VL Myrsky

Finland, WW2, ,

Finnish flag Finland (1941)
Fighter – 51 Built

Myrskys in a hangar for maintenance

The VL Myrsky (translates as Storm) is a Finnish domestically produced fighter. 51 were manufactured between 1941 and 1945 and it was one of the fastest aircraft in the Finnish inventory at the time. Despite having good performance on paper, it was plagued with issues and uncertainty. It would be withdrawn from service in 1947 having served in numerous roles such as interceptor, fighter-bomber and reconnaissance.

Development

Finland, being a small and newly independent nation, suffered from severe financial limitations and this included funds allocated towards its air force. However, the situation in 1930s Europe was not looking promising and in 1937 major funds were allocated to the defence budget for modernisation and expansion of Finland’s armed forces. By 1938, Finland had bought 7 Fokker D.XXI fighters, as well as the manufacturing license to produce more. However, Head of the Defence Council, Marshal Mannerheim, highlighted the need to produce a local fighter in order to lessen reliance upon foreigners in case of war. Major General Jarl Lundqvist, commander of the Finnish Air Force, replied that alternatives were being sought out but that high prices of specialised machinery, as well as many nations gearing up for war themselves, needed to produce such aircraft put limitations in place.

In early 1939, the Air Force made a survey of various aircraft designs and, upon completion in April, invited the State Aircraft Factory (Valtion lentokonetehdas) to ‘negotiations in Tampere on the construction of a prototype of a fighter machine in Finland’. On 4th May 1939, VL presented 5 different designs using the Bristol Taurus engine to the Ministry of Defence (puolustusministeriö) .

The Ministry of Defence placed contract 1094/39 with the State Aircraft Factory on 8th June 1939, which called for 33 aircraft to equip a fourth squadron. The design chosen was to be powered by the Bristol Taurus III 14-cylinder two-row radial aircraft engine, have semi-elliptical 19 square meter wings and retractable landing gear with allowances for ski pods. Its initial appearance was similar to the VL Pyry trainer which was undergoing prototype trials at the time.

Myrsky conducting patrols over ice floes
However, when the United Kingdom declared war upon Germany in September 1939 due to its invasion of Poland, the possibility of acquiring the Bristol Taurus disappeared and a solution was needed. The design team thought the best replacement was the Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C3-G Twin Wasp and an order was placed. Due to the inevitable delays and mounting pressure in Europe, the Air Force placed an order for 35 Fiat G.50s to equip the fourth squadron. On 30th November 1939, Soviet forces attacked Finland in the opening moves of what would become known as the Winter War. This action put paid to many of Finland’s rearmament plans, including the Myrsky development, with an official order of termination being issued by the Ministry of Defence on 8th December (which seems to have not been fully complied with due to archival material showing dates during the Winter War).

After the conclusion of the Winter War on 13th March 1940, Finland saw itself in a critical situation which was further enhanced by the actions of Germany in Denmark and Norway. In April, the Finnish domestic programme was restarted with an emphasis upon speed, which led to more delays on the design. Finland reached out to both the US and Germany for more powerful engines, like the American Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp and German BMW 801. However, the US put an export ban on war material in July and Germany was unwilling to sell any materials except captured ones like the Curtis 75A Hawk and Morane Saulnier MS 406. This then led to the placement of the programme in suspension until the winter of 1940.

On 20th December 1940, contract 1621/40 was issued ordering a prototype. About 60,000 hours went into the design phase, with 77,000 manhours going into the manufacture of the prototype. The original goal was for a working prototype to be completed in early July 1941 but, with the outbreak of the Continuation War, the project saw delays again. The prototype was finally completed in December and made its maiden flight on the 23rd December 1941 by Lieutenant (Luutnantti) Erkki Itävuori. A few redesigns were made during this second stage of development, the most notable being the copying of the tailplane of the Brewster Buffalo F2A. Given the serial MY-1, the prototype suffered from engine difficulties, as well as displaying a tendency to yaw. Also, it had a high wing loading (194 kg/m2) which meant that its rate of climb and maneuverability were compromised.
Myrsky in flight above the runway

The MY-1 was redesigned and modified in order to fix the issues highlighted in the small scale test flights. The yaw was resolved by redesigning the whole rudder with an enlarged area and removing the supports from the horizontal stabilizers. Weight was reduced by changing the fuel tank, changing the engine gills and a few other minor changes, freeing up 317 kg and decreasing the wing loading to 175 kg/m2. The Hamilton Standard propeller was replaced by a locally designed VLS 8002 adjustable propeller and the exhaust pipes were modified to attain better thrust. Overall the MY-1 prototype went through four major modification stages and attained a final maximum speed of 519 km/h at 3250 meters altitude and a climb to 5000 metres in 6.5 minutes. While not perfect, the aircraft was seen as satisfactory. MY-1 took its last flight on 26th November 1943 with Captain (Kapteeni) Kokko, ending with a total logged time of 142 hours and 20 minutes in 162 flights.

Pre-Series Production

Prototype Mockup Myrsky

Before the prototype’s test flights had all finished the Air Force placed an order for a pre-series of three aircraft to be produced on 30th May 1942. The idea was for these three aircraft to help test concepts and make mass production faster when the time came. These craft were serialled MY-2 to MY-4 respectively. MY-2 was completed in April 1943, it had thinner wings, Hamilton Standard metal propeller, pneumatic brakes and was the lightest Myrsky at 2150kg empty. It was destroyed on 6th ofMay 1943 when its engine failed from lack of fuel, Captain P.E. Sovelius was injured during the crash landing. MY-4 was finished 5th June, it boasted a thicker wing, easier removable engine, better cowlings, hydraulic brakes and the VLS 8002 adjustable propeller. It weighed in at 90 kg more than the MY-2, or 2 240 kg. MY-3 was completed on the 11th July, it weighed in at weighed 2 210 kg but was similar to the MY-2 except for slight modifications. This series was known officially as the I Series (I Sarja).

MY-3 made a belly landing on 5th August 1943 as the landing gear malfunctioned. During the repairs, they patched up the fuselage with plywood, adding another 10 kgs. Splines were added to the propeller spinner to help reduce overheating and these were carried over to the production models. After repairs the MY-3 was cleared for more flights, on 19th November 1943, during a test dive, aeroelastic flutter broke off the wings and then the tail, plunging the aircraft into the ground at 855 km / h. Warrant Officer (Vääpeli) Aarre Siltavuori was killed. Investigation after the event concluded that the wings needed to be reinforced and that dive speeds should not exceed 600 km/h.

MY-4 was continually used for testing and its armament layout was the one used in the production series. In February 1944 it was issued to No. 26 Fighter Squadron (Hävittäjälentolaivue 26) to assess its viability as a combat aircraft, it immediately caused problems as the 20 pilots who took turns to fly it noticed issues with its flying characteristics in comparison to their Fiat G.50s. On the 17th March, during a diving test the plane was attempting to spin to the right and lieutenant Jaakko Marttila struggled with the aircraft, under such stress the right wing finally broke at two metres from the tip, causing the plane to enter into an uncontrollable spinning dive that killed the pilot.

Production Series and the Continuation War

Crew posing with their Myrsky

On the 18th August 1942, contract 1952/42 was issued that specified a production of 50 Myrskys, split into two batches. A three aircraft pre-series, as covered above, and a production series, to be called the II series, of 47 aircraft to be serialized as MY-5 to MY-51. MY-5 was completed in December 1943 and MY-51 was finished in December 1944.

The Myrsky continued to show problems during dives, MY-6 crashing due to the left elevator breaking loose when it reached 640 km/h in June 1944. This caused an order to reinforce all elevators, both on completed models and those going through production. Due to the numerous delays, the now adequate performance, as well as the many Bf 109’s supplied by Germany, the Fighter squadrons were not interested in the Myrsky. Indeed, only No. 26 Squadron were equipped with Myrskys to replace their aging Fiat G.50s but these were soon replaced by Brewster F2A Buffalo s. Orders from Air Force command saw the Myrsky banned from crossing the front lines due to their poor performance against contemporary Soviet fighters. Instead the reconnaissance squadrons (Tiedustelulentolaivue) gratefully received these speedy and modern aircraft, by comparison to their previous machines. No. 12 Reconnaissance Squadron became the first Myrsky reconnaissance unit in July 1944, there first mission was on the 9th August with a patrol flight in the Suistamo area where they attempted to intercept a flight of Yak-7 fighters with no results. The 22nd August saw the Myrskys baptism of fire when a 6 plane reconnaissance mission came across 3 Yak-9s at Mantsi. Lieutenant Linden scored confirmed hits upon one Yak but failed to bring it down, during the return flight Captain Virkkunen scored hits upon a La-5 but still not confirmed kills (after the war it was confirmed the Yak made an emergency landing at its home base and the La-5 suffered from damaged pressure systems).

During the later design phase, it was decided that the planes should be able to mount two 100 kg bombs. Pilots at the Tampere testing facility practiced the concept using weight concrete bricks but due to the planes relegation to reconnaissance, it was believed that the racks would not be used. However on the 3rd September, Captain Oiva Tylli led a six plane formation to bomb the Soviet 7th Army Corps headquarters at Orusjärvi (this saw the lifting of the crossing frontlines orders, as the HQ was some 35-40km behind the Soviet lines). 11 of the 12 bombs detached from their racks and damaged the lightly defended headquarters and the planes flew out of there before they could be intercepted. Later that same day the last combat mission of the Mysrky during the Continuation War took place, a four Myrsky flight was sent on a patrol at Sortavalan-Lahdenpohja but returned empty handed.

On the 4th September 1944 a ceasefire came into effect as a result of negotiations between the Finnish and Soviet Governments. No. 12 Reconnaissance Squadron was ordered to fly to Joroinen and await further orders. At the closing of hostilities, 44 of the 47 II series aircraft were completed. One squadron, No.12, was fully equipped, and another squadron, No.16, was partially equipped with six.

Lapland War and Peace

One of the stipulations of the ceasefire was the cessation of diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany and the expelling of Wehrmacht forces from Finnish territory by the 15th September 1944. With over 200,000 troops residing in Finland, as well as the essential nickel mines in Lapland, the Germans were both incapable and unwilling to withdraw in such a quick manner. This led to the outbreak of what became termed ‘The Lapland War’ (Lapin Sota).

A Finnish force of some 75,000 (4 Divisions as well as some attached elements) was assigned to the task of pushing the Germans from their land. A special air detachment was formed, Lentoryhmä Sarko, with the mission to support ground operations. 2nd flight of No. 12 Reconnaissance Squadron was subordinated to No. 26 Fighter Squadron at Kemi. Soon Myrskys were performing reconnaissance missions over Lapland but the severe weather soon put paid to any more flights by the Myrskys and on the 23rd November the last flight in combat conditions by a Myrsky was completed.

After the formalisation of the Moscow Armistice in September 1944, the Air Force was put in to peacetime strength in December. This saw a major reduction and restructuring of the Air Force as a whole. No.12 Reconnaissance Squadron became No.11 Fighter Squadron, and No.16 Reconnaissance Squadron became No.13 Fighter Squadron, these squadrons were amalgamations of other units and so were also equipped with BF-109G-2s and Curtiss Hawk 75As. The Myrskys continued to serve in these fighter units but were still subject to accidents, especially from stalling, which saw a suggestion to modified the wings with slots. MY-50, which was never issued to the air force but remained at the factory’s hanger, was modified with slotted wings but nothing went further. On 9th May 1947, Captain Kauko Ikonen, took MY-28 out for a training flight when it suddenly entered into a dive and broke up in the air. The plane plunged into the soft clay and was not recovered, No.11’s commander ordered a grounding of the entire Mysky fleet, which was confirmed by the Wing’s headquarters later that day.

The last flight of the Myrsky took place on 10th February 1948, when MY-50, was allowed to fly from its test hanger to Tampere for storage but as it came into land, it overshot the runway and landed on its belly.

Today there is a restoration project to bring back MY-14 to a fully reconditions state for display at the Finnish Aviation Museum. The project has reach a stage where it could be unveiled to the public for Finnish Air Force 100th anniversary air show in June 2018.

Design

When the original order went out for the design, Arvo Ylinen (head of the design-bureau), Martti Vainio (aerodynamics), and Torsti Verkkola (structural design), were assigned the task of designing the new plane.

They decided to combined the learning they had from the Pyry trainer with the experience of licensed building of modern aircraft like the Fokker D.XXI. This allowed for not only cheaper design and production but also allowed for the design to be tweaked to Finnish desires. Due to the limitations upon Finnish industry (both due to its economic and geographical locations), it was decided that the design would be a combination of wood and metal.

The fuselage used a metal wire frame which was then covered with fabric and plywood, while the wings made from plywood and covered in a birch veneer (called Kolupuu).This did allow for cheaper production and lighter construction but contributed to the breaking of the wings upon reaching certain speeds. Because of the rarity of duraluminium, it was decided that the Myrsky should have none of it in its construction (but because of problems finding a suitable replacement, it was used in certain aspects of the machine like the flaps), instead aluminum (which had been bought from Norway and Sweden before the war) would be used sparingly and combined with specialised wooden parts.

The generalised design was the conventional piston aircraft, with a low wing attached just forward of center. The cockpit suffered from the same issues that many of its contemporaries did, in that the long nose limited its forward vision, but it is have excellent side visibility. The armament was four VKT 12,70 mm LKk/42 machine guns, mounted two per side of the engine, these were synchronised to fire through the propeller. It was also decided to add a hard point under each wing which would allow for an additional fuel tank or a 100kg bomb to be used.

Due to wartime shortages, Finland was forced to rely on substandard, replacement products. The use of Lukko glue was one of the main reasons for the failings in the Myrsky. It was not of the same quality as pre-war glue and did not stand up to rain, frost and humidity (a common occurrence in Finland), and would require more man hours to keep the aircraft in a flyable condition.

Losses

During its lifespan, the Myrsky was involved in 48 separate incidents, 10 of these resulted in the complete loss of the aircraft and 4 pilots died as a result.

