Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1952) Experimental Glider – 1 Prototype Built
The experimental Ikarus 453MW glider. [airwar.ru]Following the end of the Second World War, the newly created Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) initiated a series of experimental aircraft design programs. These were intended for testing and gaining valuable experience in new jet propulsion technologies. From this initial work, an unusual new glider project, designated Ikarus 453MW, would emerge. Little is known about the purpose of this glider and its defined role.
The Unusual Glider
After the war, the once-proud Yugoslavian aviation industry was in ruin. Most of its firms had been either looted or destroyed, and many of the pre-war designers and engineers had been killed by the Germans during their retreat. The Allied bombing of Belgrade also inflicted further damage to the Yugoslavian industry’s infrastructure. However, as the Yugoslav Partisans began liberating the country, some production facilities were slowly restored, as was the case with Ikarus in late 1944. The initial steps of the revitalization effort of the shattered Yugoslavia aviation industry were undertaken in late 1945 by the newly established Yugoslavian Air Force Command. A series of aircraft design teams were set up with the aim of creating a base for the new air force.
By the early 1950’s the overall situation changed to the extent that the Yugoslavian Army officials were ready to test various new technologies and designs. During this time, the Generalna Direkcija Vazduhoplovne Industrije GDVI (Directorate General of the Aviation Industry) led by Dragoljub Bešlin produced a series of experimental aircraft intended to test new design concepts. In 1952, work on an unusual inverted gull “M” shamed wing design began. The design team was also supported by the engineer Levačić. He was an experienced designer who worked with the British Royal Air Force during the war .
In the 1950s a series of experimental aircraft were produced including (from the left to the right side) Ikarus 452-2, 451M jet aircraft, and two prone-operated aircraft the Ikarus 451 and 232 acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com
The precise reasons for its commissioning and its history are not clear, but it appears that the Yugoslav army officials wanted to test a design that could offer a small and fast ground attack aircraft. When the design was ready, Ikarus was asked to construct the first glider prototype. If the glider design proved to have merit, the next step would be to equip this aircraft with a fully functional jet engine. It was designated the Ikarus 453MW, but it is also sometimes referred to as Р-453MW or GDVI-9. To avoid confusion this article will use the Ikarus 453MW designation. The MW designation was used as the wings highly resemble these letters.
Technical Characteristics
The Ikarus 453MW was a single-seat, mixed-construction experimental glider. Its fuselage was made of a metal base covered with metal sheets. The wings and tail assembly were made out of wood. The most noticeable characteristic of this glider was the use of unusual inverted gull m-shaped wings. The inverted gull wing design was used during the war by famous aircraft such as the German Ju 87 Stuka Japanese Aichi B7A and the American F4U Corsair. The Ikarus 453MW wings consisted of four parts. The part where the wings folded down was separated by two round-shaped gondolas. The wings were equipped with flaps and ailerons. The rear tail unit consisted of a simple rudder on the vertical stabilizer and did not have horizontal stabilizers.
The retractable landing gear consisted of four wheels. Two smaller wheels were located inside the fairly large wing gondolas. In the lower part of the fuselage, an additional and larger pair of landing wheels was located.
The cockpit was placed to the front of the central fuselage. The canopy was made of plexiglass but besides that, little is mentioned of the cockpit design.
While the experimental glider was unpowered, if successful it was planned to add two unspecified jet engines inside the wing gondolas.
The side and top drawing of the Ikarus 453MW. The wing design while unusual was not used on any other Yugoslavian aircraft design. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rsThe Ikarus 453MW had a landing gear consisting of three landing wheels units. Two smaller ones are located in the wing gondolas and one in the central fuselage. Source: www.vazduhoplovnetradicijesrbije.rs
Testing and Cancellation of the Project
The Ikarus 453MW prototype was completed and ready for testing by November 1952. On the 28th of November, the first test flight was made by Metodije Bojković. The test flight was undertaken at the Batajnica Airfield near the capital of Belgrade. Unfortunately for all present, an accident occurred. During take-off, the glider veered off the runway. While the pilot was unharmed the glider was damaged and the test flight had to be temporarily postponed.
After repairs were made, additional aerodynamic wind testing was undertaken to test the overall design shape. As these proved satisfying, another test flight was to take place. The Ikarus 453MW was towed up to 3 km of altitude by an Ikarus 213 and then released. While the flight itself was without problems, another accident occurred during landing. After analysis of available data, it was concluded that the pilot was not to blame as he was not properly instructed on how to fly the Ikarus 453MW which had an unusual wing design. Following the second accident, an order was given by the Yugoslav Army officials to cancel the Ikarus 453MW project.
A Nuclear Carrier
Author N. Đokić (Projektat Jugoslovenskog Strategijskog Bombardera) gives us an interesting reason for the Ikarus 453MW design. It is a generally lesser-known fact, but during this time, the JNA was highly interested in developing nuclear weapons. The JNA’s involvement in Yugoslavian nuclear research development is to this day still not completely clear. This source mentioned that according to some secret JNA documents, the Ikarus 453MW was intended to be an aircraft that could quickly deliver a nuclear warhead to enemy targets. For this reason, the final aircraft was to be able to carry one 2-ton nuclear warhead at a speed of 850 km/h. The operational range was to be some 2,000 km, and the maximum service ceiling was 11,000 meters. In the meantime, a contingent of F-84G jet aircraft was acquired from the United States. As these were capable of carrying nuclear weapons there was no need to further proceed with the Ikarus 453MW project.
Whether there is any truth to the nuclear weapons plans is difficult to determine. The JNA and the Yugoslavian political hierarchy were publicly known to be quite interested in developing nuclear capability. Of course, this would demand a massive amount of resources, highly trained personnel, and well-developed industrial capacity, all of which Yugoslavia simply lacked in these early years of its existence. Its industrial capacity and infrastructure were almost completely destroyed during the war, and it would likely, if at all possible, take decades of commitment and investment to actually build a nuclear weapon. Hypothetically, even if Yugoslavia was able to develop nuclear weapons in the following decades, all research and experience gained on the Ikarus 453 would be outdated by that time. In conclusion, it could not be ruled out that the JNA had overzealous and ambitious plans to test the concept of using a swift aircraft to deliver this weapon. In reality, Yugoslavia simply lacked any means to actually produce such weapons. Despite this, testing this unusual wing design, albeit in a limited manner, at least provided Yugoslav aircraft engineers with additional experience.
Surviving Model
While unfortunately the Ikarus 453MW glider was not preserved, a small model replica is on display at the Nikola Tesla Serbian Aviation Museum near Belgrade.
The Ikarus 453MW was quite an interesting design mostly due to its unusual wing shape. Its overall history, especially the trials is somewhat obscure. While the prototype was involved in two accidents, this was not the fault of the design but rather poor communication with the pilot, who was not informed of its flight characteristics.
Specification Ikarus 453MW
Wingspan
7.5 m / 24 ft 7 in
Length
5.85 m / 19 ft 2 in
Height
2.01 m / 6 ft 7 in
Maximum Takeoff Weight
1,720 kg / 3,792lbs
Crew
One pilot
Armament
None
Experimental Ikarus 453MW
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
Illustrated by Carpaticus
Sources:
Č. Janić and O. Petrović, Kratka Istorija Vazduhoplovstva Srbiji, Aero komunikacije
B. B. Dimitrijević (2012) Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo 1942-1992, Medijski Centar Odbrane
N. Đokić Projektat Jugoslovenskog Strategijskog Bombardera
The line-up of the Savoia Marchetti S.79C and the Fiat Br.20A (last two) in Istres before the start of the race on 20 August 1937. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]The Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 was a three-engine medium aircraft developed by Savoia-Marchetti, also known as the Società Idrovolanti Alta Italia (SIAI) later SIAI-Savoia. Initially developed as a fast passenger transport aircraft, it was later adapted for use as a racing aircraft, and later as a medium bomber. From 1936 until 1939 it broke several records, both in the civil and military spheres with the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force), also becoming the fastest medium bomber in the world at the time. It was one of the most produced aircraft by Italy during the Fascist dictatorship and was used by 12 different air forces, both civil and military and remained in service until 1951 as a bomber for the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force), and until 1959 as a bomber for the Lebanese Air Force.
History of the Project
During the 1930s, the Italian Air Force was among the world’s leading air forces, with cutting-edge manufacturing and designers.
Italo Balbo, a fervent fascist and Air Marshal, managed to break several records aboard several seaplanes of the Società Idrovolanti Alta Italia (Northern Italy Seaplane Company). In 1928 he made a bold request for the time, asking SIAI for an aircraft capable of taking off from Italy and reaching any location in Libya carrying 8 to 10 passengers. All in the shortest possible time.
It must be emphasized that the Italian fascist regime tended to support domestic efforts in any field or industry in order to bolster publicity and popular support, which is why Italo Balbo required a fast plane, to be able to outcompete French and British air transports on Africa-bound routes to Libya, Somalia, and Eritrea.
In early 1933, Australian nobleman Sir Mac Pherson Robinson created a challenge to reach Melbourne from London in a single intercontinental flight. In 1933 the SIAI decided to compete for the Mac Robinson Cup, and at the same time to satisfy Balbo. Seasoned engineer Alessandro Marchetti (1884-1966) was put at the helm of the project.SIAI put so much emphasis on the project, that Marchetti’s initial blueprints for the new S.79 were dated February 21, 1933.This cutting-edge project featured low wings, retractable landing gear, Handley Page flaps and three Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 engines of 900 hp each.
Subsequently Marchetti was forced to modify the blueprints, first with three FIAT A. 59 RC engines developed by the American Pratt & Whitney R-1690, finally ending up on Piaggio P. IX R.C. 40 engines of 610 hp developed from the French Gnome-Rhône 9K ‘Mistral’.
History of the Civilian Prototype
In May 1934, the last modifications to the project, and design of the first prototype were completed. The new plane was identified as S.79P or Passeggeri ( Passenger). It received the serial number 19001 and codename I-MAGO.
Through August and September of 1934, various parts of the aircraft were produced in SIAI factories in Sesto Calende in Lombardy, and were sent to the Novara Air Base in Piedmont . After being reassembled on October 8, 1934, and with SIAI test pilot Adriano Bacula and engineer Merizzi at the controls, the 19001 prototype made its first test flight.
The first Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype, the I-MAGO with Piaggio engines at Cameri in the winter of 1934. [stormomagazine.com]The aircraft proved promising during the tests. There were excellent results as the aircraft had excellent handling, was easy to fly, and had a comfortable passenger cabin. On the other hand the engines, with only 610 hp at maximum power was not enough for SIAI and Alessandro Marchetti.
Piaggio sent one of its technicians during flight tests, engineer Risaliti, to try to increase the power of the engines, but he failed, managing to bring the aircraft to only 360 km/h at an altitude of 100 meters, and 390 km/h at 3,000 meters, while carrying 3 tons of ballast.
These results were impressive for the time, the Junkers Ju 52 for example had a top speed of 290 km/h, but not enough for a modern plane like the S. 79.
These problems forced the Italian technicians to change the engines with more powerful and reliable ones.
This decision was taken also because the Piaggio P. IX R.C. 40 engines led to two different incidents. The first occurred on 28 October when they attempted a record Novara-Rome route which had to be canceled due to engine failures and the plane returned to Novara.The second accident led to the fire of the engines which fortunately was shut down before the prototype was destroyed.
SIAI therefore decided to remove the Piaggio engines in February 1935, and replaced them with the 650 hp Alfa Romeo 125 RC.35, developed from the British Bristol Pegasus.
Due to the larger diameter, the engines received a new cowling, and finally, on April 5, 1935 Bacula and Merizzi took the re-engineered prototype into the air again.
The new tests yielded very favorable results and the plane claimed several records, the first was to be the first three-engine civil transport to break 400 km/h, and the second to travel from Novara to Rome (500 km) in just 70 minutes, which they accomplished on May 10, 1935.
In Rome, Adriano Bacula had the opportunity to familiarize some Italian pilots on the S. 79. Interestingly a delegation of French aviators led by Minister of the Air Denain with the aces Mermoz and Rossi was in the Italian capital. The French pilots admired the new three-engine plane for its modern design and maximum velocity.
Among the Italian aviators who tested the aircraft there were Maggior Biseo and his colleagues, elites of the 1st Experimental Center who expressed much praise for the Chief of Staff of the Regia Aeronautica, General Valle, on the new vehicle.
Returning to Novara to receive some modifications, such as increased range, on May 26, 1935 the S. 79 was back in Rome with all the required changes including 2 new tanks in the wings for a total of 820 liters of fuel.
The aircraft was registered by the Royal Air Force MM. 260 (Matricola Militare /Military Serial Number) and assigned on June 14 to the 1st Experimental Center.
On August 1, 1936 General Valle flew from Rome to Massawa, Eritrea in just 12 hours of actual flight with a stopover in Cairo for refueling, and returned to Italy 4 days later.
On October 3, 1935 the Kingdom of Italy start the invasion of the neutral Ethiopian Empire to colonize it. The Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype was deployed as liaison plane by General Valle.
The second flight was made on January 6, 1936 when the plane carried General Valle, Biseo, Tondi as well as technicians and specialists Gadda, Ghidelli and Bernazzani.
During the representative trip to Ethiopia which ended on January 18 in Grottaglie, Puglia, the plane traveled 15,000 km proving to be very fast and efficient.
The prototype, MM. 260, was assigned to the Experimental Center but was employed by the 12° Stormo Bombardamento Terrestre (12th Ground Bombing Wing), and was modified to carry 6 100 kg bombs. It was tested on 20 May 1936 by Lieutenant Colonel Biseo and Captain Lippi on the Furbara shooting range.
The tests were repeated with captains Paradisi and Moscatelli of the 12° Stormo who demonstrated that the aircraft was an excellent platform for bombing.
Bomber Variant
A pair of Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79M flying in formation over Sicily during the Second World War. [Wiki]In December 1935, SIAI-Savoia proposed a military version of the S. 79 powered by the powerful Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major 14 cylinders with a output of 725 hp at 2,000 rpm, hence the name of the prototype S. 79K. However, the General Staff of the Regia Aeronautica rejected the idea of powering their bombers with foreign engines, and ordered 24 S. 79Ms (M for Militare / Military) to be equipped with Italian-made engines.
Schematic showing the differences between the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79M. [Facebook]
S.M. 79 Racing Aircraft or Medium Bomber?
From the first batch of the S.M. 79M, 5 aircraft were modified during production to be used in the civil field, and initially renamed Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 83C, and then returned to the designation Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C for Corsa (Racing).
The Savoia-Marchetti flown by pilots Tondi and Moscatelli
This variant flew without armament, the observer gondola and bomb bay also lost its characteristic hump to increase the aerodynamics of the fuselage.
The autopilot system was then enhanced, the on-board instrumentation adjusted, the door on the left side replaced by a smaller hatch above the wing, and its range was increased by adding tanks instead of the bomb bay for a total of 7,000 liters of fuel.
Other improvements concerned the compressors which, when upgraded, allowed the use of 100 octane petrol Also the transceiver system was replaced with a Telefunken model of greater power and reliability. The propellers were substituted with new variable pitch propellers produced by the French Ratier. New larger radiators were added to better cool the engines and finally, the landing gear was fitted with tires capable of withstanding the maximum weight of the plane fully loaded.
This version was created to participate in the tender organized by the French Aero Club for August 1937 which was to fly to the Istres (Southern France) – Damascus – Le Bourget (near Paris) route for a total of 2,900 km.
For the race it was planned to involve a Caproni Ca. 405 ‘Procellaria’ and two FIAT B.R. 20 but due to delays the Ca. 405 could not participate and the SIAI-Savoia produced a sixth S.M. 79C.
Flying the six aircraft were all pilots of the 205ª Squadriglia da bombardamento “Sorci Verdi” of the 12° Stormo Bombardamento Terrestre, the only Italian pilots who had received a pilot’s license for this aircraft.
Apart from the eight Italian aircraft, there were four French aircraft, a Bloch M.B.160, a Farman F.223, a Caudron C-640 and a Breguet 470 Fulgur, the only English one, the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet.
All took off from 1725 hrs on 20 August 1937, the first plane to land in Damascus was the I-FILU after 6 hours and 51 minutes at an incredible speed of 426.42 km/h.
Partial ranking in Damascus
Pilots
Aircraft Name
Racing Number
Qualified
Average Speed
Biseo and Mussolini
I-BIMU
I-5
Terzo
Cupini and Paradisi
I-CUPA
I-11
Secondo
415 km/h
Fiori and Lucchini
I-FILU
I-13
Primo
426.42 km/h
Lippi and Castellani
I-LICA
I-7
Ottavo
352 km/h
Rovis and Trimboli
I-ROTR
I-12
Quinto
Tondi and Moscatelli
I-TOMO
I-6
Quarto
The partial ranking podium was all Italian, in fact in Damascus five to six of the S. 79Cs arrived before the other aircrafts, the sixth and seventh were the FIAT B.R. 20s with an average speed of 299 km/h and 382 km/h.
I-LICA had problems with the constant pitch of the right propeller forcing the drivers Lippi and Castellani to travel the Istres-Damascus route for another six hours with only two engines.
The ninth plane to arrive in Damascus was the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet with an average of 356 km/h while the first French plane landed with an average speed of 305 km/h.
During the stop, the planes refueled and fixed the propeller. Due to bad weather it was decided to change course for the return and to fly in formation, thus loading an additional 500 liters of fuel.
One of the six S. 79Cs refueled at Damascus, though unfortunately it’s impossible to determine which one it is. In the background the French four-engined Bloch M.B.160 is visible. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]During take-off, one of the two FIAT B.R. 20 experienced rudder damage while the unfortunate I-LICA ended up hitting a pothole on the runway with the left wheel, breaking the landing gear and yawing violently to the left and making take-off impossible.
One hour after departure, the I-TOMO reported that it had a deficiency of 2,000 liters of fuel, while I-ROTR reported that it had to land in Ronchi due to excessive fuel consumption.
It was therefore decided to have the three remaining SM-79s arrive in Paris in formation. The plan was about to succeed, in fact I-BIMU sighted I-FILU and the I-CUPI but due to the lightning storms masking the transmissions, they could not make radio contact.
