Romania received a group of 12 He 114 in 1939. During the war, the number would be increased to 29 in total. These would be extensively used to patrol the Black Sea. At the end of the war, these were captured by the Soviets, who confiscated them. Some would be returned to Romania in 1947, which would continue to use them up to 1960, when they were scrapped.
The He 114 in Romanian Service.Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos
In Swedish service
Sweden bought some 12 He 114 in March 1941. In Swedish service, these would be renamed to S-12. Despite being an unimpressive design and prone to malfunction, the Swedish used them extensively during the period of 1941 to 1942, with over 2054 flight missions. They would remain in service up to 1945, with six aircraft being lost in accidents.
One S-12 (as it was known in Sweden) of 12 in total was sold to Sweden. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos
Production
Despite its poor performance, Heinkel undertook a small production of the He 114. The number of produced aircraft ranges from 98 to 118 depending on the source.
He 114 Prototypes – Between 5 to 7 prototypes were built
He 114 A – Limited production series
He 114 B – Export version of the A-series
He 114 C – Slightly improved version with stronger armament
Operators
Germany – Small numbers of these aircraft were operated by the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, but their use was limited
Denmark – Possibly operated four He 114 before the German occupation
Spain – Bought four He 114, and operated them up to 1953
Sweden – Bought 12 He 114 in March 1941, which remained in use until 1945
Romania – Operated 29 He 114, with the last aircraft being scrapped in 1960
Surviving aircraft
While there are no complete surviving He 114s various parts and wrecks have been found over the years. Parts of one wreck were found in lake Siutghiol near Mamaia, on the Romanian Black Sea coast, in 2012. There is a possibility that the wreck of another lays in a lake near Alexeni as well.
Conclusion
The He 114 was an unsuccessful design that failed to gain any larger production orders in Germany. It had difficult controls both in the air and on the water. While it would see some limited service with the Luftwaffe, most would be sold abroad, where some were used up to the ’60s.
He 114C-1 1./SAGr.125 -Baltic Area 1941He 114A-2 1.-KuFlGr-506 Devenow 1938He 114A 1./SAGr.125 Baltic Area 1941He 114B in Romanian Service Circa 1943
Sources
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book.
S. Lonescu and C. Craciunoi, He 114, Editura Modelism
Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company.
Ferenc A. and P. Dancey (1998) German Aircraft Industry And Production 1933-1945. Airlife England.
https://www.cugetliber.ro/stiri-eveniment-hidroavion-din-al-doilea-razboi-mondial-descoperit-in-lacul-tasaul-201060
Nazi Germany (1938)
Yugoslavia (1933-1947)
Italy (1940)
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1948-1967)
United States of America (1945)
Kingdom of Italy (1941
USSR (1946)