MY-2 was destroyed on 6th May 1943 when its engine failed from lack of fuel, Captain P.E. Sovelius was injured during the crash landing.

MY-3 was destroyed on 19th November 1943 when aeroelastic flutter broke the wings of the aircraft. The Pilot, Warrant Officer Aarre Siltavuori was killed

MY-4 was lost on 17th March 1944 during a training flight. The plane entered into a dive which then broke one of the wings. Lieutenant Jaakko Marttila died in the crash.

MY-29 was destroyed on 4th September 1944 during a transfer flight. Lieutenant Aulis Kurje lost control of his aircraft when the engine overheated and cut out. The plane crashed into the wood, causing the seat to break free, killing the pilot.

MY-25 was destroyed on 13th November, 1944. During a reconnaissance flight near Kemi, MY-25s engine cut out forcing Lieutenant Berndt Schultze to perform a crash landing, he sustained minor injuries.

MY-27 was destroyed on 26th January 1945. After a crash landing on the 23rd January 1945, it was decided to fly the aircraft down to Pori, during the flight the fuel ran out. Warrant Officer N. Satomaa crashed the plane into a forest near Veteli. He was badly wounded but survived.

The MY-26 was destroyed 25th December, 1945. Due to malfunction, Staff Sergeant (Ylikersantti) E. Tähtö was forced to crash land in Pori. He walked away with minor injuries.

MY-24 was destroyed on 11th December 1945. Sergeant (Kersantti) Onni Kuuluvainen lost control of his craft when performing a speed correction. After several attempts to recover the plane he parachuted to safety. The plane crashed into a farmer’s field in the Pori area.

MY-5 was destroyed on November 20th, 1946. Lance corporal (Korpraali) Erkki Jaakkola was forced to make a crash landing in a field after his plane suffered from a fuel feeding problem after climbing to 7,000 metres.

MY-28 was destroyed on 9th May, 1947. During a training session, Captain Kauko Ikonen lost control of his plane, which then broke into pieces and smashed into the ground at Nakkila. This caused the entire Myrsky fleet to be grounded.

Variants

VL Myrsky – Myrsky prototype. Serialled MY-1. It differed from the later versions in being armed with two fuselage mounted 12,7mm mgs and four wing mounted 7,7mm mgs in the wings. It also had the Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C3-G Twin Wasp engine. The altitude stabilizers were originally supported but removed during the stage III modifications. Its undercarriage is also 15cm longer, giving it a more angled appearance when on a flat surface. Only 1 produced

VL Myrsky I – The pre-series production. Used to test ideas from the prototype, and to help gain experience in production. Each one was slightly different with various modifications. These were powered with the Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC3-G Twin Wasp engine. They had more fabric pieces than their production counterparts. 3 produced.

VL Myrsky II – The production series. Taking the experience gained in the prototype and pre-series phases and putting it into practice. Using the R-1830-SC3-G Twin Wasp engine, it was modified with different gears to produce 1,155 horsepower on take-off. 47 were built.

VL Myrsky III – In March 1944 an order for 10 improved Myrsky versions was given to the State Aircraft Factory. This order was cancelled on 30th September 1944 and the whole series was cancelled on 30th May 1945.

Conclusion

The VL Myrsky was the embodiment of Finnish thinking, small and quick, hard hitting but light. The domestic fighter programme would not only bring more jobs to the locals but would be a point of pride that Finland could stand its own if it needs be. Also, as it was the only domestic fighter to see service during the war, it became a symbol of pride of Finnish independence.

Because of the many delays in its production, by the time it arrived on the front lines, the war had stabilized into what is termed ‘asemasota kausi,’ or The Trench War period. This meant that the war was much quieter in comparison to the other fronts that the Soviets were fighting on. The fighter pilots reports upon its mediocre performance in terms of speed and maneuverability in comparison to the Yaks and Las they were facing but the reconnaissance pilots reported positively upon these characteristics. It occupied the second fastest serving aircraft in the Finnish Air Force (only the BF-109 being faster) and its cockpit ergonomics were favorable and the pilots enjoyed its ground handling properties, thanks to the wide undercarriage.

It was far from the perfect aircraft, at low speeds it had a tendency to stall to the left. Its batteries tended to drain quickly if not pulled from the aircraft when not in use and the metal parts were prone to rusting. The inferior quality of the glue used during the war meant that more maintenance was required to keep the airframe flight worthy, reports of seams on the wing surfaces, rudder and elevators opening were a common occurrence. Pilots, both fighter and reconnaissance, reported upon the armament being too weak to take on the modern Soviet fighters and that due to the engine being governed, the plane was ‘too slow’ for what it should have been.

Operators

  • Finland – The VL Myrsky was only used by the Finnish Air Force

VL Myrsky II
Wingspan 36.08 ft / 11.00 m
Length 27.39 ft / 8.35 m
Height 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Wing Area 193.75 ft² / 18.00 m²
Engine 1x Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC3-G Twin Wasp modified (1,155 hp)
Maximum Weight 7,083 lbs / 3,213 kg
Empty Weight 5,152 lbs / 2,337 kg
Climb Rate 49.21 ft/s / 15.00 m/s
Maximum Speed 292.04 mph / 470 km/h at Sea Level

332.43 mph / 535 km/h at 10830 ft / 3,300 m
Maximum Service Ceiling 31,170 ft / 9,500 m
Crew 1x Pilot
Armament 4x 12.7mm VKT 12,70 Lkk/42 (960 Rounds Total)
Ordinance 2x 220.5 lb /100 kg Bombs or

2x 39.62 Gal / 150 L Drop Tank

The Hakaristi (Finnish Swastika)

It is important to note the use of the ‘Swastika’ on Finnish military equipment due to the confusion of its application.

Finland first adopted the Swastika (known as Hakaristi, broken cross, in Finnish) on the 18th March 1918, thanks to a donated aircraft that arrived earlier that month from Swedish Count Eric von Rosen (who used a blue swastika as his personal symbol). The Hakaristi became a national symbol from that moment, being used on everything from the Medal of the War of Liberation, the Mannerheim Cross, tanks, aircraft, to even a Women’s auxiliary organisation.

It became part of the official Air Force insignia, being used as an identification symbol as well as on certain badges and awards, from its inception in 1918 and today is still maintained upon certain symbols like the Standards of Commands.

Due to this early adoption, it has no association with the Nazi regime and the usage of such a symbol by both parties is only a coincidence.

Gallery

VL Myrsky – MY-50 by Brendan Matsuyama
VL Myrsky MY-5 by Brendan Matsuyama
Prototype Mockup Myrsky
Myrsky in flight above the runway
Crew posing with their Myrsky
Myrsky conducting patrols over ice floes
Myrskys hangared for maintenance

Sources

Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 14 Suomen Hävittäjät, Kalevi Keskinen, Vammalan Kirjapino Oy 1990, Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 17 LeR2, Kalevi Keskinen, Edita OYJ 2001, www.vlmyrsky.fi, Finnish National Archives File T-20617/10 www.ilmailumuseot.fi, Side Profile Views by Brendan Matsuyama

North American P-51 Mustang in Communist Chinese Service

Cold War, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, WW2, , , , , ,

PRC flag People’s Republic of China (1948-1953)
Fighter – 39 Operated

The North American P-51 Mustang is considered one of the world’s most iconic warplanes from the Second World War, seeing action in nearly all theaters, as well as the Korean War and many other conflicts thereafter. However, one of the lesser known stories of the Mustang is its service with the Communist Chinese forces who would go on to form the People’s Republic of China shortly after. A total of 39 Mustangs were obtained from the Chinese Nationalist forces either by capture or defection. These Mustangs were used in various roles with the Communists, and nine of them even had the honor of flying over Beijing on October 1st 1949 for a parade to commemorate the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Although never seeing combat, the Mustangs still had served with the Communist Chinese forces as one of their most advanced fighters until the arrival of Soviet aid.

A photo displaying the rather impressive cache of captured Nationalist planes now in Communist service. In this photo, there are around nineteen P-51 Mustangs visible. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2）

History

The Republic of China (i.e, Chinese Nationalists under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek) was a notable operator of the North American P-51 Mustang during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). Since the United States entered the Second World War, plans were made to provide the Republic of China China with modern American warplanes to replace the worn and outdated planes that the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) were using. The Mustangs were initially flown by pilots of the Chinese-American Composite Wing (CACW) starting from November 1944. The models they operated were P-51B and P-51C, but later in February 1945, P-51D and P-51K variants were delivered and put to use against the Japanese along with the P-51B and P-51C. At the end of the Second World War, the ROCAF received 278 Mustangs from the USAAF, most of which were P-51D and P-51K models, but also with some F-6D and F-6K photo reconnaissance models. Soon after, the uneasy relationship between the Communist Party of China under the leadership of Mao Zedong and the Nationalist government under the leadership of Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) disintegrated. As such, the civil war between the two parties resumed after nearly nine years of truce. This time however, the Communist forces were more prepared to fight the Nationalist forces. As time went on, the Nationalist forces began losing their hold on mainland China and were forced to retreat to Formosa (Taiwan), but not before many of their soldiers, officers and generals defected, leaving a substantial amount of equipment behind.

The People’s Liberation Army obtained their first Mustang on September 23rd 1948 when Captain Yang Peiguang (杨培光) from the Nationalist 4th Fighter Wing based in Beiping (Beijing) defected with his P-51D to the Communist forces at Siping, Jilin Province. The bulk of the Mustangs which would be captured by the Communist forces were, however, from the Liaoshen Campaign which lasted from September 12th – November 2nd, 1948. With the Communist victory at the Battle of Jinzhou on October 15th, a considerable amount of Nationalist equipment was captured; among these were thirty one Mustangs in various states of repair at the Jinzhou Airfield. Though now with thirty four Mustangs in total, the People’s Liberation Army was not able to press any into service due to many factors; the most important two being the lack of able pilots and the varying states of disrepair that the Mustangs were in.

The city of Shenyang was finally captured by the People’s Liberation Army on October 30th 1948, and on the second day of the city’s capture on October 31st, the Northeast People’s Liberation Army Aviation School sent men to secure the Shenyang Beiling airport, factories, warehouses, personnel, and various other assets formerly belonging to the Nationalists. In November, the Shenyang Beiling airport was officially established as the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Repair Factory Number 5 (中国人民解放军空军第五修理厂). With the establishment of this repair factory, the first machines to be repaired were the Mustangs. The repairs took top priority and the first Mustang was ready for service on December 30th. Since then, thirty six Mustangs were repaired within a span of eighteen to twenty months lasting until 1950.

On December 10th 1948, the People’s Liberation Army was able to capture the Nationalist-held Beiping (Beijing) Nanyuan Airport as part of the Pingjin Campaign. Three Mustangs were found in relatively good condition, and a total of 128 Packard-built V-1650 Merlin engines were captured as well. This boosted the total amount of Mustangs in the People’s Liberation Army to thirty seven, and provided plenty of replacement engines for maintenance. After this, two more Mustangs would fall in the hands of the Communist forces.

On December 29th, Lieutenant Tan Hanzhou (谭汉洲) of the Nationalist 4th Fighter Group defected with his Mustang from Qingdao to Communist held Shenyang. The last Mustang to fall into the People’s Liberation Army’s hands occured on January 14th of 1949 when Lieutenant Yan Chengyin* (阎承荫) from the Nationalist 3rd Fighter Group’s 28th Squadron defected from his home base of Nanjing to Communist held Jinan.

Lieutenant Tan Hanzhou with his Mustang shortly after his defection. (blog.163.com)

 

Now with thirty nine Mustangs in total, the People’s Liberation Army began to put them to use. Starting from late January 1949, a large number of Mustangs were presented to the Northeast Old Aviation School’s (东北老航校) 2nd Squadron of the 1st Air Group with the purpose of training pilots. On August 15th 1949, the People’s Liberation Army formed their first flying squadron named at the Beiping Nanyuan airfield. The squadron consisted of two Fairchild PT-19 trainers, two de Havilland Mosquito fighter-bombers and six Mustangs. Shortly after the formation on September 5th, this squadron was assigned the task of defending Beiping’s airspace from Nationalist forces. At some point before October, eleven more Mustangs were assigned to this squadron. The squadron saw no combat.

* Mr. Yan later changed his name to Yan Lei (阎磊) after his defection.

Perhaps the most notable use of the Mustangs in Communist Chinese service was on October 1st 1949. By then, the bulk of the Nationalist forces were in discord and in the process of retreating to Formosa (Taiwan). With the Communist victory inevitable, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. A Soviet-style military parade was held in newly-renamed Beijing’s (Beiping) Tiananmen Square which included sixteen thousand and four hundred soldiers, one hundred and fifty two tanks, two hundred and twenty two cars and seventeen planes were displayed to the public. Of these seventeen planes, nine were Mustangs. The Mustangs flew in groups of threes in a V formation and led the aerial convoy. Once over Tiananmen square, these Mustangs increased their speed and flew past the square and out of sight, they made a turn and reentered Tiananmen square for the back just in time to link up with the two Fairchild PT-19A trainers flying last. Because they re-entered the square so quickly, the spectators were led to believe these were nine different Mustangs, with a total of twenty six planes appearing over Tiananmen square instead of the actual seventeen. This was mentioned in a government made propaganda newsreel. Of these nine Mustangs, at least one was a P-51K model.

After the parade, the Mustangs were once again deployed in a defensive state awaiting possible Nationalist intrusions in Beijing. By November 1949, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force was officially established and a total of twenty two airworthy Mustangs were in service, with nine more awaiting repair. This meant that thirty one Mustangs still survived, with eight written off. It is unknown what precisely happened to these Mustangs but the author speculates that they could have been cannibalized for parts, destroyed in training flights, disassembled to study the structure, or simply scrapped.