Biseo and Bruno Mussolini then decided to overtake the other two S.M. 79 to be recognized and make the formation, but when they reached the Alps they had to climb to 6,500 meters. However in doing so, they were forced to reduce the pitch of the propeller, and during the movement the central propeller went to the minimum pitch and jammed.
The two pilots then decided to land in Cameri where there were technicians who could repair their Ratier propellers. However, after a careful examination, during which the plane was refueled, the two pilots were informed that the propeller problem could not be repaired quickly. It was therefore decided to bring the central propeller to maximum pitch and the plane that had stopped for about 30 minutes took off again towards Paris.
The I-ROTR was unable to reach Ronchi due to lack of fuel and had to land in Pula where, after refueling, it was unable to restart because the electrical circuit of the starter magnet of the central engine had been damaged by hail.
Having repaired the fault, the plane continued the next morning to Bourget and was classified in 8th and last place.
The I-TOMO was unable to reach Ronchi and, again due to bad weather, had to land at the Lido of Venice where it ran aground, as the field was reduced to a quagmire by torrential rain, but thanks to the joint efforts of the airport staff and crew, the aircraft was able to leave after refueling.
The two FIATs also had to land due to problems.
Despite the bad weather and the unsatisfactory reliability of the propellers, at Le Bourget there were three S.M. 79s in the first three positions. The I-CUPI arrived at 1547 hrs on the 21st and circled up to 1602 hrs before running out of fuel, waiting in flight for the I-BUMU as the victory of Benito Mussolini’s son would have been a great benefit for the fascist propaganda. Then it was the turn of the I-FILU which landed at 1617 hrs, and finally at 1637 hrs Biseo and Mussolini arrived who, despite the stop, took a significant third place.
Four ground crew members ran to the I-11 S. 79C piloted by Cupini and Paradisi. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]Fourth was the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet which landed at 1701 hrs; fifth the Fulgur Breguet at 1737 hrs; then came the Bloch 160, but having started much earlier than the I-TOMO which arrived at 2002 hrs it was ranked seventh, while the I-TOMO was sixth. The others were all withdrawn or unclassified.
Final ranking in Paris
Pilots
Aircraft Name
Racing Number
Qualified
Average Speed
Biseo and Mussolini
I-BIMU
I-5
Third
Cupini and Paradisi
I-CUPA
I-11
First
350 km/h
Fiori and Lucchini
I-FILU
I-13
Second
Lippi and Castellani
I-LICA
I-7
Unqualified
Rovis and Trimboli
I-ROTR
I-12
Eighth
tondi and Moscatelli
I-TOMO
I-6
Sixth
On 29 August from 1500 hrs to 1530 hrs all the Corsa type planes and the I-MAGO, which had been brought to Paris to witness the triumph of the other S.M. 79 returned to Italy at the Littorio Airport.
From Damascus, however, on 22 August, the organization of the return of the I-LICA to Italy began. The plane was disassembled and the fuselage, engines, tailings and systems were recovered and sent to Beirut, Lebanon and embarked on a merchant ship bound for Italy. The wing, not transportable by road, and other material, was sold in Damascus.
The victory was celebrated in Italy as overwhelming as both the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C and FIAT B.R. 20A were bomber aircraft adapted to racing aircraft while British and French aircraft were specially developed aircraft for air racing.
Italian pilots and ground crew members that participated in the race near the I-ROTR plane. Source: [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]Despite the victory there were, especially abroad, those who criticized the planes, claiming that the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C would not have been able to participate in the New York – Paris (race which was canceled in favor of Istres – Damascus – Paris).
The front page of the French newspaper Paris-Soir with the news of the Italian victory [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]SIAI brochure celebrating the victory of the Istres – Damascus – Le Bourget race [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
The Decisive Test: Rome – Dakar – Rio
It was decided for various reasons to make a second record setting flight with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C. This was mainly to disprove some articles that appeared in newspapers and magazines of the sector of foreign nations that had stated that the S.M. 79 were:
“expressly built for a vain policy of prestige and therefore unsuitable for military uses, difficult to maneuver, excessively loaded, too delicate: in short, devices unable to withstand comparisons of practical use with similar foreign ones”
The French newspapers accused the Savoia-Marchettis saying that they could never win in a Paris – New York race due to limited range.It was also decided to test the possibility of transporting passengers and letters from Italy to South America with land based planes.The 3 S.M. 79Cs, I-BIMU, I-FILU and I-CUPA were taken and modified by SIAI-Savoia technicians, Direttorato Generale Costruzioni Aeree or DGCA (General Directorate of Aeronautical Construction) and the aeronautical military engineers.
The changes concerned the replacement of the propellers with the classic SIAI-Savoia propellers, a complete overhaul of the engines, an enlargement of the fuel fillers to reduce refueling time, improved radio, navigation aids, and autopilot.
The maximum take-off weight of the new version, now renamed Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79T for Transatlantico (Transatlantic) was now nearly 14,000 kg, 3.5 tons more than the S.M. 79M.
After numerous test flights and tests carried up to December 1937, it was decided that the flight could be done.
The three aircraft were reassigned to different teams of pilots, Biseo and Paradisi took the I-BIMU now renamed I-BISE (MM. 359). Bruno Mussolini and Mancinelli took the I-FILU renamed I-BRUN (MM. 356) while Moscatelli and Castellani took the I-CUPA now named I-MONI (MM. 358).
The I-BISE during the Rome – Dakar route. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]On the morning of January 24th and at 0728 hrs, the three S.M. 79T took off from Guidonia airport for Dakar, the first leg of the Italy – Brazil.
The planes would have been in constant radio contact with Guidonia and Rio de Janeiro, periodically communicating their position.
At 0830 hrs the planes reported that they had flown over Capo Carbonara in Sardinia and at 0915 hrs they flew over Bona starting to fly over the mountains of the Saharan Atlas. At 1130 hrs the formation commander announced that he had slightly changed the planned route, turning north due to strong wind. At 1330 hrs the devices signaled strong wind with sand clouds and at 1530 hrs they communicated that they were within sight of the Atlantic at Villa Cisneros. At 1630 hrs they flew over Port Etienne and at 1745 hrs San Louis.
Landing in Dakar took place regularly at 1845 hrs Italian time. All navigation took place at an altitude ranging between 4,000 and 5,000 meters where the engines gave maximum power.
The actual distance traveled by the aircraft was over 4,500 km in 10 hours and 50 minutes, the average speed of 419 km/h.
After refueling in Dakar the I-BISE it’s ready to start the transoceanic flight. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]On the morning of January 25 at 0910 hrs (Italian time) the three planes left Dakar for Rio de Janeiro with a wing load of 220 kg due to the greater quantity of fuel and lubricant transported.
The navigation was done in close formation, which took place at an average altitude of 3,800 meters, but was disrupted in the central area of the Atlantic by thunderstorms, headwinds, lightning and sudden showers of rain that forced the pilots to instrumental flight.
The I-MONI, due to a failure of the usual propeller, was forced to continue the flight with only two engines for 2,000 km of the crossing, significantly slowing its average speed to 312 km/h.
At 1730 hrs I-BISE and I-BRUN sighted the Brazilian coast and continued towards Rio de Janeiro, arriving at 2245 hrs at Dos Afensos airport in the midst of a crowd of people who arrived to celebrate the event.
Following a direct order from the commander of the I-MONI formation it headed to Natal where it landed at 1919 hrs for the necessary repairs. It should be noted that the plane could have made it to the finish line without any problems but the crew, tired from the crossing, preferred to land and repair the plane.
I-BISE and I-BRUN had thus completed an effective route of over 5,350 km (of which 5,150 km offshore) in 13 hours and 35 minutes at an average speed of 395 km/h.
The Rome – Rio de Janeiro connection took place within 39 hours and 17 minutes with 24 hours and 22 minutes of actual flight for an average of about 406 km/h on a route of 9.800 km. The I-MONI departed from Natal at 1158 hrs on January 28, and arrived regularly in Rio de Janeiro at 1742 hrs on the same day.
This showed that the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 were not “too delicate” aircraft as foreign press had claimed, capable of reaching South America even with a failed engine.
Photos of the crew of the three S.M. 79T that had made the transoceanic flight. Compare the propeller cap with the photos of the S.M. 79Cs and you could clearly see the difference from the SIAI-Savoia propellers and the Ratier ones. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]It should be emphasized that the crossing was not a mere move by fascist propaganda, in fact, it was specifically chosen to lengthen the journey going from Dakar to Rio de Janeiro (5,350 km) instead of Natal (3,150 km).
Another factor was the speed, an average of 406 km/h for 9,800 km had never been sustained, in a single crossing the S.M. 79T broke two records, the speed one on the Rome – Rio de Janeiro route and the highest average speed one on the 5,000 km journey.
Brazil
After the 24 January 1938 race, the three S.M. 79 Transatlantico were then presented to the Aviacao Militar Brasileira (Brazilian Military Aviation). On 27 April 1938 I-BISE, I-BRUN were bought and renumbered K-422, K-420 while I-MONI was donated by Italy and renumbered K-421.
On 9 May 1938 they were assigned to the Escola de Aviacão Militar (Military Aviation School), where Maggiore Nino Moscatelli acted as instructor on at least three flights on 28 June (serial not reported) and then 1 July 1938 with K-421 and 8 July 1938 with K-420 before to returning in Italy acting as a bomber pilot.
On 28 October 1938 K-420 (Italian military serial number MM. 356) was flown by Brazilian pilot Loyola Daher, experienced an accident during a take off but luckily was later repaired, for it was recorded as flying in September 1941. The K-420 retired from service from the Escola de Aviacão on 12 February 1943.
On 9 July 1939 an unidentified S.M. 79T flown by Major Rubens Canabarro Lucas set a speed record by flying from Porto Alegre to Rio in 2 hours and 50 minutes at an average speed of 423 km/h (263 mph).
On 29 June 1943 was the last flight of an S.M. 79T for the Brazilian Air Line made by K-422 piloted by pilot Maldonado.
The service of the S.M. 79T as a training aircraft ended on 25 October 1944 when K-421 and K-422 were officially grounded by the Escola de Aeronautica.
Civil Service
The I-TOMO, I-ROTR and the reconstructed I-LICA aircraft were modified with a cabin for 4 passengers, the rest of the plane was used for cargo transport. They were used for the Rome – Rio de Janeiro route since 1939 by the Italian civil airline Linea Aerea Transcontinentale Italiana or LATI (Eng: Italian Transcontinental Airlines) part of the Ala Littoria.
The three aircraft, whose name does not seem to be clear since some sources call them Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C, others S.M. 79T and others S.M. 79I, were used mainly for the transport of mail on the route Rome – Seville (Spain) – Lisbon (Portugal) – Villa Cisneros (Morocco) – Ilha do Sal (Cape Verde) – Recife (Brazil) – Rio de Janeiro.
At least one was diverted to the Regia Aeronautica in June 1940 when the Kingdom of Italy joined the Nazi Germany in the Second World War. The aircraft, I-ALAN was requisitioned by the Regia Aeronautica and used to transport military equipment from Italy to Abyssinia (Italian name for Ethiopia) while maintaining its civilian livery.
Unfortunately only 6 days after the beginning of the war, on the 16th of June 1940 the I-ALAN had some problems during a take-off from Benghazi in Libya and was forced to abort the departure.
During re-landing the undercarriage collapsed and the aircraft crashed on the runway without causing too much damage and without casualties.
The aircraft, impossible to repair due to lack of parts, was moved to the side of the runway and probably cannibalized for spare parts to be used on other Savoia-Marchetti.
The carcass of the I-ALAN remained abandoned on the side of the runway of Benghazi for a long time and the British troops found it there in February 1941 when they conquered the Libyan city.
The I-ALAN among numerous other abandoned fuselages at Benghazi Airport in 1941. [sites.google.com/site/lgarey/benghazigraveyard]The I-ALAN when the British troops conquered the Benghazi Airport in 1941. [sites.google.com/site/lgarey/benghazigraveyard]Not much is known about the other two aircraft, but they were probably used on the Atlantic route together with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 83 (civil version of the S.M. 79) and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 75.
At the beginning the crossing was carried out weekly: departure on Thursday from the Italian territory and collecting the Italian mail on the way, then, landing in the two Iberian countries, the Spanish and Portuguese mail was collected, arriving in Brazil, the Brazilian mail directed to the three European countries was loaded and the return journey was made.
After June 10, 1940, with the Italian declaration of war against France and the United Kingdom, the transatlantic flight had to be reduced to only one crossing per month. They were finally stopped on December 19, 1941 as a result of the entry into war of the United States, which controlled the Atlantic airspace and especially because the US government forced Brazil to break all diplomatic relations with Fascist Italy and therefore also to block the possibility of using their airports.
Italian civil airline Ala Littoria’s Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C in 1939 in the standard blu and white livery. [Wiki]
Camouflage and Markings
The planes were painted in a very flamboyant livery: Ruby Red with green and white lines.
The rudder had the Italian tricolor with the Savoia coat of arms in the center.
The lictor beams, symbol of the Italian Fascist Party, were painted on the engine cowlings, while on the fuselage, under the cockpit was written “S.M. 79. Savoia-Marchetti”.
In the center of the fuselage, the aircraft codes were written on the sides, inside a white rectangle with black borders.
Also on the sides were painted three green mice intent on laughing at each other, this was the symbol of 205ª Squadriglia da bombardamento “Sorci Verdi”, and in fact, in Italian, “Sorci Verdi” means green mice.
This symbol will then also be painted on the S.M 79M of the squadron during the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War.
On the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79T the livery was the same except for the codename written bigger without the white rectangle, and also because on the tail was added a small white rectangle with the codename of the aircraft during the first race.
After being delivered to the Aviacao Militar Brasileira, the aircraft were repainted green, with a yellow rudder. Brazilian serial numbers were then applied, painted in black on the sides and the “Brazilian Stars” on the wings.
The livery of S.M. 79C converted for civilian use was on an ivory white background with a blue line on the side.
Behind the cockpit was the inscription ‘ALA LITTORIA S.A. LINEE ATLANTICHE’, S.A. stands for “Società per Azioni” in English Joint-stock Company, the identification mark (in that case) I-ALAN and a Kingdom of Italy flag on the tail.
Gallery
Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Transatlantico former I-BRUN in service with the Aviacao Militar BrasileiraSavoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C, I-ALAN converted in mail plane before June 1940.Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Transatlantico former I-FILU piloted by Bruno Mussolini and Mancinelli during Rome – Dakar – Rio RaceSavoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Corsa with the livery of Cupini and Paradisi plane for the Istres – Damascus – Le Bourget RaceSavoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype, the I-MAGO
Nazi Germany (1933)
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 19,650 Built
8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
With the growing use of aircraft during the First World War, many nations developed their own anti-aircraft weapons. Initially, these were mostly crude adaptations of existing weapons systems. During the interwar period, the development of dedicated anti-aircraft guns was initiated by many armies. Germany, while still under a ban on developing new weapons, would create the 8.8 cm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun. The gun, while originally designed for the anti-aircraft role, was shown to possess excellent anti-tank firepower. This gun would see action for the first time during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and would continue serving with the Germans up to the end of World War II.
This article covers the use of the 8.8 cm Flak gun in the original anti-aircraft role. To learn more about the use of this gun in its more famous anti-tank role visit the Tank Encyclopedia website.
World War One Origins
Prior to the Great War, aircraft first saw service in military operations during the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911. These were used in limited numbers, mostly for reconnaissance, but also for conducting primitive bombing raids. During the First World War, the mass adoption of aircraft in various roles occurred. One way to counter enemy aircraft was to employ one’s own fighter cover. Despite this, ground forces were often left exposed to enemy bombing raids or reconnaissance aircraft that could be used to identify weak spots in the defense.
To fend off airborne threats, most armies initially reused various artillery pieces, sometimes older, or even captured guns, and modified them as improvised anti-aircraft weapons. This involved employing ordinary artillery guns placed on improvised mounts that enabled them to have sufficient elevation to fire at the sky. These early attempts were crude in nature and offered little chance of actually bringing down an enemy aircraft. But, occasionally, it did happen. One of the first recorded and confirmed aircraft kills using a modified artillery piece happened in September of 1915, near the Serbian city of Vršac. Serbian artilleryman Raka Ljutovac managed to score a direct hit on a German aircraft using a captured and modified 75 mm Krupp M.1904 gun.
A captured Krupp gun was modified to be used for anti-aircraft defense by the Serbian Army during the First World War. Other warring nations also employed similar designs during the war. [telegraf.rs]On the Western Front, the use of these improvised and crude contraptions generally proved ineffective. Dedicated anti-aircraft guns were needed. This was especially the case for the Germans who lacked fighter aircraft due to insufficient resources and limited production capacity. The Germans soon began developing such weapons. They noticed that the modified artillery pieces were of too small a caliber (anything smaller than 77 mm caliber was deemed insufficient) and needed much-improved velocity and range. Another necessary change was to completely reorganize the command structure, by unifying the defense and offensive air force elements, into a single organizational unit. This was implemented in late 1916. This meant that the anti-aircraft guns were to be separated from ordinary artillery units. The effect of this was that the new anti-aircraft units received more dedicated training and could be solely focused on engaging enemy aircraft.
The same year, trucks armed with 8 to 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns began to appear on the front. While these had relatively good mobility on solid ground, the conditions of the Western Front were generally unsuited for such vehicles, due to difficult terrain. With the development of better anti-aircraft gun designs, their increased weight basically prevented them from being mounted on mobile truck chassis. Instead, for mobility, these were placed on specially designed four-wheeled trailers and usually towed by a K.D.I artillery tractor.
Both Krupp and Ehrhardt (later changing their name to Rheinmetall) would develop their own 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, which would see extensive action in the later stages of the war. While neither design would have any major impact (besides the same caliber) on the development of the later 8.8 cm Flak, these were the first stepping stones that would ultimately lead to the creation of the famous gun years later.
The Krupp 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun. [Wiki]As the newer German anti-aircraft guns became too heavy to be used in more mobile configurations by mounting them on trucks, they had to be towed instead. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
Work after the War
Following the German defeat in the First World War, they were forbidden from developing many technologies, including artillery and anti-aircraft guns. To avoid this, companies like Krupp simply began cooperating with other arms manufacturers in Europe. During the 1920s, Krupp partnered with the Swedish Bofors armament manufacturer. Krupp even owned around a third of Bofors’ shares.