One of the only known photos of the two seat P-51D trainer. The canopy seemed to have been removed to make space. (js.voc.com.cn)

On July 26th 1950, the Beijing defense squadron was renamed the “Air Force 1st Independent Fighter Brigade” (空军独立第一歼击机大队). By then, the Soviet Union was supplying the Chinese with more modern equipment and by mid-August, the brigade’s Mustangs were replaced by Soviet Lavochkin La-9 fighters. Once replaced, all Mustangs scattered across the country were collected and given to Aviation School No.7 to train new pilots. With this, Aviation School No.7 modified thirteen Mustangs to be two-seat trainers. This was done perhaps to speed up the training process, and to prevent accidents by rookie pilots without guidance. There is currently one known photo of the two seat trainer.

By September 1953, most Mustangs were retired from training service due to cracks in the landing gear. However, eight of them remained in service with Aviation School No.7 to train Ilyushin IL-10 pilots how to taxi their planes. A few more examples were used as teaching tools to train pilots on identifying plane parts. It is unknown when precisely the Mustang was retired once and for all.

An illustration showing three P-51 Mustangs flying over Beijing on October 1st of 1949. (thepaper.cn)

Surviving PLAAF Mustangs

To this day, only two Mustangs formerly in PLAAF service survive in museums. The first one is a P-51K-10-NT “Red 3032” with the serial number 44-12458. This P-51K is on public display at the Chinese Aviation Museum (中国航空博物馆), sometimes also known as the Datangshan Aviation Museum located in Datangshan, Beijing. It remains in relatively pristine condition as it was in an indoors display and sheltered from the elements. Bomb hardpoints are visible under each of the wings which signifies that this Mustang perhaps once served as a fighter/bomber for the ROCAF.

P-51K-10-NT “Red 3032” on display. It is in rather good condition due to being stored indoors. (George Trussell)

The other surviving PLAAF Mustang is a P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” with the serial number 44-73920. This Mustang can be seen at the China People’s Revolution Military Museum (中国人民革命军事博物馆) in the Haidian District of Beijing. What is notable about this specific plane is that it was one of the nine Mustangs that flew over Beijing on October 1st of 1949 for the Founding of the People’s Republic of China parade. This Mustang was displayed outdoors exposed to nature for the majority of its life until the museum went under renovation when it was finally moved indoors. The Mustang has gone through minimal restoration, as it looks considerably cleaner than when it was displayed outdoors. This Mustang also had bomb hardpoints under its wings.

The P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” in its new indoor display after the museum renovation. It looks considerably cleaner than when it was displayed outdoors. (Wikimedia Commons)
The P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” in its old outdoors display, dust and slight rust can be seen on the machine. (Wikimedia Commons)

Variants Operated

A total of 39 North American P-51D Mustangs were operated by the Communist Chinese forces, and later the People’s Republic of China. Within these Mustangs, an unknown amount were P-51D and P-51K models.

  • P-51D – An unspecified amount of P-51D Mustangs of various block numbers were operated by the People’s Republic of China. A P-51D-25-NA is confirmed to have been in service as it flew over Beijing as part of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China parade and is now in the China People’s Revolution Military Museum (中国人民革命军事博物馆) in the Beijing.
  • P-51K – An unspecified amount of P-51K Mustangs of various block numbers were operated by the People’s Republic of China. A P-51K-10-NT is confirmed to have been in service as it is in the Chinese Aviation Museum (中国航空博物馆) in Beijing.
  • P-51 Trainer – A total of thirteen Mustangs were modified by Aviation School No.7 in 1951 to be two-seat trainers. The instructor sat in the rear while the student pilot was at the front. No surviving examples are preserved to this day.

Note

The author would like to extend his thanks to Mr. Hemmatyar for restoring some of the photos used in this article.

Gallery

P-51K-10-NT “Red 3032” displayed in the Chinese Aviation Museum in Datangshan, Beijing. Illustration by Brendan Matsuyama
P-51D-25-NA “Red 3” displayed in the China People’s Revolution Military Museum in the Haidian District of Beijing. Illustration by Brendan Matsuyama
A PLAAF P-51D/K with a blue rudder. The unit and serial number is unknown. Illustration by Brendan Matsuyama
A rare photograph of a mini P-51 Mustang model with PLAAF markings dated some time in the early 1950s. Two little boys accompany the cutout. This shows how impactful the Mustang was to the initial years of the People’s Republic of China. (eBay)
22 year old Lin Hu (林虎) with his P-51K before taking off to partake in the parade. (gogonews.cc)
A still frame showing three P-51 Mustangs flying over Beijing. (Establishment of the People’s Republic of China Parade)
A line of P-51 Mustangs awaiting inspection with their respective pilots standing at ease. (sohu.com)
A PLAAF Mustang taking off. Note the rocket rails. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)
Mechanics and ground crew doing engine work on a Mustang. (Encyclopedia of Chinese Aircraft: Volume 2)
Four Mustangs line up on the Beijing Nanyuan Airfield awaiting to take off for the participation in the 1949 parade. Two Curtiss C-46 Commandos can also be seen in the background. (windsor8.com)

Sources

Gang, W., Ming, C. Y., & Wei, Z. (2009). 中国飞机全书 (Vol. 2). Beijing: 航空工业出版社., 八一战鹰大全（一）—— P-51“野马”战斗机. (n.d.). , Armstrong. (n.d.). 天马行空: 纪念 P-51 野马战斗机升空六十年., 肖邦振, & 李冰梅. (2010). 新中国成立前后 国民党空军飞行人员驾机起义探析. 军事史资料., Allen, K. (n.d.). PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY AIR FORCE ORGANIZATION., (2016, December 19).开国大典——1949国庆大阅兵, Side Profile Views by Brendan Matsuyama

Plane side view

Consolidated Vultee XP-81

US, WW2, ,

USA flag United States of America (1944)
Prototype Escort Fighter – 2 Built

The first XP-81 powered by the TG-100 engines (Convair)

The Consolidated Vultee XP-81 was a prototype mixed power fighter developed in late 1943 by the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in order to meet an Army Air Force requirement calling for a high altitude escort fighter. Plagued by slow development and engine problems, the XP-81 would never see active service and development would be terminated in 1947. Despite this, the XP-81 still holds a distinct place in history as America’s first turboprop engine plane to fly and the world’s first plane to fly with a turboprop engine and a jet engine together.

History

With the formal introduction of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress on May 8th of 1943, it would be clear that a high altitude escort fighter would soon be needed to accompany the Superfortress on its bombing missions over the Pacific. In the summer of 1943, this need was realized and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) issued a list of design requirements that consists of the following:

  1. 1,250 mile (2,012 km) operating radius
  2. Fuel for 20 minutes of combat plus reserve fuel supply for landing
  3. Cruising speed of 250 mph (402 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
  4. Maximum speed over 500 mph (804 km/h)
  5. Combat ceiling of 37,500 ft (11,430 m)
  6. Climb rate of 2500 fpm (feet per minute) / 762 mpm (meters per minute) while at 27000 ft (8230 m)
  7. Two engines*
  8. 12 ° angle of vision over the nose

* – The USAAF recommended that the designers use a two engine setup consisting of a propeller engine for long range flights while complemented by a jet engine for high speed combat situations.

Promotional illustration of the XP-81 showing a diagram of the XP-81. (Consolidated Vultee)

Interested in this proposal, the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, later known as Convair, began work on an aircraft which would meet the specifications, appointing Charles R. Irving, who was a chief engineer of the Vultee Field Division and Frank W. Davis, the assistant engineer, who was also the chief test pilot, as the leaders of the design team. The project was known as the “Model 102” within Consolidated Vultee. In the early stages of development, the designers faced a dilemma of engine selection. The Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine was considered, as was the General Electric TG-100 turboprop engine. After some evaluating and testing however, the TG-100 was selected as it was deemed to have superior performance for combat and cruising situations. As for the jet engine in the rear, a relatively straightforward choice to mount a General Electric J33-GE-5 (also known as I-40) jet engine was made. After a couple of months of development, Consolidated Vultee submitted a preliminary design proposal to the United States Army Air Force in September of 1943. Relatively interested in this design, the plane was given the greenlight for further development and received the designation “XP-81” by the Air Material Command.  

Detailed work on the XP-81 began in January 5th of 1944 and on January 18th, Consolidated Vultee was given the contract (no. W33-038-ac-1887) by the USAAF worth about $4.6 million to construct two flying XP-81 prototypes and one airframe for ground testing under the USAAF project name “MX-480”. Another contract followed on June 20th of 1944 worth $3,744,000 for the two flying examples, the airframe and the testing data. The contract was later modified to include 13 YP-81 under the project name “MX-796”. The construction of the first XP-81 prototype would begin on January 20th at the formerly independent Vultee aircraft factory in Downey, California but problems soon surfaced. Some time in April, the Air Material Command was notified that there would be a delay in the delivery of the TG-100 due to a couple of technical difficulties. As such, construction of the first prototype was delayed as the designers sought out an alternative engine to replace the TG-100 in June.

Consolidated Vultee flight test crew poses with the first XP-81 prototype. (XP-81)

The Packard V-1650-3 (some sources state V-1650-7), which was the American copy of the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, was selected to fill in the gap and the USAAF promptly provided Consolidated Vultee with such an engine taken from a North American P-51D Mustang. Within a week of receiving the engine, Consolidated Vultee engineers were able to install it after making considerable structural modifications to the first prototype’s airframe. A radiator similar to that of the Lockheed P-38J’s “beard” radiator would also be mounted on the XP-81, under the propeller spinner. Unfortunately for the designers however, the change of powerplant would add 950 lb (431 kg) to the plane while taking away 960 hp at takeoff and 1720 hp at top speed. With the relatively slow development, the first XP-81 prototype would finally be completed in January of 1945 bearing the serial number of “44-91000”.

Although the aforementioned issues with weight gain and horsepower loss were present, the Packard engine powered XP-81 was still deemed safe for flight tests, and as such, the first XP-81 prototype was prepared for test flights at Muroc Dry Lake in California and finally took to the skies on February 7th of 1945 with Frank W. Davis in the cockpit. Amazingly enough, 46 test flights were made with the Packard engine and it accumulated a total of 47.75 flight hours. In the testing phase it was noted that with the Packard engine installed, the XP-81 had poor directional stability at low speeds and the occasional splatter of oil on the windscreen by the propellers. Plans to replace the Packard engine were brought up on May 18th of 1945 when the TG-100 turboprop was finally available. The conversion was completed and the first prototype was returned back to Muroc for more tests on June 11th. Due to the new engine installation, extensive ground work had to be accomplished before flight tests were to continue. Throughout June 23rd to December 20th of 1945, numerous ground tests were conducted and a few problems surfaced. For one, the TG-100 was difficult to start and once it did, the pilot would have difficulty controlling the propeller. As this was an early turboprop engine,

reliability was low and the turbine wheels had to be replaced constantly, sometimes only after half an hour of use. The 10 inch (25 cm) oil cooler for the TG-100 was also deemed a problem, and it was thus increased to a 12 inch (30 cm) system instead. Perhaps the biggest problem however, was the throttle lag the XP-81 suffered. Frank W. Davis describes the problem by stating “The pilot had about a 10 second lag when he wanted to go and about 2 seconds lag when he wanted to stop, with both thrust and drag being powerful and non-adjustable when they did occur.” (Consolidated Vultee XP-81, by Steve Ginter). The ground personnel concluded in these ground tests that the current Aeroproduct A542 propeller and drive shafts were incompatible with the TG-100, and that new propellers should be developed. An emergency engine feathering system was also recommended.

The first flight of the XP-81 with the TG-100 engine occured on December 21st of 1945. This was the 47th test flight the first XP-81 underwent. Performance was rather satisfactory, and the flight concluded after a mere 5 minutes. Excessive oil consumption was noted however. Test flights with the TG-100 proved disappointing as the turboprop did not perform as it was advertised, delivering less horsepower than was expected. Out of the estimated 2,300 hp the TG-100 was suppose to achieve, only 1,400 hp was achieved. The I-40 engine was no help either, as it developed nearly 250 lb (113 kg) less thrust than advertised as well. The estimated performance of 478 mph (769 kmh) at sea level was not achieved with only a mere 400 mph (643 kmh) achieved. Due to these factors, the performance achieved was similar to that of the Packard engine installation. Despite these problems, the XP-81 still did well in some aspects. The relatively decent handling and decent climb rate was complemented, as was the light controls. The second prototype (serial no. 44-91001) was produced some time before November of 1946, and was ready for flights by February of 1947. It featured a longer ventral fin than that of the XP-81 and had a four blade Hamilton Hydromatic propeller replacing the Aeroproducts propeller used on the first prototype. Unfortunately, it is unknown what date the second prototype made its maiden flight, but it is speculated that it first flew some time in February of 1947.

In total, 116 flights were made by both of the XP-81 prototypes, 22 of which were done by the second XP-81 prototype. More tests were planned, as on January 14th of 1947, Consolidated Vultee called for the following areas to be studied and tested:

  1. Firearms testing of the Browning AN/M2 and the Hispano T31. Bombs and rockets tests will also be included.
  2. Anti-icing equipment efficiency.
  3. Control characteristics and lateral stability.
  4. Cabin pressurization experiments.
  5. Power plant operations.
The first XP-81 prototype taxiing on the Muroc airstip in preparation of a flight on January 22nd of 1946 (SDAM)

However due to the previously mentioned issues of the XP-81 underperforming, the USAAF gradually lost interest in the XP-81 program. Consolidated Vultee was well aware of this, and they had been trying since December of 1946 to improve their design. A proposal was made in December 31st to the Air Material Command to fix the underperforming prototypes. This proposal suggested that an improved TG-110 (the ones that would have been used on the YP-81) should replace the TG-100 and a J33-19 jet engine should replace the J33-GE-5. The Air Material Command however was not impressed by the proposal due to the amount of redesigning and time needed and in early 1947, their engineering department ceased work on the TG-100 turboprop engine. Things would look even more grim for the XP-81 when on January 27th of 1947, the contract for the 13 YP-81 pre-

The first XP-81 prototype flies over the Mojave Desert. (Convair)

production fighters were cancelled. Finally on May 9th, the XP-81 program reached its end when the government decided to cancel the contract on its development. The two prototypes were then taken in by the USAAF on June 24th and 25th. Finalization of the cancellation was conducted on June 23rd of 1948 after the USAAF was reorganized into the United States Air Force (USAF) when Consolidated Vultee was reimbursed with $4,578,231 for their work on the program.

Though development stopped for the XP-81 program, the two prototype’s story did not end there. At the time when the USAAF took in the prototypes, the engine and propeller development branches of the Air Material Command was in the middle of developing more advanced propeller control techniques and a suitable machine was needed to perform tests on as wind tunnels and models were not available. The USAAF promptly provided the two XP-81s which were redesignated as “ZXF-81” for this new role. The two planes were then stored in Edwards AFB (previously known as Muroc AAF) for future use. Unfortunately, they were never used and on April 29th of 1949, all useful parts and gadgets were stripped from the two planes by order of the USAF. The two empty airframes were then dragged onto the photography & bombing range of the Edwards AFB.

Despite the XP-81s now sitting in the desert, Consolidated Vultee was still not willing to yield completely. The company tried proposing reviving the XP-81 program using different power plants and repurposing the role. The proposal called for the use of the British Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba turboprop producing 4,000 hp and a Rolls-Royce R.B 41 jet engine producing 6,250 lbf (2,835 kgf) of thrust replacing the original engines. The idea behind this was to create a ground attack aircraft which could be exported to other countries. However, this idea was understandably met with skepticism by the Air Force, but an investigation to see the feasibility of this proposal was made. On September 14th of 1950, a report was finalized stating that at least ⅔ of the airframe would need to be modified in order to mount the new engines.  New drop tanks, rocket rails, hardpoints and various other parts would also need to be redesigned. Another investigation was done on this proposal by comparing the hypothetical performance to the all-turboprop Douglas A2D Skyshark, a ground attacker aircraft in service with the USAF. It was determined that the Skyshark would outperform the XP-81 with British engines in all aspects, so there was no point in developing an inferior aircraft. Another factor that was noted was the excessive amount of maintenance, training and logistics needed to service the ground attacker. With all these factors in mind, the proposal was discarded by the USAF and Consolidated Vultee finally gave up on the XP-81.

Frank Davis sits in the cockpit of the XP-81. (Convair)

The two XP-81 airframes would remain in the desert exposed to the elements for decades until August of 1994 when Air Force Flight Test Center Museum curator Doug Nelson retrieved them. They were in derelict condition, with the second XP-81 prototype being more damaged than the first. As of 2018, the two airframes remain in the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio awaiting future restoration. Although never seeing service, the XP-81 still holds a distinct spot in history as America’s first turboprop engine powered plane to fly and the world’s first plane to fly with a turboprop engine and a jet engine together.

The first XP-81 prototype at the Edwards AFB shortly before recovery. (AFFTCHO)

Design

Airframe:
The XP-81’s semi-monocoque fuselage was constructed using age hardened 24-SRT aluminum alloy, followed by the exterior surfaces being flush riveted. The entire fuselage is made from metal. The wing design was a NACA laminar flow type, made from aluminum-alloy. The design allowed for a stressed-skin wing which was flush riveted as well, with the rivet heads being milled. Due to the relatively heavy materials used in the wings, the surface was relatively smooth thus allowing for good aerodynamics. The majority of the heavy plating was mounted in the frontal 34.5% of the wings, and thus allowed a decent mount for aerial weapons and permitted ordinance to be mounted. There were spoilers present on each wing which automatically operated in accordance to the ailerons. Another interesting feature was a thermal anti-ice system derived from the hot hair emitted from the TG-100 turboprop and the exhaust. Within the fuselage two fuel tanks were installed directly behind the cockpit, making for a total 811 gallons (3670 L) of fuel. The fuselage also housed the XP-81’s tricycle landing gear which was electrically operated. The main gear was fitted with disc brakes, also doubling as a parking brake.

The first XP-81 prototype’s Packard engine installation being finalized at the Vultee plant. (Convair)

The canopy on the cockpit was based off of the British bubble design, which allowed for a relatively clean 360° view. This type of canopy was used on many planes in service with the United States and Britain. The canopy would be controlled by the pilot via a hand crank on the left hand side of the cockpit. For fatal combat situations, an emergency canopy jettison system was provided allowing for the pilot to bail out quickly. The pilot’s seat was an ordinary World War II styled seat, but this was eventually replaced with an ejection seat modelled after the one used on the Convair XP-54. As the XP-81 was a long range fighter, an automatic piloting system was also installed. The cockpit would also be pressurized using the air from the TG-100 engine. For pilot comfort, a temperature system was installed allowing for optimal temperatures in all climate and altitudes.

For communication, the XP-81 was fitted with a VHF (Very High Frequency) SCR 522-A radio set. The cockpit also had room for a BC-1206 beacon receiver and an SCR 695 identification friendly-or-foe system, but these were never installed. The pilot would operate the SCR 522-A radio from the right side of the cockpit, where the radio controls were based.

It is also interesting to note that the second YP-81 prototype had a longer ventral fin than the first prototype.

Powerplant:

The Packard-powered XP-81 prototype idle on the Muroc airstrip. (Convair)

The XP-81’s design called for a General Electric TG-100 (also known as XTG-31-GE-1) turboprop and General Electric/Allison J33-GE-5 (I-40) jet engine as its power plants. The first prototype had a four blade Aeroproducts A542 brand propeller driving the TG-100 while the second prototype had a Hamilton Standard Hydromatic 4260 propeller instead. The TG-100 had a capacity for 8 gallons (30 L) of oil while the I-40 had 3.5 gallons (13 L). In terms of fuel, 811 gallons (3,670 L) was available in the XP-81’s two standard fuel tanks in the fuselage, but could go up to 1,511 gallons (5,720 L) with the installation of drop tanks.

The TG-100 Turbo Prop Engine

Armament:
The standard armament envisioned for the production P-81 would consist of either six 12.7x99mm Browning AN/M2 machine guns with 400 rounds each or six 20x110mm Hispano T31 cannons with 200 rounds each. The loadout of these guns would be in groups of three in each wing. For ordinance, a single hard point was mounted under each wing, allowing the plane to carry two bombs size ranging from 100 lb (45 kg) to 1,600 lb (725 kg), allowing for a maximum of 3,200 lb (1,451 kg). Chemical tanks, drop tanks, depth charges could also be equipped. Alternatively, 14 High velocity Aircraft Rockets (HVAR) could be carried.

Variants

  • XP-81 – Prototype fighter variant powered by a TG-100 turboprop and I-40 jet engine. Two examples were produced and extensively tested up until the cancellation of the project. Both prototypes were redesignated as “ZXF-81” in 1948 and stored in Edwards AFB. They would be stripped of useful parts and towed to the photography/bombing range near Edwards AFB and left there in derelict condition until August of 1994 when they were retrieved by Doug Nelson. The two airframes still survive to this day and are currently awaiting restoration at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.
  • YP-81 – Planned batch of 13 pre-production fighter variant powered by a lighter but more powerful TG-110 turboprop engine and an uprated General Electric J33-GE-5 turbojet engine. These planes would have been armed with either the Browning AN/M2 machine guns or the Hispano T-31 cannons. It would have differed from the XP-81 by having the wings moved back 10 inches (2.54 cm). No YP-81s were produced.
  • ZXF-81 – Post development termination designation for the two XP-81 prototypes. This designation signified that the prototypes were now flying test beds. However, no use of the prototypes after its termination was noted.
  • XP-81 (British Engines) – Unofficial variant proposed by Consolidated Vultee some time in 1949/1950 calling for the revival of the XP-81 project using British Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba turboprop producing 4,000 hp and a Rolls-Royce R.B 41 jet engine producing 6,250 lb (2,835 kg) of thrust replacing original engines. This new variant would be used as a ground attacker that would be solely used for export. This proposal never saw any development and was thus discarded.

Operators

  • United States of America – The XP-81 was intended to be used by the USAAF, but development carried over to the USAF. The project was eventually cancelled.
Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation XP-81
(Taken from “Consolidated Vultee XP-81 by Steve Ginter”)
Wingspan 50 ft 6 in / 15.39 m
Length 44 ft 8 in / 13.61 m
Height 13 ft 10 in / 4.21 m
Wing Area 425 ft² / 39.48 m²
Wing Loading 45.9 ft² /  4.26 m²
Tire Loading 80 in² / 516.12 cm²
Wings Sweep Back 0°
Wing Dihedral 6°
Root Cord 13-1
Engines 1x General Electric XTG-31-GE-1 (TG-100) turboprop
1x General Electric / Allison J33-GE-5 (I-40) jet
Oil Capacity TG-100: 8 gallons / 30 L
I-40: 3.5 gallons / 13 L
Empty Weight 12,755 lb / 3,887 kg
Normal Weight 19,500 lb / 8,845 kg
(Maximum internal fuel with reduced armaments)
Maximum Combat Weight 24,650 lb / 11,181 kg
Fuel Capacity 811 gallons / 3,070 L – Internal Fuel Tanks
1511 gallons / 5,720 L – Internal Fuel Tanks + Drop Tanks
350 gallons / 1,325 L – Individual Drop Tank
Center of Gravity Max Forward – 17%
Max Aft – 27%
Rate of Climb 0 to 5,000 ft / 0 to 1,524 m – 5,200 fpm / 39.31 mps
Time of Climb 30,000 ft / 9,144 m in 9.6 minutes
Speed 299 mph / 481 kmh at Sea Level
253 mph / 407 kmh at 15,000 ft / 4,572 m
224 mph / 360 kmh at 30,000 ft / 9,144 m
Maximum Speed 546 mph / 877 kmh
Diving tests were never finalized due to propeller and engine problems. Flight #90 on September 4th of 1946 achieved the highest speed as mentioned above.
Range Conditions under maximum combat weight

Ferry Range – 2,393 mi / 3,851 km
Speed at 247 mph / 397 kmh – 2,002 mi / 3,222 km
Speed at 274 mph / 441 kmh – 1,622 mi / 2,610 km
Service Ceiling 47,000 ft / 14,000 m
Crew 1x Pilot
Radio Equipment SCR 522-A VHF Radio
Armament 6x 12.7x99mm Browning AN/M2 (400 rpg, 2,400 total)
or
6x 20x119mm Hispano T31 (200 rpg, 1,200 total)
Never Fitted on Prototypes, Intended Armament
Gunsight 1x K-14 Gyro Gunsight
Ordinance 2x hardpoints capable of carrying 3,200 lb / 1,452 kg of either bombs, depth charges, chemical tanks or drop tanks
or
14x 5 inch / 12.7 cm High Velocity Aircraft Rockets (HVAR)

Gallery

Plane side view
Sideart of the XP-81 by Escodrion

 

XP-81 parked on a ramp.
Side view of the XP-81 on the ground.
Rear view of the XP-81 on the ground. Note the position of the exhaust pipe relative to the two fuselage mounted air intakes.
XP-81 in flight.
Instrument panel of the XP-81. (USAF)
Controls of the XP-81. (USAF)
The second XP-81 prototype at the Edwards AFB shortly before recovery. (AFFTCHO)
The second XP-81 prototype at the Edwards AFB shortly before recovery. The helicopter shadow visible is possibly an H-21 ‘Flying Banana’ (AFFTCHO)
The second XP-81 prototype preparing to be transported. (AFFTCHO)
The second XP-81 prototype preparing to be transported. (AFFTCHO)

Sources:
Ginter, S. (2006). Consolidated Vultee XP-81. Simi Valley: Steve Ginter., Jenkins, D. R., & Landis, T. R. (2008). Experimental and Prototype: U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters. North Branch: Specialty Press., Wegg, J. (1990). General Dynamics Aircraft: And their Predecessors. London: Putnam Aeronautical Books., Baugher, J. (1991). Convair XP-81.,  National Museum of the US Air Force (n.d.). Convair XP-81. Images: Side Profile Views by Escodrion – https://escodrion.deviantart.com

 

Gasuden Kōken-ki

Empire of Japan, WW2,

 Empire of Japan (1937)
Long Range Research Aircraft- 1 Built

The Gasuden Kōken-ki was Japan’s attempt at building a world record setting plane for the longest distance covered in a non-stop flight. First conceived in 1931 to surpass John Polando and Russell Boardman’s flight, the Kōken-ki would have a slow development finally completed and ready for flight on August 8th of 1937. Though 6 years late and many other world records for distance had been set, the Kōken-ki still managed to prove its worth on May 13th of 1938 where it made a non-stop flight in a closed-circuit course in Japan covering 7239.58 mi (11651.011 km), a record that Japan would hold until 1939.

History

In the 1920s and 1930s, many countries were competing against each other for setting aviation-related world records, be it endurance, speed or distance. The goal of establishing a long distance world record was one of the most popular ambitions a country could have. The 1931 world record was established by John Polando and Russell Boardman, flying a Bellanca J-300 Special nicknamed “Cape Cod” from Floyd Bennett Field in New York to Istanbul, Turkey. The distance covered by these two men spanned 5011 miles (8066 km). The Empire of Japan was by no means idle in the conquest for setting the world record. The Kōkū Kenkyūjo (Aeronautical Research Institute) began to formulate a design proposal in the latter half of 1931 for a plane that would be able to beat Polando and Boardman’s record flight. The Kōkū Kenkyūjo was on good terms with the Tokyo Imperial University, and convinced them to put their design forward to the Monbushō (Ministry of Education). The design proposal moved rapidly through the approval process and eventually made its way to the Kokkai (Diet). Relatively confident in the design, the Kokkai approved the Kōkū Kenkyūjo’s design and provided them with a monetary grant.