The Reichswehr (English: German Ground Army) only had limited anti-aircraft capabilities which relied exclusively on 7.92 mm caliber machine guns. The need for a proper and specialized anti-aircraft gun arose in the late 1920s. In September 1928, Krupp was informed that the Army wanted a new anti-aircraft gun. It had to be able to fire a 10 kg round at a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The gun itself would be placed on a mount with a full 360° traverse and an elevation of -3° to 85°. The mount and the gun were then placed on a cross-shaped base with four outriggers. The trailer had side outriggers that were raised during movement. The whole gun when placed on a four-wheeled bogie was to be towed at a maximum speed of 30 km/h. The total weight of the gun had to be around 9 tonnes. These requirements would be slightly changed a few years later to include new requests such as a rate of fire between 15 to 20 rounds per minute, use of high-explosive rounds with a delay fuse of up to 30 seconds, and a muzzle velocity between 800 to 900 m/s. The desired caliber of this gun was also discussed. The use of a caliber in the range of 7.5 cm was deemed to be insufficient and a waste of resources for a heavy gun. But despite this, a 7.5 cm Flak L/60 was developed, but it would not be adopted for service. The 8.8 cm caliber, which was used in the previous war, was more desirable. This caliber was set as a bare minimum, but usage of a larger caliber was allowed under the condition that the whole gun weight would not be more than 9 tonnes. The towing trailer had to reach a speed of 40 km/h (on a good road) when towed by a half-track or, in case of emergency, by larger trucks. The speed of redeployment for these guns was deemed highly important. German Army Officials were quite aware that the development of such guns could take years to complete. Due to the urgent need for such weapons, they were even ready to adopt temporary solutions.
Krupp’s first 8.8 cm Flak 18 prototype. [8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1]Krupp engineers that were stationed at the Sweden Bofors company were working on a new anti-aircraft gun for some time. In 1931, Krupp engineers went back to Germany, where, under secrecy, they began designing the gun. By the end of September 1932, Krupp delivered two guns and 10 trailers. After a series of firing and driving trials, the guns proved to be more than satisfactory and, with some minor modifications, were adopted for service in 1933 under the name 8.8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (anti-aircraft gun) or, more simply, Flak 18. The use of the number 18 was meant to mislead France and Great Britain that this was actually an old design, which it was in fact not. This was quite commonly used on other German-developed artillery pieces that were introduced to service during the 1930s. The same 8.8 cm gun was officially adopted when the Nazis came to power. In 1934, Hitler denounced the Treaty of Versailles, and openly announced the rearmament of the German Armed forces.
Production
While Krupp designed the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, aside from building some 200 trailers for it, was not directly involved in the production of the actual gun. The 8.8 cm Flak 18 was quite an orthodox anti-aircraft design, but what made it different was that it could be mass-produced relatively easily, which the Germans did. Most of its components did not require any special tooling and companies that had basic production capabilities could produce these.
Some 2,313 were available by the end of 1938. In 1939, the number of guns produced was only 487, increasing to 1,131 new ones in 1940. From this point, due to the need for anti-aircraft guns, production constantly increased over the coming years. Some 1,861 examples were built in 1941, 2,822 in 1942, 4,302 in 1943, and 5,714 in 1944. Surprisingly, despite the chaotic state of the German industry, some 1,018 guns were produced during the first three months of 1945. In total, 19,650 8.8 cm Flak guns were built.
Of course, like many other German production numbers, there are some differences between sources. The previously mentioned numbers are according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Dreaded Threat: The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role). Author A. Radić (Arsenal 51) mentions that, by the end of 1944, 16,227 such guns were built. A. Lüdeke (Waffentechnik Im Zweiten Weltkrieg) gives a number of 20,754 pieces being built.
Year
Number produced
1932
2 prototypes
1938
2,313 (total produced at that point)
1939
487
1940
1,131
1941
1.861
1942
2.822
1943
4,302
1944
5,714
1945
1,018
Total
19,650
Design
The gun
The 8.8 cm Flak 18 used a single tube barrel that was covered in a metal jacket. The barrel itself was some 4.664 meters (L/56) long. The gun recuperator was placed above the barrel, while the recoil cylinders were placed under the barrel. During firing, the longest recoil stroke was 1,050 mm, while the shortest was 700 mm.
The 8.8 cm gun had a horizontal sliding breechblock which was semi-automatic. It meant that, after each shot, the breach opened on its own and ejected the shell casing, enabling the crew to immediately load another round. This was achieved by adding a spring coil, which was tensioned after firing. This provided a good rate of fire of up to 15 rounds per minute when engaging ground targets and up to 20 rounds per minute for aerial targets. If needed, the semi-automatic system could be disengaged and the whole loading and extracting of rounds done manually. While some guns were provided with a rammer to help during loading the gun, it was sometimes removed by the crew.
This particular gun is equipped with a loading rammer with a new round which is ready to be loaded into the chamber. [Pinterest]For the anti-tank role, the 8.8 cm Flak was provided with a Zielfernrohr 20 direct telescopic sight. It had 4x magnification and a 17.5° field of view. This meant a 308 m wide view at 1 km. With a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s, the maximum firing range against ground targets was 15.2 km. The maximum altitude range was 10.9 km, but the maximum effective range was around 8 km.
The dimensions of this gun during towing were a length of 7.7 m, width of 2.3 m, and height of 2.4 meters. When stationary, the height was 2.1 m, while the length was 5.8 meters. Weight in firing position, it weighed 5,150 kg, while the total weight of the gun with the carriage was 7,450 kg. Due to some differences in numbers between sources, the previously mentioned 8.8 cm Flak performance is based on T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role).
When stationary, the gun had a height of 2.1 meters, which offered a relatively large target for enemy gunners. Good camouflage and well-selected positions were vital for its crew’s survival. [defensemedianetwork.com]
The Gun Controls
The gun elevation and traverse were controlled by using two handwheels located on the right side. The traverse handwheel had an option to be rotated at low or high speed, depending on the need. The lower speed was used for more precise aiming at the targets. The speed gear was changed by a simple lever located at the handwheel. To make a full circle, the traverse operator, at a high-speed setting. needed to turn the handwheel 100 times. while on the lower gear, it was 200 times. With one full circle of the handwheel, the gun was rotated by 3.6° at high speed and 1.8° at low speed.
Next to it was the handwheel for elevation. The handwheel was connected by a series of gears to the elevation pinion. This then moved the elevation rack which, in turn, lowered and raised the gun barrel. Like the traverse handwheel, it also had options for lower and higher rotation speed, which could be selected by using a lever. During transport, in order to prevent potential damage to the gun elevating mechanism, a locking system was equipped. In order to change position from 0° to 85°, at high speed, 42.5 turns of the handwheel were needed. One turn of the wheel at high speed changed the elevation by 2°. At lower speed, 85 times turns of the handwheel were needed. Each turn gave a change of 1°.
The two control handwheels. The front handwheel is for traverse while the rear one is for elevation. Source: W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
Sometimes, in the sources, it is mentioned that the traverse was actually 720°. This is not a mistake. When the gun was used in a static mount, it would be connected with wires to a fire control system. In order to avoid damaging these wires, the guns were allowed to only make two full rotations in either direction. The traverse operator had a small indicator that informed him when two full rotations were made.
The 8.8 cm Flak at its maximum elevation. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
The 8.8 cm fuze setter is located on the left side of the gun. Two rounds could be placed for their time fuse settings. These were usually done manually but the gun controls could also be connected to an external control system.
The 8.8 cm fuze setter. [Pinterest]
The Kommandogerat 36
The fire control system Kommandogerat 36 (Stereoscopic Director 36) was an important device when using the 8.8 cm guns in an anti-aircraft role. This piece of equipment actually is a combination of a stereoscopic rangefinder and a director. It uses a 4-meter-long, stereoscopic rangefinder. It has a magnification of 12 to 14x with a reading case ranging from 500 to 50,000 meters. When the unit was being transported, the stereoscopic rangefinder would be disengaged and placed in a long wooden box. If for some reason the Stereoscopic Director 36 was not available or not working, a smaller auxiliary Stereoscopic Director 35 could be used instead.
The 8.8 cm guns were usually used in a square formation consisting of four guns. Inside this squire was a command post, which would usually have additional range-finding equipment and instruments. These four gun’s positions were also connected to the battery unit command.
The Stereoscopic Director 36 was a vital piece of equipment that provides the necessary acquisitions of targets. [waralbum.ru]Common 8.8 cm anti-aircraft employment was a square formation with four guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
Mount
The mount which held the gun barrel itself consisted of a cradle and trunnions. The cradle had a rectangular shape. On its sides, two trunnions were welded. In order to provide stability for the gun barrel, two spring-shaped equilibrations were connected to the cradle using a simple clevis fastener.
Carriage
Given its size, the gun used a large cross-shaped platform. It consisted of the central part, where the base for the mount was located, along with four outriggers. The front and the rear outriggers were fixed to the central base. The gun barrel travel lock was placed on the front outrigger. The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. These were held in place by pins and small chains which were connected to the gun mount. To provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. This cross-shaped platform, besides holding the mount for the main gun, also served to provide storage for various equipment, like the electrical wiring. Lastly, on the bottom of each outrigger, there were four round-shaped leveling jacks. This helped prevent the gun from digging in into the ground, distributing the weight evenly, and to help keep the gun level on uneven ground.
A close-up view of the dismantled 8.8 cm Flak cross-shaped platform. The two folding side outriggers are missing. The central octagonal base would later be replaced with a much simpler square-shaped one. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe side outriggers could be lowered during firing. In order to provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. At the bottom of each outrigger were round-shaped leveling jacks. Their purpose was to prevent the gun from digging into the ground and to keep the gun level on uneven ground. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe side outriggers are fully raised during transport. [o5m6.de]To prevent damaging the gun during transport, a large travel lock was installed on the front outrigger. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
Bogies
The entire gun assembly was moved using a two-wheeled dolly, designated as Sonderanhanger 201. The front part consisted of a dolly with single wheels, while the rear dolly consisted of a pair of wheels per side on a single axle. Another difference between these two was that the front dolly had 7, and the rear had 11 transverse leaf springs. The wheel diameter was the same for the two, at 910 mm. These were also provided with air brakes. While these units were supposed to be removed during firing, the crew would often not remove them, as it was easier to move the gun quickly if needed. This was only possible when engaging targets at low gun elevations. Aerial targets could not be engaged this way, as the recoil would break the axles. The front and rear outriggers would be raised from the ground by using a winch with chains located on the dollies. When raised to a sufficient height, the outriggers would be held in place by dolly’s hooks. These were connected with a round pin, located inside of each of the outriggers.
The two trailer units were connected to the front and rear outriggers by using simple hooks, which would quite easily be disengaged. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe front view of the Sonderanhanger 201 dolly could be easily identified by the use of only two wheels. The chain’s winch would be used to raise the outriggers. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
Firing with both trailer units still connected to the gun as possible, but it raised the height of the gun and prevented it from engaging air targets. [o5m6.de]Later, a new improved Sonderanhanger 202 model was introduced (used on the Flak 36 version). On this redesigned version, the two towing units were redesigned to be similar to each other. This was done to ease production but also so the gun could be towed in either direction when needed. While, initially, the dolly was equipped with one set of two wheels and the trailer with two pairs, the new model adopted a doubled-wheeled dolly instead.
Protection
Initially, the 8.8 cm Flak guns were not provided with an armored shield for crew protection. Given its long-range and its intended role as an anti-aircraft gun, this was deemed unnecessary in its early development. Following the successful campaign in the West against France and its Allies in 1940, the Commanding General of the I. Flakkorp requested that all 8.8 cm Flak guns that would be used at on the frontline receive a protective shield. During 1941, most 8.8 cm Flaks that were used on the frontline were supplied with a 1.75 meter high and 1.95 meters wide frontal armored shield. Two smaller armored panels (7.5 cm wide at top and 56 cm at bottom) were placed on the sides. The frontal plate was 10 mm thick, while the two side plates were 6 mm thick. The recuperator cylinders were also protected with an armored cover. The total weight of the 8.8 cm Flak armored plates was 474 kg. On the right side of the large gun shield, there was a hatch that would be closed during the engagement of ground targets. In this case, the gunner would use telescopic sight through the visor port. During engagement of air targets, this hatch was open.
Most guns were initially not provided with a shield. Given its original purpose, this is not surprising. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank roleMost guns that were issued for field use would be provided with a large 10 mm thick front armored shield. The wire cover on the top was used for camouflage. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank roleOn the left side of the gun shield, there was a hatch that would be used for the gunner to find his aerial targets. [worldwarphotos.info]
Ammunition
The 88 mm FlaK could use a series of different rounds. The 8.8 cm Sprgr. Patr. was a 9.4 kg heavy high-explosive round with a 30-second time fuze. It could be used against both anti-aircraft and ground targets. When used in the anti-aircraft role, the time fuze was added. The 8.8 Sprgr. Az. was a high-explosive round that had a contact fuze. In 1944 the Germans introduced a slightly improved model that tested the idea of using control fragmentation, which was unsuccessful. The 8.8 Sch. Sprgr. Patr. and br. Sch. Gr. Patr. were shrapnel rounds.
The 8.8 cm Pzgr Patr was a 9.5 kg standard anti-tank round. With a velocity of 810 m/s, it could penetrate 95 mm of 30° angled armor at 1 km. At 2 km at the same angle, it could pierce 72 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 40 was a tungsten-cored anti-tank round. The 8.8 cm H1 Gr. Patr. 39 Flak was a 7.2 kg heavy hollow charge anti-tank round. At a 1 kg range, it was able to penetrate 165 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm ammunition was usually stored in wooden or metal containers.
The 8.8 cm Flak used large one-piece ammunition. It was stored in either wooden or metal containers. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Crew
The 88 mm Flak had a crew of 11 men. These included a commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, a loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver of the towing vehicle. Guns that were used on a static mount usually had a smaller crew. The two gun operators were positioned to the right of the gun. Each of them was responsible for operating a hand wheel, one for elevation and one for the traverse. The front operator was responsible for traverse and the one behind him for elevation. The front traverse operator was also responsible for using the weapon gun sight for targeting the enemy. On the left side of the gun were the two fuse operators. The loader with the ammunition assistants was placed behind the gun. A well-experienced crew needed 2 to 2 and a half minutes to prepare the gun for firing. The time to put the gun into the traveling position was 3.5 minutes. The 8.8 cm gun was usually towed by an Sd.Kfz. 7 half-track or a heavy-duty six-wheel truck.
The 8.8 cm guns that were used for supporting ground units had a fairly large crew. [Pinterest]The Sd.Kfz. 7 half-tracks were the primary towing vehicles for this gun. [defensemedianetwork.com]Six-wheeled heavy-duty trucks would sometimes be used due to the lack of half-tracks. They did not offer the same driving performance. [worldwarphotos.info]
Flak 36 and 37
While the Flak 18 was deemed a good design, there was room for improvement. The gun itself did not need much improvement. The gun platform, on the other hand, was slightly modified to provide better stability during firing and to make it easier to produce. The base of the gun mount was changed from an octagonal to a more simple square shape. The previously mentioned Sonderanhanger 202 was used on this model.
Due to the high rate of fire, anti-aircraft guns frequently had to receive new barrels, as these were quickly worn out. To facilitate quick replacement, the Germans introduced a new three-part barrel. It consists of a chamber portion, a center portion, and the muzzle section. While it made the replacement of worn-out parts easier, it also allowed these components to be built with different metals. Besides this, the overall performance of the Flak 18 and Flak 36 was the same. The Flak 36 was officially adopted on the 8th of February 1939.
As the Germans introduced the new Flak 41, due to production delays, some of the guns were merged with the mount of a Flak 36. A very limited production run was made of the 8.8 cm Flak 36/42, which entered service in 1942.
In 1942, the improved 88 mm Flak 37 entered mass production according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle. On the other hand J. Ledwoch (8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155) state that the Flak 37 was introduced to service way back in 1937. Visually, it was the same as the previous Flak 36 model. The difference was that this model was intended to have better anti-aircraft performance, having specially designed directional dials. The original gunner dials were replaced with the “follow-the-pointer” system. It consists of two sets of dials that are placed on the right side of the gun. These received information about the enemy targets from a remote central fire direction post connected electrically. This way, the gun operator only had to make slight adjustments, such as elevation, and fire the gun.
The necessary information about the enemy targets was provided by a Funkmessgerate ( Predictor) which was essentially a mechanical analog computer. Once the enemy aircraft were spotted, their estimated speed and direction were inserted into this computer which would then calculate the precise position and elevation. This information would be sent to any linked anti-aircraft batteries by a wire connection. One set of the dials would then show the crew the necessary changes that need to be done to the elevation and direction of the enemy approach. The crew then had to manually position the gun elevation and direction until the second dials indicators matched the first one. The funkmessgerate computer also provided correct fuse time settings. In principle, this system eased the aiming task of the crew and at the same time improved accuracy. When used in this manner the Flak 37 could not be used for an anti-tank role.
The last change to this series was the reintroduction of a two-piece barrel design. Besides these improvements, the overall performance was the same as with the previous models. From March 1943 only the Flak 37 would be produced, completely replacing the older models.
The 8.8 cm Flak 37 introduced the use of specially designed directional dials, which help the crew better adjust the gun. Source: Norris 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45
Organization
German air defense was solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe, with the majority of 8.8 cm guns being allocated to them. The German Army and Navy also possessed some anti-aircraft units, but these were used in quite limited numbers. The largest units were the Flak Korps (Anti-aircraft corps). It consisted of two to four Flak Divisionen (Anti-aircraft divisions). These divisions, depending on the need, were either used as mobile forces or for static defense. These were further divided into Bigaden (brigades ) which consisted of two or more Regimenter (Regiments). Regiments in turn were divided into four to six Abteilunge (Battalion). Battalion strength was eight 8.8 cm guns with 18 smaller 2 cm guns. To complicate things a bit more, each Battalion could be divided into four groups: Leichte (Light, equipped with calibers such as 2 cm or 3.7 cm), Gemischte (mixed light and heavy), Schwere (Heavy equip with a caliber greater than 88 mm) and Scheinwerfer (Searchlight).