A factory worker fitting parts on the tail section of the Kōken-ki. (Arawasi)

With adequate funding and support of the government, the Kōkū Kenkyūjo began to formally investigate the matter of designing the plane. The plane was now named the Kōken-ki (航研機). The man responsible for overseeing the project was Dr. Koroku Wada, with professor Keikichi Tanaka assisting him. Many members of the design staff were from the engineering department of the Tokyo Imperial University. Various committees were also formed for the purpose of designing the Kōken-ki. It would take two years until the basic design was completed. By the time the design was finished in August of 1934 however, another world record had been set by French aviators by the names of Maurice Rossi and Paul Codos. The French aviators were able to surpass the previous record set by Polando and Boardman by 645 miles / 1038 km by flying their Blériot 110 monoplane from New York to Rayak, Syria on August 5th of 1933. The Japanese were confident that they would soon be able to best this record, as they’d designed the Kōken-ki to endure 8078 miles (13000 km) of flight.

The next step for the Kōken-ki was construction, but this process would be slow as the advanced design of the Kōken-ki had to be completed first. Various components and tooling would be manufactured the following year. The Tokyo Gas and Electric Industry (known as Gasuden) was selected to be the manufacturer of the airframe, while Kawasaki Kokuki KK. was selected to manufacture the powerplant, which would be a licensed Japanese made version of the German BMW VII engine. Once the advanced design was completed, construction began. Due to the fact that Gasuden was relatively inexperienced with metal fabrication, the construction of the Kōken-kid would be delayed. The major components of the Kōken-ki were finally completed on March 31st of 1937, and were promptly moved to a hanger owned by the Teikoku Kaibo Gikai (Imperial Maritime Defence Volunteer Association) at Haneda Airport where it was to be assembled. On August 8th of 1937, the assembly was completed and the Kōken-ki was ready for its maiden flight.

Test pilots for the plane were carefully selected as testing the potential record setter was a matter of great importance to the Japanese. A decision was finally made with Major Yuzo Fujita as the pilot, Master Sergeant Fukujiro takahashi as the co-pilot and Flight Engineer 

From left to right is Major Fujita Yuzo, Flight Engineer Sekine Chiaichi and Master Sergeant. (Arawasi)

Chikakichi Sekine as the flight engineer. All of these men belonged to the Imperial Japanese Army’s Rikugun Kokugijutsu Kenkyū (Air Technical Research Institute) and had been involved with the design of the Kōken-ki since the start. The long awaited maiden flight finally took place on May 25th of 1937. The test flight went well with no problems to report, so plans for the Kōken-ki’s official record setting flight was set in motion. More test flights had to be completed, so the three men continued fly the Kōken-ki. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union’s own Tupolev ANT-25 made its record flight on June 18th of 1937 where it flew from Moscow over the North Pole and landed in Vancouver, Washington. This flight took the Russian pilots 63 hours and covered 5670 mi (9130 km). The Japanese however, were not concerned as the Kōken-ki’s range was surely able to surpass this. 

The first attempt for setting the world record was conducted by Japan on November 13th of 1937. Unfortunately for the Japanese, a landing gear failure surfaced and the Kōken-ki had to be grounded for months until May 10th of 1938. This second attempt was also met with a problem, as the autopilot system malfunctioned. This problem was far simpler to remedy than the landing gear, and was rapidly repaired. On May 13th at 4:55 AM, the Kōken-ki successfully took off from Kisarazu Naval Air Base near Tokyo Bay to break the world record. To verify the authenticity of the flight, Imperial Japanese Navy Lieutenant-Commander Tomokazu Kajjiki was to monitor the

A poster advertising Nisshin’s salad oil, with the Kōken-ki displayed in the background. (Arawasi)

flight as he was the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale’s (World Air Sports Federation) representative for Japan. The flight plan of the Kōken-ki was to follow a square shaped course that would lead to Choshi from Kisarazu, then to Ohta and back to Kisarazu. Many minor problems occurred during the flight, such as a tear in the water cooler. The Kōken-ki flew the square course for 29 laps nonstop, and finally completed its task of setting the world record, amassing a total distance of 7239.58 mi (11651.011 km). The Kōken-ki landed back at Kisarazu at 7:21 PM of May 15th after almost 63 hours. Upon landing, the flight of the Kōken-ki was officially approved as a world record by the FAI. It is noteworthy that the Kōken-ki was reported to still have about 132 US gallons (500 L) of fuel left, meaning that it could have potentially flown another 745 mi (1200 km). Nonetheless, it was an achievement which made the nation proud. The Kōken-ki was then featured on many advertisement posters in Japan.

The Japanese were able to hold the world record for about 15 months before being beaten by the Italians in August of 1939. The Italians flew a Savoia-Marchetti SM.82 and covered a distance of 8038 mi / 12936 km over a closed-circuit course. Nonetheless, the flight by the Kōken-ki was still an incredible feat for the Japanese, as it was the first and only Japanese plane to obtain a FAI world record at the time. After the record setting flight, the Kōken-ki would mostly remain in the Kaibo Gikai hangar where it was first assembled. Occasionally, the Kōkū Kenkyūjo would and perform test flights for various purposes. After the Kōken-ki was past its prime, the Japanese wanted to see if they could further improve their long distance flight. In the eyes of professor Hidemasa Kimura, the Kōken-ki was only useful for challenging the world record for distance, but not for anything else. As such, Kimura decided to design a plane which would be capable of flying from Tokyo to New York, a route spanning 6737 mi (10842 km). The work of this would result in the Tachikawa Ki-77, or A-26.

From left to right, Chikaichi, Takahashi and Fujita receiving the Japanese “Yokosho” medal for their feat. (Arawasi)

The Kōken-ki flew for the last time on June 14th of 1939 as a commemoration for Major Fujita, the pilot of the record flight who was killed in combat in China.  After Major Fujita’s funeral flight, the Kōken-ki was stored in the Haneda Airport and remained there for the entire duration of World War II in relatively pristine condition. However after Japan surrendered, American occupational forces began to arrive and began a long process of demilitarizing Japan. Upon reaching Haneda airport, all of the Japanese planes there ,military or not, were targeted for destruction. The Kōken-ki and every other Japanese plane present at the airport was towed to the field and burnt in a mass pile, thus bringing an ungraceful end to the Kōken-ki.

Design

A closeup on the Kawasaki-built BMW VIII engine.

The Gasuden Kōken-ki had an all-metal semi-monocoque fuselage which housed a Kawasaki-built German BMW VIII engine driven by a Sumitomo SW-4 two-bladed metal-shrouded wooden propeller. The wings of the Kōken-ki were carefully designed with the intent of allowing it to operate in thinner air. The cantilever wings were constructed using a Kōken-ki Model 4 aerofoil shape, with about 17.5% thickness. The wingtips however, had a different material which was Kōken-ki Model 11 alloy. This aerofoil only had 4% thickness. The resulting wings had an aspect ratio of 8.7. As the plane was designed with range and endurance in mind. 14 fuel tanks were installed in the wings allowing for 1538 US gallons (5822 L) of fuel. A system was also installed which would allow the fuel to even out in all the tanks in order to maintain center of gravity. The landing gear of the Kōken-ki was retractable in order to reduce drag and once retracted, fairings would cover the landing gear wells. The cockpit was set on the left side of the plane, giving it an asymmetrical design. The Kōken-ki’s windshield could be extended and folded in order to reduce drag. Only when taking off and landing would it be extended. This design was a hindrance for the pilots as they reported poor visibility and control. The Kōken-ki was completely metal, with the exception of fabric covers which were fitted over the control surfaces and wings.

Operators

  • Empire of Japan – The Gasuden Kōken-ki was operated solely by Japanese pilots for all the flights it flew.

Gasuden Kōken-ki
Wingspan 91 ft 7 in / 27.9 m
Length 49 ft 5 in / 15.1 m
Height 11 ft 9 in / 3.6 m
Wing Area 939.7 ft² / 87.3 m²
Wing Loading 21.6 lb/ft² / 105.9 kg/m²
Power Loading 25.3 lb/hp / 11.5kg/hp
Engine 1x Kawasaki-built BMW VIII 12-cylinder water cooled V-engine (715 hp)
Propeller 1x Sumitomo SW-4 two-bladed metal-shrouded wooden propeller
13 ft 1.5 in / 400 cm
Fuel Load 1538 US gallons / 5822 L
Empty Weight 9314 lb / 4225 kg
Loaded Weight 20317 lb / 9216 kg
Maximum Speed 155 mph / 250 kmh at Sea Level
152 mph / 244 kmh at 6562 ft / 2000 m
Cruising Speed 131 mph / 211 kmh at 6562 ft / 2000 m
Range 8078 mi / 13000 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 11187 ft / 3410 m
Crew 1x Pilot
1x Co-Pilot
1x Flight Engineer

Gallery

Kōken-ki sideart by Ed Jackson
The Kōken-ki being prepped for flight by ground crew and an armed guard. (Arawasi)
The Kōken-ki taking off. (Arawasi)
Underside view of the Koken with its gear retracted.
The Kōken-ki in the factory during construction. Note the exposed engine. (Arawasi)
Engineers working on the Kōken-ki. (Arawasi)
A poster advertising Nitto’s black tea. The Kōken-ki is featured in the background. (Arawasi)
A 1939 postage stamp commemorating the Kōken-ki’s record flight. (Arawasi)
A replica of the Koken-ki on display in a museum in Japan

A Series of Youtube Videos on the World Record Attempt:

Sources

Takenaka, K. (2007). Koken Long-range Research-plane., Swopes, B. (2017). 13–15 May 1938., Tupolev ANT-25 Soviet Long Range Record Setter. (n.d.). Fiddler’s Green., Mikesh, R. C., & Abe, S. (1990). Japanese aircraft, 1910-1941. Ann Arbor, MI: Naval Institute., Dyer, E. M. (2015). Japanese Secret Projects: Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1922-1945. Ian Allan Publishing. Images: Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com, Other images from http://arawasi-wildeagles.blogspot.com/

 

Republic F-74 Thundercloud (Fictional)

Fake Aircraft

usa flag USA (1946)
Fictional Prototype Fighter Bomber – 11 Built

Inspired by the Kyushu J7W and Curtiss-Wright XP-55, the P-later-F-74’s radical wing designs lifted its position in aviation history to the jet age’s dawn. With a canard layout and its inverted, swept-back gull wings, this little-known fighter-bomber was a broad new attempt at close air support by Republic Aviation. Meet the unnamed member of the “Thunder family” – F-74 Thundercloud.

History

After Japan’s surrender in 1945, the U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan immediately commenced. Found at an abandoned hangar of the Itazuke Air Base, an aircraft with a radical design caught everybody’s eyes. This is the Kyushu J7W Shinden, an interceptor with a canard layout and a pusher engine at the back, similar to the U.S. Army’s XP-55 Ascender. Along with other interesting Japanese designs, the J7W was dismantled, crated, and shipped to the U.S.

Immediately after the Second World War, USAAF launched their next generation multirole strike fighter program. The winning project of the contract would be awarded the codename P-74. However, most major companies such as North American and Lockheed were busy creating their first jets, leaving Republic Aviation the only participant. Impressed by the J7W’s perfect integration of nose-mounted weapons and the large but streamlined fuselage that houses powerful engines, Republic decided to give it a shot, as a then-intermediate candidate of the P-84 Thunderjet.

Design

The F-74 was an all-metal, monocoque, low-wing cantilever monoplane. Its unique canard layout consisted of a pair of compound delta wings that integrated an inverted “gull wing” design with a pair of dihedral wing tips that houses the ailerons, and a pair of smaller, less swept back trapezoidal canards at the front of the aircraft, immediately behind and above the modular weapon bay. Two vertical stabilizers are positioned at the joint between the main wing and the wingtips, with anti-skid wheels on the bottom. A pair of long and narrow side intakes drew upcoming air into the rear-mounted, air-cooled radial engine (R-3350 or 4360) that drove a set of four wide paddle blade style constant speed propellers [1].

The nose-mounted weapon bay could be easily swapped at any frontline airfield to suit different combat scenarios, ranging from the basic “six-pack” .50 machine guns to a pair of powerful 37mm cannons. The powerful R-4360 engine also allowed an assortment of weapons to be carried under its wing pylons, ranging from unguided rockets, general purpose and napalm bombs, to machinegun pods that further enhance the aircraft’s firepower.

Not Your Average Cumulonimbus

Only one year after Republic “won” the contract by being the sole participant, on 17th August 1946, the XP-74-A-0-RE prototype flew for the first time. With a R-3350 engine and simulated counterweights instead of guns, the aircraft displayed favorable control characteristics. Its low-speed handling was surprisingly well for an aircraft this size, thanks to its large wing area and powerful pitching leverage provided by the front-placing canards. The only two complaints of the test pilot were its large torque on the takeoff roll and the fragile rear propeller he broke on landing. The first problem was addressed by applying more trim, with the second one solved by adding a pair of anti-skid wheels under the vertical stabilizers.

However, the Army paused the XP-74 project in favor of the jets. The project was also overshadowed inside Republic themselves, because their jet replacement of the P-47 Thunderbolt – the XP-84 Thunderjet – already took to the skies six months before XP-74 did. All testings were halted and the project group was dissolved, despite the emergence of another high-altitude interceptor variant, the XP-74B.

Luckily, the newly-formed USAF changed the fate of this plane one year later. Facing threats of probable “Communist-containing” wars (Korean War and subsequently Vietnam War), the Air Force needs a reliable attacker with a large payload as a suitable backup to the new and unreliable jets. The Thundercloud was revived under the name of F-74. Republic offered the USAF an improved version, dubbed as the F-74D. With a powerful R-4360 radial engine and four 20mm AN/M3 cannons, this machine could rain down deadly ordnances at an incredible efficiency [2]. Five D-variants fought during the Korean War, with one of them later modified for the Project GunVal, carrying four T-160 cannons as an experimental configuration. After the retirement of all F-74s, some were acquired by NACA and later NASA as X-74s for experimental airfoil research.

Variants

  • XP-74A-0-RE – Initial prototype for the USAAF. First flight on 15th Aug. 1946. No armament, R-3350 engine.
  • YP-74A-1-RE – Small pre-production series starting from Dec. 1946. Armed with 6 Browning M3 12.7mm MGs. 5 built.
  • P-74B – High-altitude heavy interceptor variant. 2x 37mm M10 cannons and 2x M3 12.7mm MGs. R-4360 engine with supercharger. None built.
  • F-74D-1-RE – Ground attack variant for the USAF. 4x 20mm AN/M3 cannons, R-4360 engine without supercharger. 5 built, 3 converted from A-1 variant in 1949.
  • F-74D-2-RE – Testbed for T-160 autocannons during Project GunVal in 1953. 4x 20mm T-160 cannons. 1 converted from F-74D-1.
  • X-74A – Two aircraft served for NACA and later NASA for experimental airfoil research. R-4360 engines with supercharger. 2 converted from YP-74A pre-production models.

Operators

  • [USA] – Evaluated by the U.S. Army and later Air Force. 8 deployed in the Korean War. Retired 1953[3]. 2 used by NACA/NASA. Fate unknown.

 

Republic XP-74/YP-74/F-74 Specifications
Wingspan 41 ft 2 in / 12.54 m
Length 44 ft 2 in / 13.46 m
Height 15 ft 1 in / 4.59 m with landing gears
Wing Area 322.05 ft² / 29.92 m²
Engine 1x R-3350-23 (2,200 hp) (A model only)

1x R-4360-31 (3,000 hp) (other variants)
Empty Weight 11,000 lb / 4763 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 19,000 lb / 8618 kg
Fuel Capacity 1514 L internal, up to 3x 416L drop tanks
Climb Rate 15m/s at sea level (D-1 model)
Maximum Speed 430 mph / 692 kmh at 10,000 ft / 3,048 m
Cruising Speed 400 mph / 644 kmh
Range 750 mi / 1207 km on internal fuel, D model
Maximum Service Ceiling 36,900 ft / 11,200 m for A-1

26,000 ft / 7,925 m for D-1
Crew 1x Pilot
Armament A-1:

6x 12.7mm Browning M3 (400 rpg)

B:

2x 12.7mm Browning M3 (400 rpg)

2x 37mm Browning M10 (60 rpg)

D-1:

4x 20mm AN/M3 (250 rpg)

D-2

4x Ford T-160 (150 rpg)

Gallery

 

Sources

“Literally Fake News”, The Fake News Department of the United States of America, September 1946., “The Republic F-74D” official promotion booklet, Republic Aviation, 1949., “A Brief History of the Rice Field Attackers in Korea and Vietnam”, Tingwong Sum, 1983., Images: Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com

 

Mitsubishi G7M “Taizan”

Empire of Japan, WW2, , , ,

 Empire of Japan (1941)
Strategic Bomber- 1 Scale Mockup Built

The Mitsubishi G7M “Taizan” (泰山/Great Mountain) was a planned long range strategic bomber for Imperial Japan’s Army Air Service. Developed out of the need for a bomber capable of striking the continental United States, the Taizan would face a series of developmental problems, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the project.

History

Prior to the start of World War II, Japan had foreseen that in a potential future conflict with the United States, it would require a long range bomber capable of striking the US mainland. In order to fulfill this requirement, a review was conducted in 1941 of all the Imperial Japanese Navy’s bomber aircraft in service. It was revealed that the entirety of the Japanese bomber arsenal was incapable of striking targets in the United States from the Japanese airfields. The Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” was one of Japan’s newest aircraft being pushed into service. Despite its superior range of 3,749 mi (6,043 km) compared to previous IJN bombers, it still was not sufficient enough to strike the US mainland or targets deep in the Soviet Union. As a result of this, the Naval Kōkū Hombu (Aviation Bureau) issued the 16-shi specification in 1941 for a long range bomber. The 16-shi specification would call for a bomber capable of flying at least 361 mph (580 km/h) with a maximum range of 4,598 mi (7,340 km).

Interested in this specification, Mitsubishi’s staff began work on a design that would meet the criteria set by the Kōkū Hombu. Mitsubishi engineer Kiro Honjo (the designer of the G3M and G4M) proposed a four engine design, but this was promptly rejected by the Kōkū Hombu. As a result, another Mitsubishi engineer by the name of Kijiro Takahashi submitted his own design. Upon inspection by the Kōkū Hombu, Honjo’s design was approved and given the green light to proceed. Within Mitsubishi, the 16-shi design was known as the “M-60”. Takahashi’s design was to be powered by two “Nu” engines. The Nu was a 24 cylinder liquid cooled engine which was able to provide 2,200 hp at 16,404 ft (5,000 m) but, due to the start of Operation Barbarossa, Germany was unable to export machinery and tools needed to manufacture the Nu engine. Unfortunately for Takahashi, this turn of events would prevent his design from being completed. As a result of this, Takahashi fell out with the Kōkū Hombu and Kiro Honjo would take over the M-60 project. This time, Honjo followed the Kōkū Hombu’s suggestion and used two engines instead of his idea of four. Under Honjo’s lead, the Taizan’s power plant was changed to two 18 cylinder Mitsubishi Ha-42-11 engines capable of generating 2,000 hp each. It was also seen that Honjo’s design was less aerodynamic than Takahashi’s due to the weaker engines and heavier armament.

On October 31st of 1942, an evaluation was conducted on the work done so far, and a performance estimation gave the Taizan a range of 3,454 mi (5,559 km) and a speed of 332 mph (518 km/h) at 16,404 mi (5,000 m). Falling short of the original 16-shi specification, Mitsubishi scrambled to make adjustments but further revised estimates stated that the design didn’t see any improvements, and actually saw some deterioration. By the time the Taizan’s design was completed in late 1942 and ready for construction of a wooden mockup, a new 17-shi specification was released calling for a new bomber design. Kawanishi took up the design and created the K-100 bomber project. Seeing promise and a better alternative to the Taizan, the Kōkū Hombu ordered all work on the Taizan to be halted until the K-100 could be completed and evaluated. Kawanishi completed initial work on the K-100 and a comparison was made between K-100 and Taizan in the summer of 1943. The Taizan’s range differed significantly from the proposed normal range from 2,302 mi (3,705 km) to 1,726 mi (2,778 km). Due to the significant range reduction, the Kōkū Hombu stopped supporting the Taizan. With no more interest and reason to develop the Taizan, Mitsubishi would finally shelve the project and stop all work on it.

Design

From an exterior aesthetic point of view, the Taizan bears a striking resemblance to the German Heinkel He 177. The nose of the Taizan was rounded and glazed over, a new design not in use by any Japanese bombers at the time. The wings of the Taizan were mounted mid fuselage, and were to be constructed out of metal. Fabrics, however, were to be used for the cover of the Taizan’s ailerons and rudder.

Ordinance wise, the Taizan was to carry a maximum bomb load of 1,764 lbs (800 kg). The defensive armament underwent several changes. Takahashi’s Taizan design was to be armed with two 20mm Type 99 Mk.2 cannons and two 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns. Honjo’s initial design would carry two 20mm Type 99 Mk.2 cannons, two 13mm Type 2 machine guns and two 7.92mm Type 1 machine guns. Later on, the armament finalized at two 20mm Type 99 Mk.2 cannons and six 13mm Type 2 machine guns. There would have been one Type 99 Mk.2 in the nose and one in the tail. There would have been two Type 2 machine guns in the forward upper fuselage turret, two in the rear fuselage turret and two in ventral position, firing rearwards.

Operators

  • Empire of Japan – The Taizan would have been operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service.

 

Mitsubishi G7M1 “Taizan” *

*Estimated performance of Mitsubishi’s G7M1 proposal
Wingspan 82 ft / 25 m
Length 65 ft 6 in / 20 m
Height 20 ft / 6.09 m
Engine 2x Mitsubishi Ha-42-11 (2,000 hp)
Power Loading 8.8 lbs/hp / 3.99 kg/hp
Empty Weight 23,368 lbs / 10,600 kg
Usual Weight 35,273 lbs / 16,000 kg
Fuel Capacity 4,497 L / 1,188 US Gallon
Climb Rate 32,808 ft / 10,000 m in 10 minutes
Maximum Speed 344 mph / 544 kmh @ 26246 ft / 5,000 m
Typical Range 1,739 mi / 2,799 km
Maximum Range 4,598 mi / 7,400 km
Crew 7
Defensive Armament 6x 13x64mm Type 2 machine guns

2x 20×101mm Type 99 Mk.2 cannons
Ordnance / Bomb Load 1,764 lb / 800 kg – Maximum

Gallery

 

Artist’s conception of the operational G7M Taizan

Sources

Dyer, E. M. (2013). Japanese secret projects: experimental aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945. Burgess Hill: Classic., Aircrafts of Imperial Japanese Navy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from http://zenibo-no-milimania.world.coocan.jp/epljn.html, Images: Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com

 

Saab 340 AEWC

Modern Aviation, Sweden Modern, , ,

sweden flag Sweden (1997)
 Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEWC) Aircraft- 12 Built

The Saab 340B AEW&C and the Saab 2000 AEW&C are airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) airplanes that were developed from the basic Saab 340B airplane, a twin-engine turboprop regional airliner developed and built in partnership with the now defunct American aircraft manufacturer Fairchild Aircraft .  The model was named “Metro III” when manufactured by Fairchild Aircraft. The Saab 2000 AEW&C is based upon the Saab 2000 airliner,it being a variant of the basic Saab 340B model. These airborne radar models came from the inventiveness of the Flygvapnet, as the idea of fitting the basic transport model already in service emerged considering the gaps the Flygvapnet had regarding the type of air asset. This paid off as the Nordic nation is now equipped with an airborne and air control (flying) system that provides a very valuable tool for the Flygvapnet to monitor the Swedish skies and even abroad, as the post-Cold War era meant new missions beyond national defence for the Swedish Armed Forces in general. The basic 340B  version was, despite its initial non-military use, a display of technological advancement with advanced avionics and a product of the company’s desire to revive its interests in the civil market after the not entirely successful Saab Scandia 90, in the 50’s.

The Saab 340B AEW&C (Saab 340B) is a twin-engine turboprop medium size airliner, capable of carrying more than 30 passengers and with a conventional design, mainly for short-range regional flights. The main airframe is cylindrical, with the wings placed near the middle section of the airplane and of trapezoid and thin configuration. The nose is not rounded being rather sloped downwards, and the wings and horizontal control surfaces being angled upwards. The engines are not beneath the wings, as the configuration is that of a low-wing airplane; instead, they are placed above the wings and logically enrooted in them. The Saab 2000 differs from the basic model in the sense that it is larger, wider, slightly taller and with more wing area.

The Saab 340B AEW&C is powered by two General Electric CT7-9B turboprops of 1870 hp with a Dowty Rotol (or Hamilton Standard) 14RF19 four-blade constant speed propeller each, allowing the airplane to reach a cruise speed of 522 km/h (325 mph). The Saab 2000 AEW&C also has a different powerplant, being 2 Allison/Rolls Royce AE 2100A turboprop engines of 4,591 hp with a Dwoty Rotol six-bladed constant speed propellers each, having improved performance than the 340B version: for instance, the cruise speed it can reach is up to 629,68 km/h (391,26 mph).

Given the role of the airframes, both are fitted with an Ericsson Erieye (PS-890) radar installed above the main airframe, with a range of S-band, 3 GHz (GigaHertz) with a range of 160 degrees on each side. The radar is a rectangular pod, in contrast with the radars one would see on more classical AEW&C planes (for example the Boeing E-3 Sentry or the Ilyushin A-50). The radar has a range of 300-400 km capable of detecting sea and airborne targets.

History

The A 340B AEW&C (S 100B Argus) came to be with the idea of having a Swedish modified AEW&C asset and an alternative to the comparatively more expensive Boeing E-3 AWACS. The Flygvapnet was already operating with a Saab 340B for VIP transport, designated TP 100A, and that same airframe was to be the basis for the new airborne defence and air control radar. By the mid-90s, the first unit entered in service with the Flygvapnet. A total of six airframes were ordered: four with the radar already installed and two without the radar, prepared to have it installed when needed and serving as VIP transports during peacetime. As mentioned above, the Saab 340B AEW&C (S 100B Argus) is based upon the commercial airliner Saab 340B, which is a good platform given its structural characteristics, avionics, and performance. This airframe began its development in the 70s, with the propulsion system that it has being chosen as it was more economic than the jet propulsion system back then. It is reported that cost/efficiency considerations and the effects of the 1973 Oil Crisis made the company to pick the turboprop propulsion system. The US Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 gave further impulse for the basic model to be developed. This airplane was developed and built jointly with Fairchild Aircraft, mainly due to the fact that Saab thought the production capacity would not be enough. As a result, from 1980 to 1987, Fairchild was tasked with manufacturing the wings, the tail, and the engine nacelles. Saab, in turn, was tasked with manufacturing the main airframe, covering the 75% of development costs and the system integration and certification. The first Saab 340 flew in 1983, with the first airplane serving with an airline in 1984. After Fairchild ceased operations, Saab began to fully manufacture the Saab 340, doing so until 1999. The Saab 2000 came to be due to a decision in 1988 by Saab to develop an elongated version of the Saab 340 capable of carrying up to 50 passengers, having the same economic efficiency along with better climbing performance. Its first flight was in 1992, entering into service in 1994.

Currently, the S 340B AEW&C (S 100B Argus) operates in the Flygvapnet with 4 units sporting radar equipment and two additional units serving as VIP transports, ready to have the radars installed when needed. Its production was also finished in 1999, with 12 AEW&C units built: six for the Flygvapnet, 2 for the Royal Thai Air Force and 2 for the Pakistan Air Force, with 2 more under production for the United Arab Emirates Air Force. 2 modified airframes were loaned for the Hellenic Air Force from 2000 to 2003, while Greece received two Embraer RJ-145 AEW&C aircrafts fitted with the same Ericsson Erieye radars. It is noteworthy to state that of the basic airliner version, 460 units were built. Of the Saab 2000 airliner version, 63 were built; in turn, the Saab 2000 AEW&C version was introduced in 2010 for the Pakistan Air Force, with 8 units built so far and operating with the Pakistan Air Force, the Royal Saudi Air Force and the United Arab Emirates Air Force. Three more units would be delivered for the Pakistani Air Force.