Mobile War
Initially, operations and crew training was carried out by the Reichswehr. They were organized into the so-called Fahrabteilung (Training Battalion) to hide their intended role. By 1935, the German Army underwent a huge reorganization, one aspect of which was changing its name to the Wehrmacht. In regard to the anti-aircraft protection, it was now solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe. For this reason, almost all available 8.8 cm guns were reallocated to Luftwaffe control. Only around eight Flak Battalions which were armed with 2 cm anti-aircraft guns were left under direct Army control.
In Spain
When the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Francisco Franco, leader of the Nationalists, sent a plea to Adolf Hitler for German military equipment aid. To make matters worse for Franco, nearly all his loyal forces were stationed in Africa. As the Republicans controlled the Spanish navy, Franco could not move his troops back to Spain safely. So he was forced to seek foreign aid. Hitler was keen on helping Franco, seeing Spain as a potential ally, and agreed to provide assistance. At the end of July 1936, 6 He 51 and 20 Ju 57 aircraft were transported to Spain under secrecy. These would serve as the basis for the air force of the German Condor Legion which operated in Spain during this war. The German ground forces operating in Spain were supplied with a number of 8.8 cm guns.
These arrived in early November 1936 and were used to form the F/88 anti-aircraft battalion. This unit consisted of four heavy and two light batteries. Starting from March 1937 these were allocated to protect various defense points at Burgos and Vittoria. In March 1938, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery dueled with an enemy 76.2 cm anti-aircraft gun which were manned by French volunteers from the International Brigades. While the 8.8 cm guns were mainly employed against ground targets they still had a chance to fire at air targets. For example, while defending the La Cenia airfield, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery prevented the Republican bombing attack by damaging at least two SB-2 bombers on the 10th of June 1938. Three days later one SB-2 was shot down by an 8.8 cm gun. In early August another SB-2 was shot down by the same unit. The performance of the 8.8 cm gun during the war in Spain was deemed satisfying. It was excellent in ground operations, possessing good range and firepower.
An 8.8 cm Flak gun in Spain.[weaponsandwarfare.com]
During the Second World War
Prior to the war, the 8.8 m guns could be often seen on many military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. The first ‘combat’ use of the 8.8 cm Flak in German use was during the occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The entire operation was carried out peacefully and the 8.8 cm gun did not have to fire in anger.
Prior to the war, the 8.8 cm guns war could have been often seen on military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
The Polish campaign saw little use of the 8.8 cm guns. The main reason for this was that the Polish Air Force was mostly destroyed in the first few days of combat. They were mainly used against ground targets. In one example, the 8.8 cm guns from the 22nd Flak Regiment tried to prevent a Polish counter-attack at Ilza. The battery would be overrun while the crew tried to defend themselves, losing three guns in the process. The 8.8 cm Flak gun also saw service during the battles for Warsaw and Kutno.
The 8.8 cm followed the Germans in their occupation of Denmark and Norway. One of the key objectives in Norway was the capture of a number of airfields. Once captured, the Germans rushed in Flak guns including the 8.8 cm, to defend these as they were crucial for the rather short-ranged German bombers. On the 12th of April 1940, the British Air Force launched two (83 strong in total) bombing raids at the German ships which were anchored at the Stavanger harbor. Thanks to the Flak and fighter support, six Hampden and three Wellington bombers were shot down.
Following the conclusion of the Polish campaign, the Germans began increasing the numbers of the motorized Flak units. Some 32 Flak Batteries were available which the Germans used to form the 1st and 2nd Flak Corps. 1st Corps would be allocated to the Panzergruppe Kleist, while the second was allocated to the 4th and 6th Army. The Luftwaffe, as in Poland (September 1939), quickly gained air superiority over the Allied Air Forces. Despite this, there was still opportunity for the 8.8 cm guns to fire at air targets. During the period from the 10th to 26th May 1940, the following successes were made against enemy aircraft by flak units that were part of the XIX Armee Corps: the 83rd Flak Battalion brought down some 54, 92nd Flak Battalion 44, 71th Flak Battalion 24, the 91st Flak Battalion 8, 36th Flak Regiment 26, 18th Flak Regiment 27, and 38th Flak Regiment 23 aircraft. During the notorious German crossing near Sedan, a combined Allied air force tried to dislodge them. The strong Flak presence together with air fighter cover, lead to the Allies losing 90 aircraft in the process.
Following the Western Campaign, the 8.8 cm guns would see extensive service through the war. Ironically they would be more often employed against enemy armor than in the original role. Given the extensive Allied bombing raids, more and more 8.8 cm would be allocated to domestic anti-aircraft defense. One major use of 8.8 cm Flak was during the German evacuation of Sicily, by providing necessary air cover for the retreating Axis soldiers and materiel to the Italian mainland.
In the occupied Balkans, the 8.8 cm Flak was a rare sight until late 1943 and early 1944. The ever-increasing Allied bombing raids forced the Germans to reinforce their positions with a number of anti-aircraft guns, including the 8.8 cm Flak. Some 40 8.8 cm Flak guns were used to protect German-held Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia. Most would be lost after a successful liberation operation conducted by the Red Army supported by Yugoslav Partisans. The 8.8 cm Flak guns were also used in static emplacements defending the Adriatic coast at several key locations from 1943 on. One of the last such batteries to surrender to the Yugoslav Partisans was the one stationed in Pula, which had twelve 8.8 cm guns. It continued to resist the Partisans until the 8th of May, 1945.
Some of the 8.8 cm guns were destroyed or abandoned. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51
Defense of the Fatherland
While the 8.8 cm Flaks would see service supporting the advancing German forces, the majority of them would actually be used as static anti-aircraft emplacements. For example, during the production period of October 1943 to November 1944, around 61% of the 8.8 cm Flak guns produced were intended for static defense. Additionally, of 1,644 batteries that were equipped with this gun, only 225 were fully motorized, with an additional 31 batteries that were only partially motorized (start of September 1944).
When the war broke out with Poland, the Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units had at their disposal some 657 anti-aircraft guns of various calibers. The majority were the 8.8 cm with smaller quantities of the larger 10.5 cm and even some captured Czezh 8.35 anti-aircraft guns. An additional 12 Flak Companies equipped with the 8.8 cm guns were given to the navy for the protection of a number of important harbors. The remaining guns were used to protect vital cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The important Ruhr industry center was also heavily defended.
The majority of the 8.8 cm Flak guns built would be used in static defense without the cross-shaped platform. These would mostly be destroyed by their crews to prevent their capture when the Allies made their advances into Germany. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
One of the first enemy aircraft shot down over German skies were British Wellington bombers. This occurred on the 4th of September 1939 when one or two enemy bombers were brought down by heavy Flak fire. These intended to bomb vital German naval ports. In early October 1939, in Strasbourg, a French Potez 637 was shot down by the 84th Flak Regiments 8.8 cm guns. One Amiot 143 and a Whitley aircraft were shot down in Germany in mid-October. During December 1939 British launched two bombing raids intended to inflict damage on German ports. Both raids failed with the British losing some 17 out of 36 Wellington bombers.
After Germany’s victory over the Western Allies in June, the Germans began forming the first Flak defense line in occupied territories and coastlines. These were not only equipped with German guns but also with those captured from enemy forces.
A 8.8 cm by the Atlantic coast in 1941. This crew had already achieved two kills, judging by the kill marks on the barrel. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
Due to the poor results of their daylight bombing raids, the British began to employ night raids. These initially were quite unsuccessful with minimal damage to Germany’s infrastructure and industry. The Flak defense of Germany was also quite unprepared for night raids, unable to spot enemy bombers at night. The situation changed only in 1940 with the introduction of ground-operated radar. Thanks to this, the first few months of 1941 saw German Flak units bring down 115 enemy aircraft.
In 1942 the British military top made a decision to begin the mass bombing of German cities. The aim was to “de-house” (or kill) workers, damage infrastructure to make urban industrial areas unusable, and try and cause a moral collapse as was the case in 1918. Implementation of this tactic was initially slow due to an insufficient number of bombers. In addition, vital targets in occupied Europe were also to be bombed. In May 1942, the British launched a force that consisted of over 1,000 aircraft causing huge damage to Germany, killing 486 and injuring over 55,000 people.
In 1943 several huge events happened. The German defeats in East and North Africa led to huge material and manpower losses, while the Allies were preparing to launch massive bombing raids mainly intended to cripple Germany’s production capabilities. In response, the Germans began increasing their number of Flak units. At the start of 1943, there were some 659 heavy Flak batteries, which were increased to 1,089 by June the same year. Due to a lack of manpower, the Germans began mobilizing their civilians regardless of their age or sex. For example, in 1943 there were some 116,000 young women who were employed in various roles, even operating the guns. Near the end of the war, it was common to see all-female crews operating Flak batteries. In addition in 1944 some 38,000 young boys were also employed in this manner. Ironically, while all German military branches lacked equipment, the anti-aircraft branch had spare equipment and guns, but lacked the manpower to operate them. To resolve this, foreign Volunteers and even Soviet prisoners of war were pressed into service. The downside was the general lack of training, which greatly affected their performance.
In the first few months of 1944, the Allied 8th and 15th Air Forces lost some 315 bombers with 10,573 damaged, all attributed to the heavy Flak. In 1944 (date unspecified in the source) during an attack on the heavily defended Leuna synthetic oil refinery, some 59 Allied bombers were brought down by the heavy Flak guns. By 1944 the number of heavy anti-aircraft guns that were intended for the defense of Germany reached 7,941. By April 1945 the Flak guns managed to shoot down 1,345 British bombers. The American 8th lost 1,798, while the 15th Air Force lost 1,046 bombers due to German Flak defence by the end of the war.
The last action of the 8.8 cm Flak guns was during the defense of the German capital of Berlin. Due to most being placed in fixed positions, they could not be evacuated and most would be destroyed by their own crews to prevent capture. Despite the losses suffered during the war, in February 1945, there were still some 8,769 8.8 cm Flak guns available for service.
The Flak provided necessary and crucial defense of vital industrial centers. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
Effectiveness of the 8.8 cm Guns in Anti-aircraft Role
Regarding the effectiveness of the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns with the necessary number of rounds needed to bring down enemy aircraft. Author E.B. Westermann (Flak German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945) gives us a good example and comparison between three main German anti-aircraft guns. The largest 12.8 cm Flak on average fired some 3,000 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft. The 10.5 cm gun needed 6,000 and the 8.8 cm 15,000 rounds (some sources mentioned 16,000). This seems at first glance like a huge waste of available resources, but is it right to conclude that?
According to an Allied war document dated from early 1945, they mentioned a few interesting facts about German flak defense. According to them, in 1943 some 33% of bombers destroyed by Germany were accredited to heavy Flak gunfire. In addition, 66% of damage sustained by their aircraft was also caused by the heavy Flak fire. In the summer of 1944, this number increased. The majority (some 66%) shot down enemy bombers were accredited to the heavy Flaks. And of 13,000 damaged bombers some 98% were estimated to be caused by the Flaks. Here it is important to note that by this time, Luftwaffe fighters lacked the ability to attack bomber formations en mass. Therefore this increase of aircraft shot down by the Flaks may be explained by this.
In addition, we must also take into account two other functions that these guns had which are often overlooked. They did not necessarily need to bring down enemy bombers. It was enough to force the enemy fly at higher altitudes to avoid losses. This in turn led to a huge loss of accuracy for the bombers. Secondly, the enemy bombers were often forced to break formation when sustaining heavy Flak fire, which left them exposed to German fighters. The shrapnel from the Flak rounds could not always directly bring down a bomber, but it could cause sufficient damage (fuel leaks for example) that the aircraft, later on, had to make an emergency landing, even in enemy territory. The damaged aircraft that made it back to their bases could spend considerable time awaiting repairs. Lastly, the Flak fire could incapacitate, wound or even kill bomber crews. Thus there was a huge psychological effect on enemy bomber crews. B-17 gunner Sgt W. J. Howard from the 100th Bomb Group recalled his experience with the German Flak. “All the missions scared me to death. Whether you had fighters or not you still had to fly through the flak. Flak was what really got you thinking, but I found a way to suck it up and go on.”
Hitler was quite impressed with the 8.8 cm performance. On the 28th of August 1942, he stated: “The best flak gun is the 8.8 cm. The 10.5 has the disadvantage that it consumes too much ammunition, and the barrel does not hold up very long. The Reich Marshall Göring continually wants to build the 12.8 into the flak program. This double-barreled 12.8 cm has a fantastic appearance. If one examines the 8.8 from a technician’s perspective, it is to be sure the most beautiful weapon yet fashioned, with the exception of the 12.8 cm”.
Despite the best German efforts, the Flak’s effectiveness greatly degraded by late 1944. The reason for this was the shortage of properly trained crews. At the start of the war, the Germans paid great attention to crew training, which lasted several months. As the Flak guns were needed on the front, less experienced and trained personnel had to be used instead. In the later stages of the war, these crews received only a few weeks of training, which was insufficient for the job they had to perform. Lastly, Allied bombing raids eventually took their toll on German industry, greatly reducing the production of ammunition, which was one of the main reasons why the anti-aircraft defense of Germany ultimately failed. Of course, a proper analysis and conclusion could not be easily made and would require more extensive research, a wholly different topic on its own.
Self-Propelled Versions
When used as anti-aircraft weapons, the 8.8 cm guns were in most cases used as static defense points. Despite this, the Germans made several attempts to increase their mobility by placing the 8.8 cm guns on various chassis. One of the first attempts was by mounting the 8.8 cm gun on a VOMAG 6×6 truck chassis. The small number built was given to the 42nd Flak Regiment which operated them up to the end of the war.
The VOMAG truck was armed with 8.8 cm guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
The truck chassis offered great mobility on good roads, but their off-road handling was highly problematic. So Germans used half-tracks and full-track chassis. Smaller numbers of Sd. Kfz 9 armed with the 8.8 cm gun were built. Attempts to build a full-track vehicle were made but never went beyond a prototype stage. The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell was a project where an 8.8cm gun was mounted on a fully tracked chassis with a folding wall, but only one vehicle would be built. There are some photographs of Panzer IV modified with this gun, and while not much is known about them they appear to be a field conversion, rather than dedicated design vehicles. There were even proposals to mount an 8.8 cm gun on a Panther tank chassis, but nothing would come from it in the end.
Some 12 Sd. Kfz. 9 were modified by receiving an 8.8 cm gun. [worldwarphotos.info]The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell Pz.Sfl.IVc prototype.[uofa.ru]The strange-looking Panzer IV armed with this gun. [armedconflicts.com]Mounting the 8.8 cm gun on railroad cars was a common sight in Germany at early stages of the war. There was various design that may differ greatly from each other. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Usage after the war
With the defeat of Germany during the Second World War, the 8.8 cm Flak guns found usage in a number of other armies. Some of these were Spain, Portugal, Albania, and Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1950s, the Yugoslavian People’s Army had slightly less than 170 8.8 cm guns in its inventory. These were, besides their original anti-aircraft role, used to arm navy ships and were later placed around the Adriatic coast. A number of these guns would be captured and used by various warring parties during the Yugoslav civil wars of the 1990s. Interestingly, the Serbian forces removed the 8.8 cm barrel on two guns and replaced them with two pairs of 262 mm Orkan rocket launcher tubes. The last four operational examples were finally removed from service from the Serbian and Montenegrin Army in 2004.
The 8.8 cm Flak in the Yugoslavian People’s Army service, during military training near the capital in 1955. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51Two 8.8 cm Flak guns were reused by replacing the gun with two 262mm rocket launchers. While not a success, these two remained in use up to 1998. [srpskioklop.paluba.info]
Conclusion
The 8.8 cm Flak was an extraordinary weapon that provided the German Army with much-needed firepower during the early stages of the war. The design as a whole was nothing special, but it had a great benefit in that it could be built relatively cheaply and in great numbers. That was probably its greatest success, being available in huge numbers compared to similar weapons of other nations.
Its performance in the anti-aircraft role was deemed satisfying, but still stronger models would be employed to supplement its firepower. The 8.8 cm anti-air gun’s effectiveness was greatly degraded toward the end of the war, which was caused not by the gun design itself but other external forces. These being mainly the lack of properly trained crews and shortages of ammunition.
8.8 cm Flak 18 Specifications:
Crew: 11
(Commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver)
Weight in firing position:
5150 kg
Total weight:
7450 kg.
Dimensions in towing position:
Length 7.7 m, Width 2.2 m, Height 2.4 m,
Dimensions in deployed position:
Length 5.8 m, Height 214 m,
Primary Armament:
8.8 cm L/56 gun
Elevation:
-3° to +85°
Gallery
The Flak 88 mm gun in towing postion
Flak 88 in firing position
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
Illustrations by David B.
Sources
J. Norris (2002) 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45 Osprey Publishing
D. Nijboer (2019) German Flak Defences Vs. Allied Heavy Bombers 1942-45, Osprey Publishing
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/41 in the Anti-Tank role
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak
W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
E. D. Westermann (2001) Flak, German Anti-Aircraft Defense 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas.
German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel (29th June 1943) War Department Technical Manual
T. Anderson (2018) History of Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-45, Osprey publishing
T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey publishing
S. Zaloga (2011) Armored Attack 1944, Stackpole book
W. Fowler (2002) France, Holland and Belgium 1940, Allan Publishing
1ATB in France 1939-40, Military Modeling Vol.44 (2014) AFV Special
N, Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armored Operation North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
A. Radić (2011) Arsenal 51 and 52
While A. Lüdeke, Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon
J. Ledwoch 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155
S. H. Newton (2002) Kursk The German View, Da Capo Press
W. Howler (2002 France, Belgium and Holland 1940, Ian Allan
J. S. Corum (2021) Norway 1940 The Luftwaffe’s Scandinavian Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing
A B-Class Blimp just after takeoff. This type would be the first in a long line of USN patrol blimps. [US National Archives]The B-Class Blimp was a type of non-rigid airship used for training and patrol duty by the United States Navy during, and after the First World War. The type would be the first successful patrol blimp series the Navy would field and would be used until the early 1920s. Its success would prove the effectiveness of coastal patrol airships in the US, and would mark the beginning of a long line of airships operated by the Navy.
A Rocky Start
Two B-Class blimps during a training exercise. Two spherical observation balloons can also be seen. [US National Archives]The First World War was one that saw considerable technological breakthroughs, with many different ideas coming to fruition for the first time or previously small endeavors in weapons now being used in large numbers. Nowhere was this more clear than with aircraft design. Aside from conventional airplanes, lighter-than-air aircraft also saw their first widespread combat use, ranging from the large Zeppelin raids on London, to the observation balloons at the front. Britain would develop their own unique series of non-rigid dirigibles for the sole purpose of patrolling their coastlines and surrounding waters to search for enemy ships and submarines. At first, the Sea Scout class of airship would fill this role, but later the much larger North Sea and Coastal-classes of airship would also be built. These airships would prove very effective in their patrol duties, with some capable of patrolling for hours on end without stopping. The success of these airships would inspire the United States Navy to begin work on their own design in 1915.
An example of a British coastal patrol airship is the Sea-Scout class, which were heavily used during the First World War to patrol the coastline. This type in particular would serve as a basis for the B-class Blimp [Imperial War Musuem]The first of the Navy’s patrol airships would be the DN-1, later considered the A-Class but never officially known as this. The DN-1 was built by the Connecticut Aircraft Company in 1915 using intelligence from German and Austrian non-rigid airship designs of the time. The DN-1 would prove to be a massive failure, having a poor top speed, inadequate lift, and engine troubles which led the type to not be mass produced. Seeking to avoid a repeat of the DN-1, the Navy would begin looking for a more successful design. Their search would lead to the creation of the improved B-Class
The B-Class Blimp
Rear view of the B-1, the first of the B-Class. [US National Archives]The designers at the Bureau of Construction and Repair (Bu. of C&R) would instead look towards the British for inspiration for their improved design over the German/Austrian based DN-1. The result would be the B-Class. Its overall design took heavy inspiration from the British Sea Scout class of airship. The design would be drafted by the Bu. of C&R. There were several expected requirements to the B-class. The airship had to have a top speed of at least 45mph, a 35mph cruising speed with an endurance of 12 hours, communication range of 150 miles, a crew of three, and it had to be able to land on water for emergencies or towing. The design was approved on January 26th by the General Board and a day later by the Navy. An initial order for two B-class blimps was arranged, but this would change on February 4th when a total of 16 were now ordered. This amount was too much for a single company to construct, so instead 5 companies were approached; Goodyear, Goodrich, the Connecticut Aircraft Company, Curtiss and U.S. Rubber. All of these companies, despite being rivals, would work closely together on the construction of the B-class blimps. Three companies would construct the main balloon section themselves, Goodyear, Goodrich and Connecticut. Goodyear was tasked with building B-1 through B-9, Goodrich would build B-10 through B-14 and Connecticut would build B-15 and B-16. Curtiss would focus on building the gondolas of the B-class, which were modified JN-4 Jenny fuselages, as well as building the OXX engines and fins for the craft. U.S. Rubber would supply Connecticut with fabric for the skin. At the start, Curtiss was meant to build three blimps but these would be instead given to Goodrich, as Curtiss had other aircraft projects to focus on. Building military airships was a new endeavor for most of these companies, aside from Connecticut who produced the previously mentioned DN-1. Goodyear had the most experience in terms of production of lighter-than-air aircraft, as they had already produced a number of free and kite balloons for the Navy, and were found to be the most prepared for production of this scale. Thus the first few B-Class were assigned to them.
Design
Underside view of a B-Class and its gondola. [US National Archives]Closeup view of the modified Curtiss JN-4 Jenny fuselages used as the gondola for the B-class. [US National Archives]The B-Class was a blimp designed for patrolling the offshore waters of the American coastline during World War One. The B-Class had a large, teardrop shaped body that was filled with hydrogen. It would be 160 ft (48.8 m) long. The overall volume of the B-classes differed between the companies that built it. At the rear of the body were several fins, two horizontal, one ventral and one dorsal. Each of these, except the dorsal fin, would have control surfaces to move the airship in the desired direction. Hung underneath the body was the gondola. The gondola was a modified Curtiss JN-4 Jenny fuselage with its wings and tail surfaces removed. An additional third seat was added compared to the standard two seats of the JN-4. In the nose of the gondola was a single Curtiss 100 hp OXX-2 engine powering a two-blade wooden propeller. On the two Connecticut B-classes, 100 hp Hall-Scott engines would be used instead. Beneath the gondola, the B-Class originally retained the landing gear from the JN-4, but these were swapped out later for two flotation bags. On the last B-Class built, B-20, a completely new gondola was designed and the craft was much larger than the standard design.
For armament, the B-class would have a Lewis machine gun. For anti-submarine duties, it could carry depth charges or bombs. Additional equipment for the crew included a radio transmitter and receiver, flashlights, a flare pistol with green and red flares, life preservers, rations, drinkable water, maps, a camera, carrier pigeons and signal books.
The B-Class in the War
A B-Class blimp above the Goodyear hangar at Akron. Two Upson kite balloons can be seen in the hangar. [US National Archives]The first B-Class, B-1, would be completed by Goodyear sometime in April/May of 1917. At the time of its creation, Goodyear had been working on building a facility in Akron to house and operate airships, but it was still under construction when B-1 was completed. Thus, Goodyear had to transport the B-1 to the Goodrich facility near Chicago to inflate the craft. The craft was finally inflated and first flown on May 24th, 1917, with Ralph H. Upson at the controls. Upson was an airship engineer and pilot at Goodyear, and a pioneer in the lighter-than-air field, winning an airship race in 1913 and designing his own kite balloons at Goodyear only a few years earlier. He was thoroughly impressed with the first test flights. Upson would take the B-1 up again 5 days after the first flight and would try to fly from Chicago all the way to Akron. His flight started at midnight. Due to an oil leak, he would have to set the craft down at noon, just 10 miles outside of Akron. Despite not making it to his intended destination, Upson had achieved a record for lighter-than-air aircraft travel distance in America. The Navy had doubts surrounding the B-Class after the failure of the DN-1, but with the type already achieving world records on only its second flight, these doubts were quickly amended. The type was already proving its effectiveness even before entering active service. Production of the rest of the 15 B-classes soon commenced and the B-1 was shipped to Pensacola on August 7th, 1917.
B-Class at Akron, Ohio. [US National Archives]As production continued, the various B-Classes would be sent across America to different air stations for duties. These included Naval Air Stations; Pensacola, Cape May, Montauk, Key West, Rockaway, San Diego, and Coco Solo in Panama. B-classes would also be stationed at Hampton for mostly testing purposes. Several improvements of the B-class would occur during its service, improving its top speed from 40mph to 48mph. The B-Class was responsible for patrol and rescue operations off the coastlines of America, and hunting for the dreaded U-Boat. It was found that blimps were much better for patrol duties than airplanes thanks to their long range, extended endurance time, and the ability to hover in midair assisted in spotting enemy warships. The B-Class would perform this duty until the end of the war. If a B-Class encountered a U-Boat, it could deploy depth charges or bombs, or radio in for aerial support from the NAS the aircraft was stationed at. During its service life, at least two B-classes would spot a U-boat and attempt to destroy it, but none would be sunk by the B-Class. The service of the B-class was impressive. It is estimated that the B-classes together patrolled for over 13,600 hours across 400,000 miles. Aside from patrol duties, another impact the B-Class had on the military was its extensive use as a training craft. Several B-classes would be stationed at the aforementioned Goodyear Akron facility solely for the purpose of training. Over 170 aviators would train and be certified on the B-Class, with many headed overseas to operate European dirigibles in service with France and Britain. No B-class blimps were ever sent to Europe.
A B-Class preparing for takeoff. [US National Archives]The B-class was not without its accidents. Throughout their service life, many B-class blimps would suffer damage or be completely destroyed while on duty. B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, B-14 and B-16 were all destroyed in accidents before the end of the First World War.
B-Class at Akron Ohio. [US National Archives]Despite its effectiveness, the B-class was found to be lacking as a patrol craft, and the Navy would order a successor design in September of 1918 to amend the shortcomings of the B-class. This was the C-Class (no relation to the aforementioned British Coastal Class which was also known as the C-Class coastal airship) and it took many aspects of the B-Class and improved upon them. The shape of the balloon itself was overall the same, but the C-Class had a much larger gondola that sported two engines instead of one, granting improved speed and maneuverability. The C-Class however wouldn’t be ready before the end of the war, but was instead operated postwar.
The B-Class Postwar
View of a B-class during operations patrolling the Atlantic. This photo was taken from a USN submarine. [US National Archives]The First World War would end on November 11th, 1918, with the B-Class having served well in its duties. Despite the C-Class approaching production, the B-Classes still in service would continue to operate, however a few were stricken off to reduce the fleet size. Three B-Class blimps would be rebuilt reusing the envelopes from previously damaged blimps. These would be B-17, B-18 and B-19. B-17 is known to have reused the envelope from B-1, which was damaged on June 17th, 1920. B-18 likely used the envelope from B-13. Details on B-19 are lacking. It is known that these three blimps were constructed sometime in 1920. The final B-class built would be the B-20. Details are also sparse on this craft but it is known to have had a completely unique gondola design and was much larger than the standard B-Class. In the bureau number list, B-20 is listed as being before the aforementioned rebuilt gondolas. Interestingly, these B-classes were all built after not only the introduction of the C-Class, but even after its successor, the D-Class. All postwar built B-classes were constructed by Goodyear. The remaining B-classes continued to serve into the early 1920s, with many of them being scrapped due to accidents or deterioration with age. By 1924, three B-classes remained, B-3, B-8 and B-15. B-8 was heavily deteriorated but B-3 and B-15 were still in operational condition. By this point however, the B-class was heavily outdated, and with its services no longer required, the last 3 were surveyed and scrapped in 1924. The B-class actually wound up being in service longer than its successor, as the few remaining C-Classes had been scrapped in 1922.
Conclusion
A B-Class above the Naval Air Station at Key West, Florida. [US National Archives]The B-Class was an important achievement to the United States Navy, proving the effectiveness of patrol airships and paving the way for a long line of succeeding designs. The B-Class would train aviators that would go on to protect allied countries in foreign built dirigibles, and would protect the American coasts from U-Boats. B-Class blimps would serve the Navy well past its expiration date, even surpassing its own successor. The Navy’s LTA airship fleet began with the humble B-Class, and would continue for almost five decades later.
One of the early B-Classes built by Goodrich. Notice the double ventral fins. [US National Archives]
Service List
B-1: The first in the B-Class series, B-1 would survive the war. On June 17th, 1920, B-1 would be damaged at Pensacola and would be stricken off. The gas bag was later reused on B-17.
B-2: B-2 would survive the war and would be stationed at Key West. On February 28th, 1919, B-2 would completely wreck.
B-3: B-3 would survive the war and continue to serve until it was surveyed in 1924. The ship was damaged several times but was fully repaired each time.
B-4: Stationed at Hampton NAS for testing. On August 8th, 1918 the craft was damaged and stricken. The blimp was salvaged for spare parts.
B-5: Stationed at Akron. While on maneuvers, it would be completely destroyed on November 21st, 1917.
B-6: Service details are lacking, stricken from the Navy on September 7th, 1918.
B-7: Stricken June 8th, 1918.
B-8: Survived the war and served until March 19th, 1924, where it was surveyed due to deterioration.
B-9: Stationed at Key West. On April 21st, 1919 would completely wreck due to engine failure.
B-10: Stationed at Cape May. During maneuvers on December 7th, 1918, it would be heavily damaged. The craft was sent back to Goodrich but the repairs were considered too expensive and B-10 was scrapped. The envelope was torn up and distributed to other air stations to serve as repair materials on other blimps.
B-11: Shipped to Pensacola, service ended on August 15th, 1919. Service unknown.
B-12: B-12 wrecked while on patrol on July 26th, 1918.
B-13: Damaged numerous times during service at Montauk Naval Air Station. Envelope appears to have been salvaged and later reused but on what aircraft is unknown, possibly B-18. It was recommended to be stricken off at two different stations in 1919, at Montauk and Rockaway.
B-14: Wrecked July 20th, 1918 at Montauk(?).
B-15: Served at Pensacola through the war and after. Was finally surveyed on April 22nd, 1924.
B-16: Official report is spotty but on June 17th, 1918, the craft was destroyed.
B-17: Rebuilt gondola, reused the envelope from B-1, service unknown.
B-18: Rebuilt gondola, envelope possibly from B-13. Service unknown.
B-19: Rebuilt gondola, service unknown.
B-20: Last B-class. Built in 1920. Completely new gondola design. Service unknown.
Variants
Goodyear/Goodrich B-Class (1 through 14) – B-classes built by Goodyear/Goodrich would use Curtiss OXX-2 engines. The first few of these had double fins but these were later changed to a single fin.
Connecticut B-Class (15 & 16) – The two B-Classes built by Connecticut would use Hall-Scott engines. These two appear to have the double fins as well. Unknown if any of these were later changed.
B-20 – The last B-class produced. It would have a unique gondola design.
Operators
United States of America – The 20 B-classes built would be operated by the United States Navy for patrol and training purposes until 1924.
B-Class (Goodyear) Specifications
Length
160 ft / 48.8 m
Diameter
31.5 ft / 9.6 m
Volume
(Varies between companies)
77,000 ft³ / 2180.4 m³
Engine
1x 100 hp ( 73kW ) Curtiss OXX-2 8-cylinder engine
Kingdom of Hungary (1938)
Reconnaissance Aircraft & Light Bomber – 128 Built
The Weiss Manfrédfrom WM 21 two-seat reconnaissance aircraft. [lasegundaguerra.com]The Hungarian Aviation industry was rather small in scope in comparison to many in Europe. Regardless, it managed to introduce a number of domestic development projects. One of these was the Weiss Manfréd from WM 21, a two-seat reconnaissance aircraft of which some 128 were produced during the Second World War.
History
In the years after the First World War, Hungary was strictly forbidden from developing combat aircraft. To overcome this limitation, the Hungarians did what the Germans did and began developing a civil aircraft industry to help gain valuable experience in aircraft design. One of these companies that would emerge during the late 1920s was Weiss Manfréd, from Csepel near Budapest. In 1928 this company began working on the design and construction of gliders and engines.
Due to an initial lack of funds, the Hungarian Air Force was forced to rely on foreign aircraft that were bought in relatively small numbers. For example, by 1937 Hungarians had only around 255 operational aircraft. To help gain more experience, Weiss Manfrédfrom began producing Fokker F.VIII and C.V aircraft under license. When sufficient funds and experience were gained, Weiss Manfrédfrom engineers in 1935 began working on a new reconnaissance biplane design. They decided on a simple design, reusing some components that were already in production, and it would be a further development of the already produced WM 16 model, which was heavily based on the D version of the Fokker C.V.
The WM 21 predecessor was the WM 16 model which in turn was based on the C.V aircraft. [Wiki]When the prototype of the new short-range reconnaissance aircraft, WM 21 “Sólyom” (Falcon) was completed, it was presented to Hungarian Air Force officials, who were generally satisfied with its performance and gave an order for some 36 WM 21 in 1938. At that time, massive funds were being allocated to the development of the aircraft industry. In addition, Hungarian Air Force officials wanted to decentralize aircraft production. For this reason, the WM 21 was to be built by various other companies, including twelve to be built by MÁVAG and MWG
It was estimated that the production would commence during April and March 1939. It took longer to do so, with the first aircraft being available at the end of 1939. While the aircraft was slowly put into production, the Hungarian Air Force asked for more aircraft to be built.
In Combat
The WM 21 was primarily designed as a reconnaissance aircraft but due to a general lack of other aircraft types, it would be adopted for other roles. Its first combat use was during the so-called Transylvanian Crisis. Namely, in June 1940 Hungarian government demanded that Romania return the Transylvania region to them. Since it looked like war was coming, Hungarian Air Force began relocating its aircraft close to the Romanian border. Thanks to the commencement of negotiations, no war broke out. But by late August the Hungarians ordered a complete mobilization as the negotiation led nowhere.
While primarily intended to be used as a reconnaissance airfare it would be also used in other roles even as a light bomber. [lasegundaguerra.com]Germany did not want to lose its vital Romanian oil supply and forced both countries to begin new negotiations under German and Italian supervision. While the negotiations were underway, some smaller air skirmishes occurred. On the 27th of August, a Romanian He 112 attacked a Hungarian Ca 135 aircraft, which was heavily damaged and one crew member was killed. The following day a WM-21 piloted by Captain János Gyenesin, dropped bombs on the Romain Szatmárnémeti airfield in retaliation for the lost airman. On its way back it crash-landed, damaging the aircraft. In the end, Hungary emerged as the victor, gaining large territorial concessions over the Romanians.
When the April War broke out on the 6th of April 1941, between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis, the Hungarians joined the offensive. They employed their 1st Air Brigade which had some 60 aircraft. By the 17th of April, the war was over, and the Hungarian Air Force had lost 6 aircraft including one WM 21.
A colorized picture of the WM 21 rearview. [all-aero.com]On the 26th of June 1941, the Hungarian town of Kassa was bombed by three aircraft. The circumstance of this incident is not clear even to this day, but the Hungarian government asserted that it was a Soviet attack. The decision was made to declare war on the Soviet Union as a response. For the initial operation in the war against the Soviets, the Hungarian Air Force allocated 25 bombers (Ju 86 and Ca 135), 18 CR 42 fighters, and the 8th and 10th reconnaissance squadrons each equipped with 9 WM 21.
By 1942 most WM 21’s were allocated for use by training schools and as liaisons. Some would be used in later years for anti-partisan operations. By the end of the war, some WM 21 pilots managed to reach Austria where they hoped to surrender to the Western Allies.
Technical Characteristics
The WM 21 was a mixed-construction, biplane aircraft, designed to fulfill multiple roles. The fuselage and the wings were of metal construction which was covered in fabric. The lower and the upper wings were connected with each other by one “N” shaped metal strut on each side. In addition, there were two “V” shaped metal brackets that were connected with the fuselage and the upper wing. Lastly, there were two larger metal struts on each side that connected the landing gears to the top wing.
The WM 21 was a biplane two-seater aircraft. The lower and upper wings were held in place by various smaller metal bars, connecting them to each other and to the fuselage. [all-aero.com]The landing gear consisted of two fixed road wheels and a rear-positioned landing skid. Partly-covered front wheels were connected to the aircraft fuselage by three large metal bins.
Initially, the WM 21 was powered by an 870 hp Weiss WM K-14A radial piston engine. With this engine, the WM 21 could reach a maximum speed of 320 km/h. Later produced aircraft were equipped with a stronger 1,000 hp WM K-14B engine. With this engine, the maximum speed was increased to 380 km/h.