Design

The Saab 340B AEW&C design is based on the Saab 340B commercial airliner, while the Saab 2000 AEW&C is based on the Saab 2000 commercial airliner. As such, the airframe is the basically the same except that the former has the radar placed above the airframe, and other electronic equipment installed in the airplane. The airplane is of a dihedral wing design, which  means the wings are placed at the base of the airframe and angled upwards. It had two turboprop engines and an airframe built entirely of aluminium with the same construction techniques other Saab military fighters had: usage of bonding instead of rivets, reducing the overall weight of the airplane. It also has wider horizontal stabilizers, a vibration control system in the cabin to reduce the noise from the engines, and more powerful engines (the two General Electric CT7-9B turboprops of 1870 hp).

The wing and the horizontal control surfaces or stabilizers are dihedral, with the angle of the former being more prominent than the angle of the main wings. Both the wings and the horizontal stabilizers are both of trapezoid shape, being very thin – or simply not having that much of surface area. The engines are located at a quarter of the main wings, close to the main airframe. The main wings are located at the middle of the airframe, with the airframe being of tubular shape. The bow section of the airframe has a shape that varies according from the view or perspective. From an upper view, it has a parabolic nose cone; from a side view the shape is divided, with the area between the very roof and the windscreen having and inclination of around 38 degrees negative, and from the lower section of the windscreen to the tip of the nose, an angle of 30 degrees negative. The tip of the nose from a side view is placed at the lower section of the airframe, with the interior bow section from where the frontal landing gear is placed, to the tip, having an angle upwards of 10 degrees. The central section of the airplane is of cylindrical shape.

The aft or stern section of the airplane comprises the horizontal and vertical control surfaces, and two ventral tails fins. The tail is of conventional type with a sort of “double-delta” configuration; this is, the surface having at the forward area different angles. The forward section of the tail, from the central area of the airframe to the area where the horizontal control surfaces are placed, has an angle of nearly 15 degrees. From the aforementioned section to the tip of the tail the angle is of 45 degrees. From an upper view, the rear section is of conical shape, whereas from a side view the upper area of the aft section is lightly going downwards, and the interior part has an upwards angle of around 15 degrees. The ventral fins are placed right beneath the horizontal control surfaces. The rudder dominates half of the tail. And there is an elongating radome at the very rear part of the aircraft. The landing gear is of tricycle configuration, with the frontal landing gear placed at the nose cone (beneath the cockpit) and the two landing gear trains placed beneath the engine gondolas, them being retractable with storage inside the engine gondolas.

The Saab 2000 AEW&C has a similar structure to that of the 340, except that it is more elongated in width and length, the inferior section of the nose being entirely straight and the engines having more distance from the main fuselage. It also lacks the ventral tail fins the Saab 340B AEW&C (S 100B Argus) has.

The engines powering the aircraft are two General Electric CT7-9B turboprops of 1870 hp with a Dowty Rotol (or Hamilton Standard) 14RF19 four-blade constant speed propeller. Thanks to the powerplant, the airplane can reach a maximum cruising speed of 524 km/h (325,60 mph). The aircraft is fitted with devices to reduce the noise generated by the engines. The Saab 2000 AEW&C is powered by two 2 Allison/Rolls Royce AE 2100A turboprop engines of 4,591 hp with a Dwoty Rotol six-bladed constant speed propellers each, allowing a cruise speed of 629,68 km/h (391,26 mph).

The AEW&C version has the Ericsson Erieye radar placed above the central section of the airframe, supported by a series of pillars that connects it to the main airframe and with a slight inclination downwards from stern to bow. Ventral antennas are installed at the inferior area of the fuselage.

The canopy is of conventional type, typical of any commercial or transport aircraft, with two frontal windscreens, and a lateral windscreen at each side of the cockpit. The crew on the Saab 340 AEW&C (S 100B Argus) is normally six.

Fitting a civilian for defence duties

Perhaps surprisingly, the Flygvapnet lacked an airborne AEW&C system during the late Cold War, relying instead on either smaller airborne assets for surveillance or land radar stations. The Flygvapnet decided to close this gap by ordering Ericsson Microwave Systems to develop the PS-890 Erieye radar by the late 80s, with the airframe that would be used undergoing the first trials by the same period. This idea was, in fact, proposed back in the 70s but rejected. It was revived again in the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag) in 1982. As the Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS was deemed too expensive, it is no surprise that the Saab 340 airliner was chosen by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration as the platform for the airborne radar system. the Flygvapnet was already operating with a Saab 340B which was being operated as a VIP transport. In any case, it was a very good decision, considering the Saab 340B is a very economic airplane thanks to its powerplant’s configuration and the advanced basis avionics and electronics, which was hence an economic alternative to the E-3 Sentry. In combination with the Erieye radar, it makes a suitable platform for an airborne radar for Sweden. The Saab 2000 is an example of how this concept has evolved by incorporating the Erieye into an equally economical yet very capable airframe, which a derivative from the basic model.

The Eye of Odin

The radar installed in the Saab 340B AEW&C (S 100B Argus) is the Ericsson Microwave System Erieye PS-890 multi-mode active electronically scanned array (AESA) pulse-doppler radar, which makes the airplane a very remarkable AEW&C aircraft, considering its capacities. Its development began in 1985 after the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, with a dummy dual-sided phased antenna being tested on the future platform, which was tested in trial two years later. It has 200 solid-state modules mounted in the antenna, with an S-band frequency and 3 GHz, with a ‘look’ on each side of 120 degrees and a reach of up to 300-400 km at an altitude of 6096 meters (20,000 ft). It has an altitude reach of up to 20 km (65,000 ft), yet leaves the nose and tail areas as blind spots. This shortcoming is compensated by the fact the radar – with this design in particular – can provide improved detection and better tracking thanks to the electronically scanned beam, at the point of being able to scan other areas while concentrating on a single target. Moreover, the PS-890 Erieye can detect and track fighters, helicopters, cruise missiles and even very small targets at the sea, as it has also a sea surveillance mode. Moreover, sectors deemed important can be scanned with different modes at a single moment, being capable of performing in electronically saturated environments and as an all-weather device, and can discern between friend and foes through its IFF capacities and devices.

This is suitable for the Flygvapnet considering that the dimensions it has to watch for are the air and the sea (even more as the Baltic sea is the most important body of water at the East, an area from which most of the threats have come historically, and even currently). As such, it can perform air and sea surveillance missions, Command and Control, Intelligence, control of own assets, surveillance and control of national borders, national assets and national economic zones, search and rescue, alert warning and air policing. The system is compatible with NATO airborne systems and standards.

The Erieye PS-890 radar has other electronic features, such as adaptive waveform generation with digital; pulse-coded electronic frames; signal processing and targeting, a track while scan device; low and medium pulse repetition frequency operating modes; frequency agility; target radar-cross section display; and air-to-air and sea surveillance modes.

Interestingly and despite the system being capable of receiving four multifunction workstations for airborne controllers, it can spare them as it has instead an onboard automatic systems datalink that can transmit to ground station the information gathered by the airborne radar, and with those same stations being capable of transmitting orders to the platform. The airplane and radar are both connected to the integrated Swedish Air Defence System and network StriC-90, thanks to this network, the airplane can maximize its operational performance, complementing in turn and even enhancing the capabilities of such system; this fact makes the Saab 340B AEW&C (S 100B Argus) airplanes very valuable assets in the Flygvapnet. And the same design of the radar module was the first of its kind, being also an alternative to the disc-shaped classical airborne radars. The radar developed by Ericsson is fitted in other similar airborne platforms such as the Embraer EMB-145/E-99 and the Bombardier Global 6000. It has now evolved into the Global Erieye airborne radar.

Variants of the Saab 340 AEW&C (S 100B Argus)

  • Saab 340 AEW&C / S 100B Argus – Airplanes having the PS-890/FSR-890 radar, and operated by the Royal Thai Air Force.
  • Saab 340B AEW&C 200 – Version fitted with the IS-340 Erieye radar
  • Saab 340B AEW&C 300 / S 100D Argus – Airplanes fitted with the upgraded PS-890/ASC-890 radar, capable of admitting from 1 to 4 operators.

Variants of the Saab 2000 AEW&C

  • Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C – Version fitted with an airborne Erieye radar
  • Saab 200 MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft) – Version for Maritime Patrol and capable of performing ASW, ASuW, anti-piracy/anti-narcotics/anti-people smuggling, maritime counter-terrorism operations, search and rescue, support for special forces, SIGINT, and fisheries patrol, among other sea-based security tasks.

Operators

  • Sweden – The Flygvapnet operates four Saab 340 AEW&C (S 100B Argus) fitted with the Erieye radar, alongside 2 additional airframes serving as transport planes, ready to have the radar installed in case it is needed. The first airframes were received in 1994, entering fully in service between 1997 and 1999, and serving in the F16M wing at Malmstatt. Normally, there are no operators onboard, being rather used as a part of the integrated air defence network.
  • Greece – The Hellenic Air Force decided to acquire the Erieye radar system with 4 units to be installed in Embraer RJ-145 airplanes. While waiting for the newly acquired system to arrive, 2 Saab 340B AEW&C airplanes were loaned by the Greeks in the year 2000. The loaned units were modified, having two to three operator consoles, NATO IFF, communications and datalinks having a ground bases system for information processing fitted for Greek standards, but lacking the Swedish ECCM and also the cockpit display processing information from ground stations. These airplanes were returned to the Flygvapnet by 2003.
  • Thailand – The Royal Thai Air Force has two Saab 340 AEW&C that received in October 2012.
  • United Arab Emirates – The United Arab Emirates Air force requested 2 airplanes, with the units delivered being Saab 2000 AEW&C. Now operational.
  • Saudi Arabia – The Royal Saudi Air Force reportedly operates two Saab 2000 AEW&C for border surveillance.
  • Pakistan – This country operates four Saab 2000 AEW&C airplanes. 2 more are reportedly on order.

 

Saab 340 AEW&C – S 100 B Argus Specifications
Wingspan 70 ft 4 in / 21.44 m
Length 66 ft 8 in / 20.33 m
Height 22 ft 11 in / 6.97 m
Wing Area 450 ft² / 41.81 m²
Engine Two General Electric CT7-9B turboprops of 1870 hp with a Dowty Rotol (or Hamilton Standard) 14RF19 four-blade constant speed propeller.
Empty Weight 22,707 lb / 10,300 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 29,101 lb / 13,200 kg
Loaded Weight 7,500 lb / 3,401 kg
Climb Rate 2,000 ft / 10,2 m/s
Maximum Speed 285 mph / 528 kmh
Cruising Speed 285 mph / 528 kmh
Range 900.988 mi / 1,450 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 25,000 ft / 7,620 m
Crew 6
Electronics
  • An Ericsson Erieye (PS-890) radar.
  • Länk 16, HQII, IFF, secure voice, m.m.

 

Saab 2000 AEW&C Specifications
Wingspan 81 ft 3 in / 24.76 m
Length 89 ft 6 in / 27.28 m
Height 25 ft 4 in / 7.73 m
Wing Area 600 ft² / 55.7 m²
Engine Two Allison/Rolls Royce AE 2100A turboprops of 4152 hp with a Dowty Rotol six-blade constant speed propeller.
Empty Weight 30,424 lb / 10,800 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 50,625 lb / 22,800 kg
Loaded Weight 13,010 lb / 5,900 kg
Climb Rate 2,250 ft / 11,4 m/s
Maximum Speed 391,26 mph / 929,68 kmh
Cruising Speed 391,26 mph / 929,68 kmh
Range 2,301.55 mi / 3,704 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 30,000 ft / 9,144 m
Crew 7
Electronics
  • An Ericsson Erieye (PS-890) radar.
  • Länk 16, Self-protection systems, IFF/SSR, secure voice, ESM/ELINT, AIS; Command and Control devices such as consoles and a latest generation HMI.

Gallery

Saab 340 AEW Blueprint

 

 

Sources

Deagel.com. (2017). Saab 2000 AEW&C., Forecast International. (2000). Saab 2000 (Archived Report)., Fredriksson, U. (2004). Saab 340AEW. X-plane.org., Pike, J. (1999). S 100B Argus, Saab 340 AEW&C. FAS.org., SAAB. (n.d.). SAAB 2000 Erieye AEW&C Airborne Early Warning & Control., SAAB. (2009). SAAB 340B/Bplus. SAAB Aircraft Leasing. SAAB. (2013a). Erieye AEW&C Mission System., SAAB. (2013b). SAAB Airborne Surveillance Solutions. SAAB. (2015). High Quality and Support in Focus – Saab 340 & SAAB 2000., SAAB. (2016). The First Airborne Radar in Sweden Underwent Final Testing 20 Years Ago., SAAB. (n.d.). Erieye SAAB 2000 AEW&C System. The Spyflight Website. (2003). SAAB S100B AEW&C Argus. Images: 340AEW Royal Thai Airforce by Alec Wilson / CC BY-SA 2.0, 340AEW by Gnolam / CC BY-SA 3.0,  Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com

Blohm & Voss BV 144

Weimar and Nazi Germany, WW2, , ,

nazi flag Nazi Germany (1940)
Prototype Passenger/Transport Plane – 2 Built

Born out of Deutsche Lufthansa’ vision of an advanced airliner to replace the aging Ju 52 after the war, the BV 144 is arguably one of the rather unique looking passenger airliner planes of the 20th century. Although designed by Blohm & Voss in 1940, the first flying prototype wouldn’t take to the air until 1944, when the development of the BV 144 was no longer relevant to its original purpose and the Germans were in full retreat.

History

With rapid advances in Western Europe throughout 1940, Nazi Germany was confident that the war would be over soon. With such conditions in mind, it was very reasonable for Deutsche Lufthansa to start drafting up plans for their commercial airliner services after the war. Looking for a new aircraft to replace their aging Junkers Ju 52 transport, Deutsche Lufthansa turned to Blohm & Voss in 1940 in hopes of an advanced airliner. The design was finalized in early 1941, and was ready to be constructed. With France recently defeated, the Germans decided to take advantage of the French industry and ordered two prototypes to be constructed at the Louis-Breguet Aircraft Company factory in Anglet, in the Nouvelle-Aquitaine province of France.