The pilot and the observer/machine gunner were placed in two separate open cockpits, the front for the pilot, and the rear for the observer. For better downward visibility the observer was provided with two fairly large glass panels, placed just under him on both fuselage sides.
Side view of the WM 21. Note the small glass panel located under the observer cockpit. [lasegundaguerra.com]The WM 21 was armed with two forward-firing 7.92 mm Gebauer machine guns. One additional defensive machine gun was placed in a flexible mount which was installed in the rear cockpit. Additionally, the offensive capabilities of the aircraft could be increased by adding bombs. The bomb bay was placed between the two crew members. To release the bomb the crews would use a release mechanism. The bomb load could consist either of 12 10kg anti-personnel bombs, or 60 1kg incendiary bombs. Later versions increased the bomb load to around 300 kg.
To the rear an additional 7.92 mm Gebauer machine gun was placed in a rotating mount for self-defense. [airwar.ru]
Production and Modifications
The WM 21 was produced in four small series. When the production ended in 1942 some 128 aircraft would be constructed. While designed by Manfred Weiss, this factory produced only 25 aircraft. The MAVAG produced 43 with the 60 being built by MWG. Due to the relatively low production numbers, only one modification of the original aircraft was ever made:
WM 21A – Powered with an 870 hp Weiss WM K-14A engine,
WM 21B – Slightly improved version powered by 1.000 hp WM K-14B engine
Some 128 WM 21 would be built by 1942 when the production ended. [all-aero.com]
Conclusion
The WM 21 was a Hungarian reconnaissance aircraft that would see service on several different fronts. While initially used in its intended role, it quickly became obsolete and was allocated to secondary missions, as a training aircraft or for liaison missions. Due to a lack of adequate aircraft, some WM 21would even see service as combat aircraft against Partisans forces, mostly in the Soviet Union.
WM-21A Specifications
Wingspan
12.9 m / 42 ft 4 in
Length
9.65 m / 31 ft 8 in
Height
3.5 m / 11 ft 5 in
Wing Area
32.75 m² / 352.53 ft²
Engine
One 870 hp (649 kW) Weiss WM K-14A radial piston engine
Empty Weight
2,450 kg / 5,400 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight
7,606 kg / 3,450 lb
Maximum Speed
320 km/h / 200 mph
Cruising Speed
275 km/h / 170 mph
Range
750 km / 466 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling
8,000m / 26,245 ft
Climb speed
Climb to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Crew
One pilot
Armament
Three 7.92mm machine guns
Total bomb load of some 100-300kg
Gallery
Weiss Manfred WM 21 “Sólyom”
Credits
Written by: Marko P.
Edited by:
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Sources:
D. Monday (1984, 2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
G. Sarhidai, G. Punka, and V. Kozlik (1996) Hungarian Eagles, Hikoki Publication
G. Punka (1994) Hungarian Air Force, Squadron Publication
S. Renner. (2016) Broken Wings The Hungarian Air Force, 1918-45, Indiana University Press
USA (1915) Observation & Training Balloon – 10+ Built
The Kite Balloon operated by the Navy at Pensacola. This particular balloon is based off the first patent. [Naval History and Heritage Command]The Upson Kite Balloons, also known as Goodyear Kite Balloons or simply Upson Balloons, were a series of three observation balloon designs by Ralph Hazlett Upson to improve upon the design of the German Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon. Two of the designs would be built by the Goodyear Corporation and sent to various balloon training schools and even operate off of ships, but the type was found to not offer much improvement over the Drachenballon, and the much more advanced Caquot balloon which would be introduced only a year after the Upson balloons were built, making the type null. A 3rd design would be patented but wouldn’t be built.
Ralph H. Upson and the Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon
R.H Upson outside of the Goodyear Hangar in Akron, 1917 [US National Archives]Ralph H. Upson was a pioneer in balloon and airship development in America in the early 1900s. In 1913, using his own airship design, he would win the International Balloon Race. Upson was an employee of the aeronautics division of the Goodyear Rubber and Tire Corporation where he was a pilot and engineer on the various lighter-than-air projects the company had been working on. Upson would mainly work at the Goodyear plant in Akron, Ohio. In 1914, the company began building observation kite balloons for the US Army to use in their balloon divisions. The main type of kite balloon in use was the German designed Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon. The Drachenballon was designed over a decade before in 1898 and was a replacement for the spherical observation balloons of the previous century, as the latter was found to be almost unusable when in windy conditions. The Parseval-Sigsfeld design was built in such a way it would face towards the wind thanks to a large, air-inflated steering bag at the rear of the balloon. Thus it was named Drachenballon, or “kite balloon”. America would build and operate several Drachenballons before their entrance into the First World War.
An example of a German-operated Parseval-Sigsfeld Drachenballon. [Waffen Arsenal 149]Upson would begin designing an improvement over the Drachenballon in 1915. Using the knowledge he learned from working on airships, he’d incorporate a number of features that would hopefully improve the overall stability of the German balloon. Two designs would be created at first in late 1915, with the patents on these designs being filed on June 20th, 1916.
Kite Balloon Design 1: Back to Basics
Kite Balloon Design 1 in the patent. The Navy-operated balloon in Pensacola is of this type. [Google Patents]An Upson balloon being inflated at Pensacola. [State Archives of Florida]The first of these designs was essentially a heavily modified Drachenballon. Its overall appearance and construction was the same. The balloon consisted of a large cylindrical gas bag. In the nose was a valve that regulates the pressure and gas and can be opened for release automatically or manually. On the underside was a neck to which the hydrogen gas was filled from. The Upson’s balloon’s neck was much longer than the neck on the Drachenballon. On the sides of the balloon were two stabilizing fins. On the Drachenballon, these fins are rectangular in shape. On Upson’s design, these would be triangular in shape and would sag down in flight. According to Upson, the rectangular fins of the Drachenballon only offered stabilization horizontally, while his fins would also prevent yaw and pitch movement. Internally at the rear was a large air bag to keep the balloon’s shape stable if the balloon isn’t fully inflated and keep the balloon at a 30-40 degree angle while in the air. The main difference between Design 1 and the Drachen involved the aft section of the balloon. On the standard Drachen is a large air-inflated steering bag that would keep the aircraft stable. On Upson’s design, the balloon would instead slightly taper at the rear. The steering bag would be removed altogether, instead replaced with a large keel-shaped bag. Upson’s thinking behind this change was that the steering bag wasn’t aerodynamic and instead opted for the more sleek keel bag over it, improving airflow. The keel bag and the ballonet were both connected via an intake at the tip of the keel. In addition, the tail of the balloon was connected to the keel, to which several tail cups were placed not only for stabilizing but to keep the keel straight. The tail cups were placed much closer to the balloon than on the Drachenballon. The rubber balloon girdle also differed from the Drachenballon slightly,as it wouldn’t be uniform all around the balloon, instead dipping slightly down near the front. The balloon would be made of rubberized and non rubberized fabric and filled with Hydrogen.
An Upson Kite Balloon in flight [US National Archives]One of the Upson balloons preparing for flight at the Goodyear Plant in Akron. The other is visible in background hangar. The USAAC roundel is barely visible on the underside. [US National Archives]BC-3 moored to the USS Huntington. [Wikipedia]The Upson balloon BC-3 operating off of the USS Huntington. [navsource.org]The Navy Design 1 balloon operating from the USS Oklahoma [NavalHistory.org]Several Design 1 balloons are known to be built. The first would be built at the Goodyear plant in Akron in late 1915. While testing was going on in November, it was observed by officials from the Navy who were looking to increase the USN’s LTA (Lighter Than Air) fleet. The Design 1 balloon was accepted into service for the Navy on December 22th and shipped to the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida. The balloon would finally arrive on April 5th, 1916, along with a handful of Goodyear employees who helped with training. Only two days after arriving, the balloon would be damaged from heavy winds and would break from its mooring. The balloon would be repaired shortly after. Once repaired, the balloon was stationed aboard the USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma for testing. The balloon was found to offer increased visibility, but there were a number of reasons why using it from a battleship was a bad idea. The balloon was a very easy target, explosive due to its hydrogen gas (which often leaked), and gave away the position of the battleship. Inflating the balloon was also slower than what was expected. In some cases the balloon itself affected the maneuverability of the ship. It was noted that many of these issues could be fixed in the future, but no changes to this balloon are known to have occurred. Despite not performing well aboard a ship, the Navy continued to use the Design 1 balloon at the Pensacola Air Station for testing and training. Two more balloons were ordered, with the designations of CB-2 and CB-3 for the Navy. Both of these balloons are known to have been tested on the USS Huntington for evaluation. Even further on, the balloon CB-4 was ordered. It is unknown what type of balloon this was, whether Design 1 or 2.
Photo of a Design 1 balloon at Fort Omaha, Nebraska [Museum of the United States Air Force]Aside from the Navy, the United States Army Air Service would also use two Design 1 balloons. One is known to be used for testing purposes. This balloon in particular has an extra set of stabilizing fins located a few feet in front of the regular stabilizing fins. Aside from testing, its service history is unknown. All that is known about it is comes from a US Army report evaluating it and a few photos to go along with said report. The report was very appraising of the type over the standard Drachenballon. The second known USAAS Design 1 balloon had an interesting history. From 1910 to 1919, the United States was in an armed conflict with Mexico on its border, known as the Mexican Border War. During this, many Army units would be stationed along the border. An Ohio National Guard Artillery unit was deployed along the border and stationed at El Paso, Texas in 1916. Accompanying the division was a Design 1 kite balloon gifted to the division by Goodyear. Along with the balloon, Ralph H. Upson himself would be assigned to assist in operations and training personnel for the balloon. The balloon would be used to observe Mexican forces moving near the border. Aside from its service in the War, the fate of this balloon is unknown. It was, however, the first observation balloon operated by the National Guard and is known to have been built shortly after the first Design 1 balloon.
Kite Balloon Design 2: All New
Design 2. This particular type would see several produced. [Google Patents]The second design was also included on the June 20th patent and would greatly differ from the standard Drachenballon. In fact the only two similarities between the two designs would be their overall layout, other than this, the two designs are greatly different. The overall shape wasn’t cylindrical, but instead more round. Carrying over from Design 1 are Upson’s unique side fins, keel bag, and extended neck. The evacuation valve in the nose was moved upward and is near the top of the nose instead of directly frontally. Instead of having a balloon girdle, the ropes connecting the mooring line and basket were instead connected to individual rubber connection points around the main body of the aircraft. The pattern of the connection points is the same shape as the girdle on Design 1, with it arching down towards the front. The aircraft would also be stabilized by an internal ballonet. Specifications for this balloon do exist. It was to have an internal volume of 25,000 ft³ (707.9 m³). The maximum service ceiling would be 6000ft (1828.8 m). On the underside of two of the balloons, a United States Army Air Corps roundel is printed.
Goodyear would build at least four of this balloon type for training and testing. Two of these would be sent to the Fort Omaha balloon school in late 1916. Here they would be used in the training of the balloon corps alongside Drachenballons and spherical balloons. Two more of this type were photographed at the Goodyear Akron plant during a maneuver with other lighter-than-air aircraft. There is a chance these two aircraft are the same as the ones in Omaha but their overall appearance differs slightly. On one of the balloons is a box-like structure located at the side of the balloon. These are not present in the patent or on the other balloons and their purpose is unknown. It is possible these were some form of additional stabilizers but it is not confirmed. This type appears to be exclusively used by the USAAS.
The same excercise as before at Akron with all balloons now airborne. What appears to be a B-Class Blimp is in the background as well. [US National Archives]On September 23rd, 1916, two pilots; Carl K. Wollam and Charlie Roth, were interested in one of the Goodyear Design 2 balloons then stationed at Dayton, Ohio. Both men, who were aircraft pilots, wanted to see how well the Upson balloon would do in untethered flight. It should be noted neither man had piloted a balloon before. The two would go up in the balloon, and then cut the cable. The balloon would go to an altitude between 5000 and 6000 ft (1524 and 1828.8 m) for a distance of over 120 miles (321.9 kilometers). The flight would last over 3 hours. The two wanted to head to Akron to land but their attempt failed and they were thrown off course for 70 miles (112.6 kilometers), finally landing in a farm near Circleville, Ohio. This would be the first free flight of a kite balloon in the US. Despite not being designed for this flight, the pilots said the balloon was hard to control, but overall performed well for the task.
Kite Balloon Design 3: Double Trouble
Side view of Design 3. This design was essentially two Design 2 kite balloon bodies sewn together. [Google Patents]Frontal view of Design 3. [Google Patents]The last of the Upson balloon designs was not included in the first patent document, instead being patented a few months later on November 9th, 1916. This 3rd balloon design differed greatly from most balloon designs of that era. Design 3 essentially was two Design 2 balloons sewn together side by side. Upson would call it a “Composite Balloon” in the patent. Each side of the balloon would have design features from Design 2. At the rear interior of the gas bag was an air-fed ballonet to keep the overall shape of the balloons intact when not fully inflated. The overall shape of the gas bag was changed, with Upson specifically mentioning that the bottom was flattened out to aid in aerodynamics. In each nose was an emergency gas escape valve to regulate the gas. On each side was one of Upson’s triangular stabilizing wings and at the rear was the keel bag. Instead of the tail cups that were common for kite balloons and used with the previous two designs, Upson would design a completely new tail stabilizing device. A large concave strip would connect to two ropes. Each rope would connect to an end of one of the gas bags. The strip would catch the wind like a parasail, stabilizing the balloon. Upson’s overall choice for the double body design was to greatly increase the stability and maximum height over contemporary balloon designs, with the idea that another body would assist in that regard considerably. The ropes connecting the basket were equally distributed to each of the balloon bags.
Despite Upson claiming it to be superior over his previous two designs, no composite balloon was ever built.
Too Late: The Caquot Arrives.
Two Upson Balloons are part of an exercise at the Akron Goodyear Plant, along with two Caquot Balloons. The photograph label incorrectly states all four balloons are Caquot R Types. [US National Archives]From reports, the improvements done by Upson over the Drachenballon design did positively impact its design, making it much more stable in strong winds. A Design 1 balloon is known to have remained stable in 45mph winds. Despite the positive reception, there are still mentions that the Upson balloons design wasn’t perfect and it suffered still in terms of total stabilization compared to newer the newe balloons on the horizon, but overall it performed better than the Drachenballon in this regard. Upson’s balloon designs would have only just started their testing when the French officer, Albert Caquot, would create his superior balloon design in the later months of 1916. The design was created to completely fix the flaws of the Drachenballon. To fix the stability issues, two more air-inflated bags were placed at the rear of the balloon, totalling 3 stabilizers spaced 120 degrees apart from each other. The type was found to be completely superior over the Drachenballon and it quickly began replacing allied, and eventually German Drachenballons. Goodyear would later license build Caquot type balloons in 1918, for use by the American Balloon Corps. By their entrance in World War One, the US would only use Caquot types in combat operations in Europe. No further Upson balloons were built after 1917. Despite this, the two Design 2 balloons stationed at the Fort Omaha balloon school would continue to be used for training purposes until the closure of the school in 1919. It is unknown what fate befell the Navy operated kite balloons.
The Design 1 Balloon in operation at El Paso, Texas during the Mexican Border War. [texashistory.unt.edu]An Upson Balloon at the Fort Omaha Balloon School. [US National Archives]Due to a lack of information regarding these balloons, it is entirely possible, and extremely more than likely that more than the known amount of Upson balloons were built, but records and photos concerning the production of Design 1 and 2 types are severely lacking.
Upson would continue his work in the field of lighter-than-air aviation, working for Goodyear into the 1920s until he would leave the company to pursue his own vision of lighter-than-air aircraft. He would create the Aircraft Development Corporation, where he would design and build the metal-skinned airship ZMC-2 for the Navy. Upson would continue in the aviation industry all the way through the Second World War and into the 1950s.
A B-Class Blimp flies over the Goodyear hangar in Akron. One of the Upsons is being either taken in or out of storage. The second is visible in the hangar. [US National Archives]
Variants
*Note, the “Design” names are not the official designation, but named so here for simplicity.
Design 1– Heavily modified Drachenballon with improvements made by Upson. These include larger side stabilizers, the removal of the steering bag and the new keel bag for wind stabilizing. Five are confirmed to be built, with a possible 6th.
Design 2 – Completely original design that took the improvements from Design 1 and put them on a new design. Design 2 had a much more rounder body over Design 1. Four are known to have been built.
Design 3 – Composite balloon. Consisted of essentially two Design 2s sewn together. Reused all of the aforementioned modified side fins and keel bags. Would have a unique tail stabilizing parachute.
Operators
United States of America – The Upson types built were used by the balloon corps of the United States Army Air Corps and Navy.
Upson Kite Balloon Design 1 Specifications
Length
82 ft / 25 m
Diameter
22 ft / 6.7 m
Volumes
25,000 ft³ (707.9 m³)
Gas Type
Hydrogen
Material
Rubber-infused and non-infused cotton fabric
Maximum Service Ceiling
6000 ft / 1828.8 m
Crew
2 Observers
Equipment
Telephone
Upson Kite Balloon Design 2 Specifications
Volumes
25,000 ft³ (707.9 m³)
Gas Type
Hydrogen
Material
Rubber-infused and non-infused cotton fabric
Maximum Service Ceiling
6000 ft / 1828.8 m
Crew
2 Observers
Equipment
Telephone
Gallery
Illustration of Upson Balloon Design 1 by Ed Jackson
Independent State of Croatia (1942)
Fighter – 16 Operated
In NDH service the Fiat G.50 did not receive any modifications, with the original Italian camouflage remaining. The only change was the addition of Croatian military markings and new identification numbers. [Wiki]Following the creation of the Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (Independent State of Croatia), its Air Force was plagued with many problems from the start, including a lack of modern aircraft. While generally heavily reliant on the Germans to provide them with better equipment, they were unwilling to secure any deliveries of aircraft. To resolve this issue the NDH’s Air Force officials managed to persuade Italy to sell them 10 Fiat G.50bis fighters, which remained in use up to 1945.