BV.144 in its assembly stage. Note the large forward lamp assembly in the nose.

Although construction started in 1941, the first prototype would not be completed until sometime between July and August of 1944. By this point, the war situation for Germany had became alarmingly worse and the BV 144 was no longer seen as important. Another factor which may have been the cause of the slow construction was the deliberate low effort put into construction by the French workers, as they didn’t wish to help Germany progress. Finally, in August of 1944, the first prototype of the BV 144 would take to the sky. Unfortunately for the Germans however, the Allied forces were moving rapidly through France after Operation Overlord. This meant the Germans were forced to abandon the BV 144 prototype due to their retreat.

After the Liberation of France, the Louis-Breguet Aircraft Company factory fell back into French hands, as well as the completed BV 144 prototype and the second unfinished prototype. Both were transported to Toulouse via road and received French registration numbers. Intrigued by the relatively advanced design, the French would continue testing the BV 144 post war. The second unfinished prototype was also completed by the French post war, but it is unknown whether or not this prototype flew before the termination of the BV 144 project once and for all. Both prototypes were scrapped.

Design

BV.144 seen with French markings

The BV 144 was an all metal monoplane with a distinguishing high wing design and a tricycle landing gear configuration. It would have been powered by two BMW 801 MA 18-cylinder engines generating 1600 horsepower. The wings were located at the shoulder position of the fuselage, giving the engines a large ground clearance. Combined with the relatively short tricycle landing gear, the design would be advantageous to passengers as the fuselage would be close to the ground, allowing much easier boarding and disembarking.

The cockpit consisted of a pilot and a co-pilot in a stepped cabin, as well as a compartment for a radio operator. Following this compartment, there would have been a cargo storage, a passenger compartment, a toilet and another cargo storage.  At the cost of some cargo and a less spacious passenger compartment, the passenger count could have been raised to 23 from the original 18.

BV.144-1
Forward view of the BV.144

Foreseeing problems with takeoff and landing, Blohm & Voss designed the plane with variable incidence wings, which meant there were electric-mechanical systems fitted into the BV 144 that allowed the wing to rotate 9 degrees around its tubular main spar within the plane. Such a system was previously tested in 1940 on the Blohm & Voss Ha 140V-3 hydroplane with success. This interesting system would have allowed the pilot to change the sweep angle of the wings during low speed landing and takeoffs without having to shift altitudes. It would also allow the pilot to have a slightly better view during landing. Along with that, long slotted flaps were also provided to aid in landing.

Side view of the BV.144 with French markings

Another interesting feature of the BV 144 was the aforementioned tubular main spar, which was patented by Richard Vogt, the chief designer for Blohm & Voss. Although quite light in terms of weight, the spar would have been able to provide excellent load carrying characteristics. On top of this, as a surprising feature, the spar could also have been used to carry extra fuel. The last notable feature of the BV 144 was the defrosting system located at both wingtips and the tail section. The system would have allowed the tips and tail to stay warm using heated air provided through an oil burner.

Operators

  • Nazi Germany – The BV 144 was intended to be used by the Deutsche Lufthansa, and possibly even the Luftwaffe as an advanced airliner meant for short-medium distance routes.
  • France – The French took over both prototypes of the BV 144 once the Germans retreated out of France and continue development of the plane postwar for a while before ultimately scrapping the project in the end.

Blohm & Voss BV 144
Wingspan 88 ft 7 in / 27 m
Length 71 ft 6 ¼ in / 21.8 m
Height 16 ft 5 ¼ in / 5.01 m
Wing Area 947 ft² / 88 m²
Engine 2x BMW 801 MA (1600 hp)
Fuel Load 1900 L (Gasoline)
Minimum Weight 17416 lb / 7900 kg
Maximum Weight 28660 lb / 13000 kg
Cruising Speed 255 mph / 410 kmh at 13123 ft / 4000 m
Maximum Speed 292 mph / 470 kmh
Service Ceiling 29848 ft / 9100 m
Range 963 mi / 1550 km
Crew 1x Pilot

1x Co-Pilot

1x Radio Operator
Payload Regular:

18x Passengers

Maximum:

23x Passengers

Gallery

The prototype BV 144 seen in a side profile illustration
A “What-if” paint scheme depicting the prototype BV 144 if it had seen service with Lufthansa during the mid forties.

Sources

Gunston, B. (1980). The illustrated encyclopedia of propeller airliners. New York: Exeter Books. , Kay, A. L., & Smith, J. R. (2002). German aircraft of the Second World War: Including helicopters and missiles. London: Putnam. , Lepage, J. (2009). Aircraft of the Luftwaffe: 1939-1945: An illustrated guide. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. , Images: Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com

 

Project 337 [Fictional]

Fake Aircraft

Soviet Union (1941)
Biological Weapon – 1 Built

With recent study trips to Russia, the Plane Encyclopedia team has been working closely with the Russian Archives to record and scan aircraft performance data and various other aviation related documents. While doing this, the team has accidentally rediscovered a series of then-classified documents regarding a secret biological weapon designed in 1941 intended to be used on Berlin in an attempt to stop or at least delay the German advance on Moscow. Classified “Project 337” by the Soviets, the weapon would have been able to bring havoc on any city it was deployed on. Come read the story of the newly discovered Project 337!

History

In the early stage of Operation Barbarossa during the shift of fall to winter, the Soviet high command became increasingly worried and desperate for a way to halt or at least delay the seemingly unstoppable German advance. On September 29th of 1941, a top secret meeting was held at the Kremlin to discuss the current losses of the Soviet Union, and how to replace the lost equipment. With mostly desperate ideas such as using outdated equipment such as 19th century rifles and cannons taken from stockpiles. Finally, a serious and feasible idea was brought up, which was to bomb Berlin with biological weapons, causing the city to plunge into chaos, and to warrant the retreat of the Germans. With Stalin liking the idea, he immediately agreed and ordered the project to be finished no later than November 29th.

Unfortunately, the dimensions, location, team and materials used to develop Project 337 is unknown as the documents that specifies these are still classified and withheld by the Russian government. What is known however, is that the disease which would be used in Project 337 was tularemia.

This rather unclear photo shows what appears to be the finished Project 337 prototype, resembling a huge metallic peanut with the black canopy.

With extensive research in the Russian archives, two photos of Project 337 were able to be obtained. The first photo shows the roof of the weapon, which consisted of a bowl shaped canopy with more than a dozen holes. This would have been how the tularemia bacteria would be released. The second photo shows what seems to be the finished Project 337 prototype, which looked like a huge metallic peanut with the black canopy.

The upper section of the weapon, which consisted of a bowl shaped canopy with more than a dozen openings. This would have been how the tularemia bacteria would have been released.

On December 1st of 1941, Project 337 was completed and was now ready to be tested on Berlin. To carry such a weapon, the Soviet Air Force began looking for a capable heavy bomber which would be able to fly at tall heights. Although scarce, the bomber chosen was the Petlyakov Pe-8 bomber. A single Pe-8 was transferred from the Far East Regiments and modified to carry Project 337. As for personnel, experienced pilots Lieutenant Igor N. Timoshenko, Junior Lieutenant Dima I. Pokryshkin and Lieutenant Mikhail Gorkin were chosen to complete the task of dropping the prototype biological weapon on Berlin. These pilots were not told of the contents they were carrying, and was only instructed to fly to Berlin, drop the payload and return to base as the Soviets still wished to maintain the secrecy of the project.

On December 5th, Lieutenant Igor N. Timoshenko, Junior Lieutenant Dima I. Pokryshkin and Lieutenant Mikhail G. Gorkin took off in the Pe-8 carrying Project 337 at 8:31 PM from an undisclosed secret airfield. With the intent of maintaining stealth, the Pe-8 crew would have maintained radio silence in order to not get detected. Approximately 1 hour and 14 minutes into the flight, the Soviet ground crew were surprised to receive an emergency radio call from the aircrew. According to the recently declassified Soviet documents, the ground crew reported that Lieutenant Gorkin shout in the radio in panic that the Pe-8’s inner starboard engine caught fire, and that the plane was rapidly losing altitude. Lieutenant Gorkin decided the best thing to do was to perform an emergency landing, and he made this decision known to the ground crew. Unfortunately, the documents stated that contact was lost with the crew during the botched emergency landing. One of the documents dated April 1st of 1944 stated that efforts to locate the Pe-8 has failed, and that the plane likely crashed into a body of water. Due to the loss of the sole bomb, tests were unable to be completed and the project was set back. This led to the eventual abandonment of the project as the Soviets couldn’t afford to spend more time development such a weapon.

The final document which referenced Project 337 dated April 20th of 1948 mentioned that the incident which caused the destruction of the Pe-8 was improper maintenance. It is said that the mechanics responsible for the maintenance were executed, while the radio crew were sent to the gulag. Timoshenko, Pokryshkin and Gorkin’s families were all sent a letter stating that they died in combat as heroes. In conclusion, Project 337 can be considered a failure. With the current evidence that the Plane Encyclopedia team has, it is reasonable to assume that the Pe-8 carrying Project 337 is perhaps still out there buried beneath layers of mud, sand, or water, never to be seen by mankind again.

Sources

Rep. No. Поддельный источник, используемый для апрельских дураков (04.01.1944) (1944).

Rep. No. Полностью реальный источник, а не подделка (04.20.1948) (1948).

Doc. No. Я люблю Энциклопедию (01.14.1943).

 

Kawasaki Ki-88

Empire of Japan, WW2, , , ,

 Empire of Japan (1943)
Prototype Fighter Interceptor – 1 Built

The Kawasaki Ki-88 was a fighter interceptor designed in 1942 with the intent of intercepting enemy aircraft heading towards vital military locations. The Ki-88 would never see service, as it was cancelled in 1943 after a mockup and partial prototype were constructed. Although considered by many to be the Japanese copy of the American Bell P-39 Airacobra due to the exterior aesthetic similarities, this is only speculation.

History

The origins of the Kawasaki Ki-88 began in August of 1942 when Tsuchii Takeo, a designer for Kawasaki, responded to a design specification put forward by the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service (IJAAS). The IJAAS determined that they needed an interceptor aircraft that would defend important military assets like airfields, gun emplacements, and others. The specification also stated that the aircraft had to be heavily armed, provide a stable gun platform and be easily flyable by new pilots.

Takeo began work on the Ki-88 and chose to use a 37mm Ho-203 cannon as the plane’s primary armament, with two 20mm Ho-5 cannons to complement the Ho-203. The placement of the guns prompted Takeo to place the engine behind the cockpit. Many sources state that this was done to copy the American Bell P-39 Airacobra, but that claim is debated. The P-39 Airacobra was in service at the time the Ki-88 was developed, but saw limited service with the United States. It did however, see service during the Battle of Guadalcanal. The Japanese were certainly aware of its existence and possibly captured an example of the P-39. If they did indeed capture an example, Takeo could have simply copied the gun and engine placement. It is important to note that such a “rear-engine” fighter configuration was a rarity in plane design at the time. Another common theory is that Takeo came to the same conclusion as H.M Poyer (designer of the P-39) did during the planning phase and designed the plane without copying the P-39. Other than the engine and gun placement, the two planes are quite dissimilar.

Takeo completed the Ki-88’s design in June of 1943. A full scale mockup and prototype were in the works in mid/late 1943, and estimated that the prototype would be completed in October of 1943. However, after the mockup and plans were inspected by representatives of the IJAAS, it was concluded that the Ki-88 had no real improvements over other designs of the time, and the top speed was only slightly better than the Kawasaki Ki-61 after calculations. The IJAAS immediately lost interest and ordered Kawasaki to cease all work on it.

Design

The Ki-88 was a single seater, single engine fighter powered by a Kawasaki Ha-140 engine producing 1,500hp while driving a propeller using an extension shaft. The radiator was placed under the cockpit at the bottom of the fuselage. There was an air intake placed beneath the fuselage on the left to provide cooling for the supercharger in the Ha-140.

The Ki-88 used a conventional landing gear, in which the main wheels could be retracted into the wings while the tail wheel stayed fixed. There was a fuel tank in each of the wings, beside the landing gear wells.

The size of the Ho-203 canon prevented Takeo from placing the engine into the nose which led him to place it behind the pilot’s cockpit, much like the American P-39 Airacobra. Moving the engine to the back of the cockpit was a smart move, as it theoretically would have made the plane a more stable gun platform. Under the Ho 203, on both sides of the nose, there were two 20mm Ho-5 cannons.

Operator(s)

  • Empire of Japan – The Ki-88 was supposed to have been operated by the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service, but never did so due to the design being deemed as inferior to the Ki-61 and was thus cancelled.

Kawasaki Ki-88*

*Estimated Performance
Wingspan 40.6 ft / 12.37 m
Length 33.4 ft / 10.18 m
Height 13.6 ft / 4.14 m
Wing Area 8,598 ft² / 27.49 m²
Engine 1x Kawasaki Ha-140 (1,500hp)
Empty Weight 6,503 lbs / 2,949 kg
Loaded Weight 8,598 lbs / 3,899 kg
Climb Rate 6 minutes & 30 seconds to 16,404ft (5,000m)
Maximum Speed 373 mph / 600 kph at 19,685ft (6,000m)
Range 745 mi / 1,198 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 36,089 ft / 11,000 m
Crew 1x Pilot
Armament 1x 37mm Ho-203

2x 20mm Ho-5

Gallery

 

Sources

Performance. Report No. 19b(4), USSBS Index Section 2 (Tech. No. 19b(4)). (n.d.)., Pacific Survey Reports and Supporting Records 1928-1947 Kawasaki Aircraft Industries Company, Ltd. (Kagamigahara, Gifu plant), Dyer, Edwin M. Japanese Secret Projects: Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945. Classic, 2013., Francillon. (1987). Japanese aircraft of the Pacific war. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press., Images: Side Profile Views by Ed Jackson – Artbyedo.com