A Brief History of the NDH
Following the end of the First World War, Kraljevina Srba Hrvata i Slovenaca (The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes – SHS) was formed in December of 1918 with the aim of uniting all Southern Slavs. This new state was, at least in theory, based on the principles of equality for these three nationalities. In reality, this Kingdom was a politically and ethically divided country. During the 1920s, there were huge political disagreements between the major parties which brought about questions regarding the continued existence of the Kingdom of SHS. This division was especially noted between the Serbian and Croatian politicians, which ultimately culminated in the assassination of several Croatian Peasant Party members, including the leader, Stjepan Radić, by a Serbian Politician in 1928.
On 6th of January, 1929, King Aleksandar Karađorđević, in an attempt to avoid the incoming political crisis, led the country into a dictatorship by abolishing parliament. He also introduced a number of political changes, including changing the name of the country to Kraljevina Jugoslavija (Kingdom of Yugoslavia.) This essentially did not resolve any of the existing problems, as inter-ethnic tensions persisted. During the early 1930s, the first mentions of Croatian Ustaše (the precise meaning is unknown, but could be roughly translated as insurgent) ultranationalist revolutionary organizations began to appear in Yugoslavia. Their main aim was the liberation of the Croatian people from Yugoslavia, by all means necessary, even by force. One of the most prominent figures of this organization was Ante Pavelić.
Ante Pavelić was a high-ranking Ustaša member from the start, and later de facto leader of the NDH. [Wiki]The Ustaše organization participated in the assassination of the Yugoslav King, Alexander Karađorđević, in Marseille in 1934. This assassination backfired to some extent for the Ustaše organization. Not only did it not lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia, but relations with Italy also improved under the Regent Prince Pavle Karađorđević in the following years. This led the Italian authorities to effectively end their support for the Ustaše and even arrested some of its members, including Pavelić.
After years of inactivity, the Ustaše benefited when the Yugoslavian government, which supported the Axis, was overthrown by pro-Allied officers in a military coup at the end of March 1941. Adolf Hitler almost immediately issued an order that Yugoslavia should be occupied. The Italians, preparing to join the war against Yugoslavia, began to support the Croatian Ustaše movement once again. With the collapse of the later Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the Axis invasion after the short April War of 1941, Croatia, with German aid, was finally able to declare independence, albeit becoming a fascist puppet state. Ante Pavelić was chosen as the leader of this puppet state. Officially, the NDH was announced on 10th April 1941. The new state received a significant territorial expansion by annexing most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia, parts of Serbia, and Montenegro. The Adriatic coast, while nominally part of the NDH, was actually controlled by the Italians until 1943.
The NDH took over a large portion of the Yugoslavian territories. [Wiki]
Formation of the NDH Air Force
Following the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, NDH began organizing its newly-created armed forces. Its Air Force was created on the 19th of April, 1941. The leadership of the new Air Force was given to Colonel Vladimir Kren. Immediately, work began on creating adequate structural organization, acquiring manpower, and procuring equipment. Initially, plans for arming this Air Force were ambitious, including some 140 modern aircraft, such as the Ju 88 and Me 109. Its officials were quite disappointed as Germans were not willing to provide these. Instead, the NDH officials had to make do with the leftovers of the Former Royal Yugoslav Air Force, which was in German hands. NDH officials made a request that included over 50 aircraft. The Germans once again disappointed them and gave NDH only those aircraft that were mostly obsolete, while transferring the better aircraft, like the Hurricanes, to Romania instead. The only other way to acquire more capable aircraft was to ask the Italians. This is what the NDH Air Force officials did in early 1942.
The NDH Air Force was initially equipped with surviving Yugoslavian aircraft, in this case, Rogožarski P.V.T. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]
The Fiat G.50 brief history
During the thirties, the Italian Ministry of Aviation (Ministero dell Aeronautica) was interested in adopting a new, all-metal monoplane fighter and ground-attack aircraft for the Italian Air Force. In April of 1935, engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli began working on a new low-wing, all-metal plane named G.50. On 28th September 1935, Gabrielli submitted his project to the Ministry of Aviation. Military officials were impressed by the design and asked him to proceed with its work. As Fiat’s production capacities were overburdened, work on this new project was instead moved to the CMASA works at Marina di Pisa, part of Fiat since 1931. Giuseppe Gabrielli was finishing his last drawings and the list of needed materials and equipment in June 1936.
The prototype was finally ready at the beginning of 1937 and was transported to the city of Turin for further testing. This prototype, under registration number MM 334, made its first test flight on 26th February 1937. Once accepted for service, the Fiat G.50 would become the first Italian all-metal fighter. Between 1938 to 1943 some 774 to 791 of all versions of the G. 50 would be built. These saw combat service starting from the Spanish Civil War, until 1943 when the few surviving aircraft were reassigned to secondary roles.
A G.50 flying together with a German Bf-110, possibly during the Battle of Britain. [Wiki]
In Yugoslavia
The Fiat G. 50 participated during the short Invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Two fighter groups, the 24th, and 154th, which had 53 G.50 fighters in total were allocated for this operation. They mostly performed a few escort missions. Due to the rapid collapse of Yugoslavia’s Royal Army, these saw limited actual combat use, if any. Afterward, the Fiat G.50 was allocated to other fronts. During 1942 and 1943, limited numbers of these aircraft were used for ground attack operations against the Yugoslavian Partisans.
In NDH’s Hands
By 1942, most of the available aircraft in NDH Air Force were in poor condition, mostly due to a general lack of spare parts. NDH Army officials approached Italy with a request for 9 improved Fiat G.50 and one two-seater version. The Fiat G.50bis were slightly modified versions that had an increased fuel load, a redesigned rear fuselage and vertical stabilizer, better glazing of the cockpit, and other minor changes. But in essence, it did not offer many improvements compared to the basic version. The G.50 B bipost (two-seater) was a modified G.50 fighter version with a new cockpit and dual controls for a pilot and trainer. The front section of the cockpit was fully enclosed, in contrast with the rear which was open. The main armament was removed on the G.50 B. This version was very successful, as it was easy to build and offered almost the same flying performance as the single-seat version.
The Fiat G.50 B version with a longer cockpit design for the instructor and the student. [alieuomini.it]A group of six NDH pilots was sent to the Fiat company in Torino for training in January 1942. The entire acquisition process of new aircraft took several months to complete. The 9 Fiat G.50bis (serial number MM.6178 to 6186) were finally allocated to the NDH. These arrived in Croatia in April 1942. The Fiat G.50B two-seater took even more time to be delivered, arriving in late June 1942. These would be stationed on the Borongaj airfield near Zagreb. Initially, these were used for pilot training. Due to the poor condition of the airfield, two were lightly damaged during landing.
The Fiat G.50bis in NDH service. [asisbiz.com]For the necessary pilot training, one modified Fiat G.50B two-seater was also acquired. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]
Combat Use
Almost from the start, the new NDH regime began the persecution of all non-Croatian citizens. The Serbian, Roma, and Jewish populations were especially targeted, with numerous atrocities and arrests. Croatians who did not agree with this regime were also persecuted. In response to the NDH’s actions against Yugoslavian civilians, resistance movements began to emerge on its territory. Their Air Force was used in various roles during this time, but due to generally obsolescence of equipment, their impact would be quite limited.
The acquisition of more aircraft like the Fiat G.50 offered a slight increase in its offensive capabilities. Once in service, these received new registration numbers ranging from 2501 to 2509. The single Fiat G.50B received the 3510 designations. In July, five would be allocated to the Rajlovac airfield near Sarajevo. In September three were moved to the Banja Luka to be part of the 16th squadron.
After April 1943 most were pulled back to Zagreb where they were attached to the 1st Squadron. When Italy capitulated to the Allies, all warring parties in Yugoslavia rushed in to take over the abandoned Italian weapons, armored vehicles, and a few remaining aircraft. At Zadar airfield, there were six Fiat G.50 aircraft. These would be captured by the NDH forces. Three of them received 5686, 5956, and 5186 designations. The newly acquired fighters were primarily positioned at Kurilovac and Velika Gorica airfields.
By 1944 it was becoming obvious that the Axis would lose the war, as a result many soldiers and pilots from the NDH Army and Air Force tried to escape to the Partisans. On the 2nd of September 1944, air force pilot Andrija Arapović with a Fiat G.50 (reg. Num. 3505) escaped to the island of Vis, under the control of the Yugoslav communist Partisans. Partisan forces put the captured G.50 to use during the war and it would remain in service up to 1946. An interesting fact about Andrija Arapović’s G.50 aircraft is that it still exists today and can be seen in the Belgrade Military Aviation museum near the Nikola Tesla Airport in Serbia. This is the only surviving example of a G.50 in the world. Another Fiat G.50 escaped joining the Allies in Italy.
The Fiat G.50bis was piloted by pilot Andrija Arapović. On the 2nd of September 1944, he fled to the Partisan side. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]By this point the Allies had achieved almost complete air supremacy over southern Eastern Europe, thus flying the slower Fiat G.50 became quite dangerous. In April 1944 several NDH aircraft, including two Fiat G.50, were destroyed in an Allied bombing run on Borongaj. Due to their obsolescence, even the NDH’s best fighters could do little against Allied bombers. In addition, the chronic lack of fuel led to a reduction in combat flights. By mid-September 1944, only 7 aircraft were listed as operational. In October most were allocated to the 2nd Squadron, which was also equipped with MS 406 fighters. When the Partisans liberated Zagreb, some 9 aircraft in various conditions would be captured. Some would be put to use after the war, but their use would be limited. These would be removed from service by the 1st of April 1946.
The Fiat G.50bis were often used to protect Zagreb but could do little against more modern Allied bombers. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]
Technical Characteristics
In NDH service no known modifications were made on the Fiat G. 50. The G.50 was a single-seat, low-wing, all-metal fighter plane. The main fuselage was made from four angular-shaped longerons. The wing construction consisted of a center section which was made of a steel tube connected to the lower fuselage and two metal spars connected with ribs. The fuselage, wing, and tail were covered with duralumin sheets. The only fabric-covered parts were the movable control surfaces in the wings and the tail. It was powered by the 840 hp (626 kW) Fiat A 74 RC 38, a 14-cylinder radial piston engine. An all-metal three-blade propeller produced by Fiat was used.
The G.50 was equipped, like most modern aircraft of the time, with inward retracting landing gear, but the rear tail wheel was fixed. In later improved versions, the rear tail wheel was changed to a retractable type.
The main armament consisted of two forward-firing 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns, with some 150 rounds of ammunition for each machine gun. The guns were placed behind the upper engine cowl and were synchronized in order not to damage the propeller.
Conclusion
The Fiat G.50 was one of few modern fighters available for NDH service. Their use would be greatly hampered by ever-increasing Allied Air supremacy, lack of fuel, and fear of their pilots defecting. Despite being acquired in relatively small numbers many of them would survive the war albeit in poor condition, while some would see a few more years of service by the newly created Yugoslav Air Force.
Fiat G.50 Specifications
Wingspan
10.9 m / 35 ft 11 in
Length
8 m / 26 ft 3 in
Height
3.28 m / 10 ft 7 in
Wing Area
18.25 m² / 196.5 ft²
Engine
One 840 hp (626 kW) Fiat A.74 RC.38, 14 cylinder radial piston
Empty Weight
1,975 kg / 4,350 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2,415 kg / 5,324 lbs
Fuel Capacity
316 l
Maximum Speed
470 km/h / 292 mph
Range
445 km / 267 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling
10,700 m / 35,100 ft
Climb speed
Climb to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Crew
One pilot
Armament
Two 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
Illustrated by Haryo Panji
Sources:
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija, Beograd.
G. Cattaneo, The Fiat G.50, Profile Publications number 188
P. Verganano (1997), Fiat G.50,, La Bancarella Aeronautica – Torino.
D. Monday (1984, 2006), The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
V. V. Mikić, (2000) Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Države Hrvatske 1941-1945, Vojno istorijski institut Vojske Jugoslavije.
T. Likso and Danko Č. (1998) The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War, Nacionalna Sveučilišna Zagreb.
Germany (1937) Rocket Powered Aircraft – 1 Prototype Built
For many years artists often imagined that the He 176 would have looked something like this. [luft46.com]Prior to, and during the war, the German aviation industry developed a series of operational and prototype aircraft designs. Among the leading new technologies, rocket-powered aircraft were being developed. The concept was initially tested prior to the war on a smaller scale, including limited theoretical tests and prototyping. But further development would lead to the creation of the first rocket-powered aircraft known as the He 176. While it wasn’t accepted for service, it proved that such a concept was feasible and set the stage for the later Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft.
History of Rocket Engine Development in Germany
Following the end of the Great War, Germany was forbidden to have an Air Force. This also included the development of aircraft designs, though this did not stop the Germans from experimenting with new aviation technology. One such new technology was rocket propulsion. One of the first such flights using rocket propulsion occurred in June of 1928, when aviation enthusiast Fritz Stramer took to the sky his rocket-powered glider. Another pioneer in rocket-powered flight occurred at the end of September 1929. A pilot named Fritz von Opel managed to take to the sky in his rocket-powered glider, named Ente (Duck). Von Opel was assisted by another prominent aircraft designer Alexander Martin Lippisch. While technically speaking these were not real rocket-powered flights, given that these gliders did not take to the sky using purely the rocket engine but were towed to altitude. Nevertheless, these flights showed that flight using rocket engines was possible.
Von Opel experimental take-off using a rocket propulsion. [L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]Over the following years, Lippisch became quite interested in rocket technology and would join the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut DFS, where he worked as an engineer. There, he developed a series of new glider designs, like the DFS 40. This work would eventually lead to the creation of the Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. The Junkers Aircraft company also was interested in rocket development as they built and tested rocket take-off boosters. One such engine was ground tested in 1936.
Another stepping stone in rocketry research was the work of Wernher von Braun. In 1932 and 1934 von Braun managed to successfully launch two rockets using liquid-fuel rocket engines. In 1935 he managed to come into contact with Dr. Ernst Heinkel 1935. After von Braun presented his work, Dr. Ernst was highly impressed and promised to provide von Braun with any assistance in his work. For this, he appointed a young and energetic aircraft engineer named Walter Wenzelunzel to assist von Braun. In order to properly test the installation of rocket engines in aircraft designs, a special test center was established at Kummersdorf in 1936.
The He 112 prior to the start of testing with the von Broun rocket engine. [luft46.com]Dr. Ernst supplied this research team with a few He 112 airframes. The first He 112 was used for ground testing. For this reason, its fuselage was retained while its wings and the original engine were removed. The rocket engine, which ran on a combination of liquid oxygen and alcohol, would be placed in the rear of the fuselage, with the engine nozzle being placed just beneath the tail unit. Von Braun’s team installed the oxygen tanks in front of the cockpit, with the alcohol tank behind the pilot seat. The engine (the sources do not specify its precise designation) could provide a thrust of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) with an endurance of 30 seconds. During the testing the engine exploded, destroying the aircraft in the process.
Despite this setback, the project went on. By this time, German Army Officials were becoming interested in the project. In order to maintain its secrecy, von Braun and his team were instructed to find a remote auxiliary airfield where these tests could continue to be conducted away from prying eyes. The team, wanting to be close to Berlin, chose a small field at Neuhardenberg, which was covered on most sides by dense forest. Temporary housing, cabins, and tents were quickly set up in 1937 and the work could finally go on.
In 1937 von Braun began close cooperation with another enthusiast of rocket engine development, Helmuth Walter. This cooperation was partly initiated by the German Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) who intended to use the rocket engines for other proposals, like assistance during take-offs. Walter was a young scientist who was highly interested in rocket propulsion. He managed to obtain military funding, which greatly helped in his work. In 1936 he used a Heinkel He 72 to test this engine. In 1937, he even managed to get the attention of the RLM. The RLM formed a Special Propulsion System department (Sondertriebwerke) with the aim of experimenting with rocket engines in the aircraft industry. While this department was mainly focused on developing rocket engines for short take-off assistance, Walter wanted more than that. He intended to develop a strong rocket engine that could replace the standard piston engines of the day. Walter managed to develop such an engine, named Walter TP-1, which was fueled by the so-called ‘T-Stoff’ (hydrogen peroxide) and ‘Z-Stoff’ (water solution of either calcium or sodium permanganate).
Von Braun requested another aircraft which Henkel provided, this was the He 112 V8 (during these trials it received a slightly changed designation V8/U). The test pilot Erich Warsitz managed to take it to the sky using the aircraft’s original piston engine. Warsitz was a crucial pilot for the German early rocket and jet engine development, being heavily involved in testing and helping with the overall design of both the He 176 and He 178. At about 450 meters Warsitz activated the rocket engine, and during the 30 seconds of the engine burn phase, a speed of nearly 400 km/h (or 460 km/h (286 mph) depending on the source) was reached. Due to the dangerous leakage of the engine, the flight had to be aborted, but otherwise, the flight has deemed a success. This He 112 V8 would be returned to Heinkel, but two more aircraft (H7/U and A-03) would be donated to the rocket research program.
Test pilot Erich Warsitz whose experience and work proved to be vital for both He 176 and 178 aircraft development. [firstjetpilot.com]After this flight, all further tests were conducted using the Walter TP-1 rocket engine. In contrast to the von Braun engine which used alcohol and liquid oxygen as fuel, Walter’s own engine used hydrogen-peroxide and calcium permanganate as a catalyst. This engine was deemed safer too, which is somewhat ironic given the corrosive and volatile fuel. To avoid accidentally coming into contact with the Walter engine fuel, the pilot had to wear a highly protective suit. If exposed to the corrosive fuel, it caused disintegration without actually burning.
More tests were conducted at this location until the end of 1937, when the research was to be moved to Peenemunde. Due to some delays, the tests on the He 112 continued on from April 1938.
Heinkel’s First Rocket-Powered Aircraft
Following the series of tests on the He 112, some officials from the RLM began showing great interest in the prospect of using a rocket-powered aircraft interceptor. It was originally hoped that this aircraft would be capable of vertical, or nearly vertical take-off. When sufficient altitude was reached, the aircraft was then to make a swift dive on its target, firing a volley of its full weapon load. After this attack run, it was simply to glide away once it was out of fuel, to its base of operation.
The work on the project was conducted under a veil of secrecy and began in 1936 at the Heinkel Rostock-Marienehe work. The following year the first drawings of the He 176 V1 (derived from “Versuchsmuster 1” meaning “Experimental Model”) were completed by Hans Regner. Interestingly the designers set a huge task in front of them, by actually trying to reach a blistering speed of 1000 km/h (620 mp/h). An astonishing and difficult feat to achieve with such a novelty design. This set a number of challenges that had to be overcome. One of them was a proper wing design able to withstand the pressure of such high speed. For this reason, it had to be designed to be flat, at only 90 millimeters thick, with very sharp leading edges. This in turn caused further problems, as this design would cause the aircraft to stall at low speeds. In addition, the installation of wing fuel tanks would be difficult.
In order to make the whole design smaller and thus save weight, the pilot had to be placed in a rather unpleasant semi-recumbent position, with his legs stretched out in front and the pilot’s seat reclined. This was also done to help the pilot better cope with the extreme G-forces that he would be subjected to during the extremely high forward acceleration. The fuselage had a very small diameter of only 0.8 meters (2ft 7in) and was specially designed according to the height of the test pilot, Warsitz.
The construction of the first prototype was undertaken at the Heinkel’s aircraft works in Marienehe. Once the aircraft was completed, it was to be transported to Peenemunde. The aircraft’s testing was conducted under great secrecy and was transported there via military escort in June 1938. Just prior to the actual testing, Warsitz was informed by RLM officials that given the experimental nature of the design, and Warsitz’s valued status as an experienced test pilot, he was advised not to fly it. Warsitz, who was heavily involved in the He 176 design, protested to Air Minister (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) Ernst Udet, who gave him permission to undertake the first flight. After this was settled, there were some delays with the assembly and engine adjustment.
The initial tests were undertaken on the ground. Due to unsuitable terrain and lack of a proper towing vehicle, ground testing proved ineffective. So it was decided to use the aircraft’s own engine for these tests, which were conducted at the end of 1938. Using the He 178’s own engine on the ground presented a new problem, namely the rudder could not provide steering during take-off. As the aircraft had no propellers to generate airflow, steering the aircraft using the rudder on take-off was ineffective, thus the only way to maintain the aircraft’s heading was by using the left and right brakes on the main wheels. This was quite dangerous for the pilot and the aircraft, as an imbalanced braking force could potentially lead to an accident. The result of the initial testing showed that some changes to the overall structural design were needed. For this, the Heinkel crews spent the winter of 1939 modifying the He 178.
First Flights
During the Spring of 1939, a series of small test flights were conducted with the He 178. Somewhat unexpectedly, the Heinkel team was visited by an RLM delegation led by Udet himself. After observing the He 178 on the short flight they were quite impressed, but surprisingly for the Heinkel team, Udet forbade any more flights on it. Mostly due to fear for the pilot’s life. After some delays, Warsitz visited Udet in Berlin and filed a plea that the project should go on. Udet finally accepted this and gave a green light.
A military delegation led by Udet observed the He 176’s initial short flight attempts. The man in the white suit is the test pilot Warsitz who is speaking with delegation members about the flight, with Dr. Ernst just behind him. [luft46.com]While the first official flight of the He 176 was to be conducted under the supervision of many RLM officials, feeling that something might go wrong, Erich Warsitz and Heinkel’s team (without the knowledge of Dr. Erns) decided to perform the flight in secrecy. The date for this was set on the 20th of June, 1939. After a rough take-off, the pilot managed to take the He 176 to the sky. Given the small fuel load, the flight lasted around a minute. Overall, the first test flight was deemed a success. The following day, Udet and his delegation visited the site and observed another test flight.
The Fuhrer Inspects the He 176
Hitler during his inspection of the He 176.[L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]A couple of days later Warsitz and Heinkel’s team were informed that any further flights were forbidden. The reason was that Hitler himself became interested in the project and wanted to personally see the aircraft. The He 176 was to be transported to the Rechlin Secret Test Center and shown to many high-ranking members of the Luftwaffe. On the 3rd of July 1939, the aircraft was to be demonstrated to a large delegation including Hitler himself. First, a flight of a He 111 equipped with rocket-assisted take-off was shown to Hitler, which greatly impressed him. Another Heinkel innovative design, the He 178 jet-engine powered aircraft, was also present. While it was not yet capable of taking to the sky it was used for ground testing. Next in the line for inspection was the He 176, after a brief examination of its interior by the delegation, the stage was set for it to take to the sky. The flight initially went well, but the pilot miscalculated and shut down the engine too soon. While still at high speed, he began descending rather rapidly. After several attempts to restart the engine, he finally succeeded, just before hitting the ground. The plane took an almost vertical climb of some 50 meters before the pilot regained control and landed it safely. Hitler and his delegation were under the impression that the pilot performed this maneuver intentionally to demonstrate the aircraft’s potential. For his flight, the pilot was awarded 20,000 Reichsmarks.
The End of the Project
After this exhibit, Heinkel’s team tried to prepare the He 176 for reaching speeds up to 1,000 km/h. Structural analysis of the design, on the other hand, showed that this would not be possible. For this reason, preparation for the construction of a second prototype was underway. It was to be powered by a von Braun rocket engine, which suggested that the aircraft could be launched vertically. This was possible thanks to weight reduction efforts sufficient to enable vertical take-off.
Ultimately the whole project would be canceled. The order was given by Adolf Hilter, who insisted that designs that could not enter production in less than a year, be canceled. Despite Heinkel’s attempt to win over Udet’s support, it went nowhere and the project was officially terminated.
The He 176 V1 was disassembled and transported to the Aviation Museum in Berlin to be exhibited. Sadly it would be later on destroyed in one of many Allied bombing raids. The He 176 V2 was almost complete, but its parts were eventually scrapped. The V3 had also been under construction, but was ultimately abandoned in its early stages.
Technical Characteristics
The He 176 was designed as an all-metal, high-wing rocket-powered experimental reconnaissance aircraft. Its fuselage had a simple circular cross-section design. The wings had an asymmetrical profile and were quite thin. During take-off, there was a significant chance of the wingtips contacting the ground, due to the fuselage’s small diameter and extreme vibrations during take-off. To avoid damaging them, Heinkel engineers added a “U” shaped metal bar under each wingtip as a temporary solution. The wings were also initially to act as fuel tanks, but this feature had to be abandoned on the prototype, and fuel was instead stored behind the cockpit. The tail and rudder design was more or less conventional.
To avoid causing damage to the wings during take-off, Heinkel engineers added a “U” shaped metal bar under each wingtip.
The rocket engine chosen for the He 176 was the Walter RI type. It provided thrust ranging between 45 kg to 500 kg (100 to 1,1100 lb) with an endurance of one minute. Due to the weight issues combined with a relatively weak propulsion unit, the desired speed of 1,000 km/h (620 mph) was never reached. The maximum speed reached by this aircraft differs greatly between sources. For example, D. Nešić mentioned that the maximum speed was only 345 kmh, while authors J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay quoted a figure of 700 kmh. Lastly, the test pilot himself in his own logbook mentioned that he managed to reach a speed of 800 kmh (500 mph).
The landing gear consisted of one front smaller wheel, two larger wheels 700 mm in diameter, and one more to the rear. While the front wheel was fixed the remaining three were completely retractable.
The He 176 during take-off [L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]The cockpit provided the pilot with an excellent forward view and was made of plexiglass. Given the experimental nature of this aircraft, great attention was given to pilot safety. As in case of emergency, bailing out of the fast-moving and cramped aircraft was almost impossible. Heinkel engineers designed the entire cockpit section to be jettisonable. The cockpit assembly was connected to the fuselage by four locks which were equipped with small explosive charges. When the pilot was jettisoned from the fuselage his parachute would open automatically and allow him to land safely. This system was tested by using a wooden cockpit containing a dummy pilot. This trial cockpit was then taken to the sky by a He 111 and at sufficient height, it was released. The parachute opened without an issue and it landed on the ground intact. The results of the dummy pilot showed that this system was safe if the cockpit landed on soft ground.
The small size of the cockpit prevented the use of a standard instrument panel, as it would severely affect the pilot’s forward visibility. Instead, the instruments were placed to the left and the right of the pilot. Interestingly, while Heinkel did not intend to arm the aircraft, RLM officials insisted that two machine gun ports be placed beside the pilot. Due to the cramped cockpit interior, the two machine guns had to be placed where the pilots’ side controls were positioned. As this would cause delays and much-needed redesign work, the Heinkel engineers simply placed machine gun ports (without the actual machine guns equipped) and kept the original control units in place. The RLM officials, when visiting the work, were told that these were just temporary measures.
The Only Photograph
The real He 176 was quite different in design. [luft46.com]Given the secretive nature of the project, RLM officials effectively gathered all films and photos for themselves. All persons involved in the project were also forbidden from taking any pictures. At the war’s end, the Soviets either destroyed or captured these and their final fate is unknown. Sometime after the war, many artists attempted to produce sketches of how the He 176 may have looked. These greatly differed from the original design, but given the lack of information and general obscurity of the He 176, this is understandable.
Conclusion
The He 176 project arose as a collaboration of several different parties. It was heavily influenced by rocket engine testing and development done by von Braun and Walter. Heinkel Flugzeugwerke provided the necessary resources and production capabilities, while test pilot Erich Warsitz provided valuable feedback which guided necessary changes and improvements to the design.
It was a novel idea to use rockets to power aircraft, which offered numerous advantages, such as reaching high speed and altitude very quickly. Given that this project was more or less a Heinkel private venture in the development of new technologies it likewise did not find a place in German military service. It, however, did set the stage for future designs like the Me 163, which actually saw some combat during the war.
He 176 Specifications
Wingspans
4 m / 13 ft 1 in
Length
5 m / 16 ft 4 in
Height
1.4 m / 4 ft 7 in
Wing Area
8 m² / 53 ft²
Engine
Walter RI rocket engine
Empty Weight
1,570 kg / 3,455lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2,000 kg / 4,400 lbs
Maximum Speed
700 km/h / 435 mph
Endurance flight Range
60 seconds
Crew
One Pilot
Armament
None
Gallery
Illustration by Godzilla
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
Illustration by Godzilla
Sources
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book
D. Mondey (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
D. Donald (1998) German Aircraft Of World War II, Blitz Publisher
J. R Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009), Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland & Company Inc
L. Warsitz (2008) The First Jet Pilot The Story of German Test Pilot Erich Warsitz Pen and Sword Aviation
Germany (1943) Experimental Circular Wing Aircraft – 1 Prototype Built
The unusual Sack AS-6 circular-wing aircraft [falkeeins.blogspot.com]In the history of aviation there were many designers who had ambitious ideas and concepts for new designs, but never had the chance to bring their ideas to fruition. On the other hand, there were those who had radical or even completely impractical designs that did manage, at least to some extent, to be built. Germany had a fair share of such individuals, especially during the later stages of the Second World War. These designers may have proposed their projects out of desperation to save their country or in fear of being sent to the front. There were also those that were simply enthusiasts in aircraft development but lacked a better understanding of how aerodynamics actually work. One such person was Arthur Sack (1900-1964), who prior to the war came up with the idea of building a circular-wing aircraft known simply as the Sack AS-6.
History
Prior to the war, Germans were prohibited from developing and building military aircraft. The Germans simply bypassed this prohibition by instead focusing on gliders, but also on civilian aircraft which if needed would be quickly converted for military use and conducted secret experiments. They especially took great care in the development and investment of manned gliders, but also scale model-building competitions and organizations. While this may seem like a waste of time and money, it actually helped gain initial and valuable experience in aircraft development which proved vital for the later Luftwaffe.
One such model competition was the National Contest of Aero Models with combustion engines, held in late June 1939 at Leipzig-Mockau. Here, aviation enthusiast Arthur Sack presented his model of an unusually circular-wing-shaped aircraft named AS-1. It is sadly unclear why Sack pursued the design of such an unusual aircraft design. Due to engine problems, the AS-1 was unable to take off from the ground, so the small model had to be launched by hand instead. The Air Minister (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) Ernst Udet, who was present at the event, seemed to be impressed with this design and advised Sack to continue its development.
Arthur Sack and his AS-1 model. [lvz.de]Thanks to financial support from the RLM, Sack was able to proceed with the development and even the construction of a few scale models, a process that lasted some three years. In 1943 he submitted a fully operational model SA-5 to the RLM. The presentation went well for Sack and the RLM commission provided the necessary funds for the construction of a fully operational prototype. Interestingly, at some point Sack came into contact with another unusual aircraft designer Dr. Alexander Lippisch. While not completely clear, it appears that Sack received some design tips from Lippisch, to better improved his work.
With the order secured, Sack initiated the construction of a prototype. He named this aircraft the AS-6 V1 (Versuchs – version). As he had no proper workshop to build the aircraft himself, the glider manufacturer Mitteldeutsche Metallwerke was tasked with this instead. The initial work for the assembly of the aircraft began in the autumn of 1943. It took nearly half a year to complete the working prototype. Interestingly, due to the general shortage of materials, the AS-6 was constructed by utilizing a considerable amount of salvaged components from other damaged aircraft. For example, the cockpit canopy and parts of the interior were taken from a Bf 109B. Once the prototype was ready, it was allocated to the Luftwaffe for initial tests in early 1944.
AS-6 side view. [lvz.de]
Technical Characteristics
A good view of the AS-6 internal wooden frame construction.[all-aero.com]The AS-6 was designed as an experimental prototype to test the idea of using circular-wing design. Sadly, this aircraft is quite obscure and poorly documented so not much is known about its overall design. It was a single-seater aircraft that was mostly built out of wood. It did not have a classical fuselage, instead, the majority of the aircraft consisted of two large circular wings. The internal design is more or less conventional with a wooden construction frame being covered with canvas. Two large elevators were installed on the rear of the wings. The tail assembly is a conventional design as well, consisting of one vertical stabilizer and two horizontal stabilizers.
The AS-6 rearview. The two elevators were too small, poorly designed, and did not provide adequate control during initially limited test flights. [all-aero.com]The AS-6 was powered by an Argus As 10C-3 engine, which ultimately proved to be inadequate [all-aero.com]The AS-6 was powered by a 240 hp Argus As 10C-3 engine driving a two-blade wooden propeller. The engine was housed in a metal frame, which was then bolted to the AS-6 fuselage. The engine was salvaged from a Bf 108 aircraft.
The cockpit canopy and its interior, as already mentioned, were taken from a Bf 109B. The cockpit was slightly elevated above the fuselage and provided the pilot with an excellent all-around view. The landing gear was also salvaged from a Bf 109B, but in the case of the AS-6, it was fixed. Initially, a landing skid was used on the rear, which was later replaced with a landing wheel instead.
The canopy and landing gear was taken from a damaged Bf 109 aircraft [ufxufo.org]
Testing the Prototype
Initial evaluation tests of the AS-6 prototype were conducted at the Luftwaffe Brandis Airbase. The flight tests were conducted by Rolf Baltabol Junkers test pilot. While several short take-offs were made, there were no attempts to actually take the aircraft to the sky. The test pilot noted that the aircraft had an overall poor design and was difficult to control. He urged that the control surfaces and rudder be completely redesigned. The engine was also deemed too weak. During the last short take-off, one of the two landing gear assemblies was damaged.
The AS-6, following its unsuccessful start, spent several weeks in repairs and received a number of modifications in an attempt to improve its performance. These included adding an additional 70 kg of weight to the rear, installation of brakes taken from a Ju 88, and repositioning the landing wheels to the rear by about 20 cm. Sack proposed moving the landing wheels further back, but the test pilot Rolf simply refused to fly it if this change was implemented. He argued that placing the landing gear to the rear would imbalance the aircraft potentially leading to tipping forward during a take-off. For this reason, the modification was not implemented. While the engine was underpowered, there were simply no alternatives available at that time.
The AS-6 during testing [falkeeins.blogspot.com]The next test was scheduled for April 1944. During these tests, Rolf tried to take it to the sky, but failed again to do so. This time it was noted that the wings were simply too short. Further tests were canceled, the AS-6 was to await more modifications, and was to be tested in a wind tunnel; if possible with a completely new engine.
The fate of the AS-6
Following the unsuccessful testing, the AS-6 was stored at the Brandis airfield. In the summer of 1944, this airfield became the main operational base for the experimental Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. The pilots of the I./JG 400 (charged with testing the Me 163) found the AS-6. One of its pilots, Franz Rossle, expressed a desire to attempt flying the unusual plane. But when the ground crew was preparing the aircraft for take-off, one of its landing gear units simply broke due to rough terrain, effectively preventing the test flight to be conducted. After this, it was once again stored at Brandis. It would remain there until early 1945 when it was lost in an Allied bombing raid.
The AS-7 project
While not clear when (possibly during early 1945), Sack approached Messerschmitt company with a proposal to use his circular-wing design on the Bf 109K-4 aircraft. The aircraft marked as SA-7 would be powered by a DB 605 2,000 hp engine. Fitted with circular wings it was theorized that it would be capable of carrying more armament inside the wings. It is believed (but not clear) that Messerschmitt was interested in this proposal and designated the project Me 600. Due to the war’s end, nothing really came from this project.
Conclusion
While certainly an unusual and interesting design, due to poor quality and salvaged materials used during its construction, the AS-6 performed poorly and never actually achieved flight. We will never know if the AS-6 circular-wing design offered any major advantage over more conventional wing designs. It appears that Arthur Sack did not continue with his idea after the war and passed away in the mid-1960’s. While his work was never implemented in mass production, his unusual design was often mistakenly taken as some advanced and secret German World War II project, which ironically, it never was.
A side view of the LWF Model G-2. The firepower of the aircraft is evident, as the two of the four forward facing aircraft are visible near the engine, the double mount for the gunner, and beneath that the ventral gun is protruding. [US National Archives]The LWF Model G was a multi-purpose two-man aircraft designed by LWF in 1918. While it was originally designed as a reconnaissance plane, it was redesigned to be equipped as a heavy fighter or bomber. Two aircraft were built for the United States Army Air Services for evaluation, where the craft reached 138 mph in its fighter loadout whilst carrying seven 7.62mm guns. Both prototypes would unfortunately crash, and with the First World War over, the Army Air Service no longer needed the aircraft. After the war, a third Model G was built as a mailplane.
History
The L.W.F. Engineering Company was an American aircraft manufacturer founded in 1915 by Edward Lowe Jr, Charles F. Willard, and Robert G. Fowler, with the company name being an acronym of their last names. The three had worked in the aviation industry before forming the company, with each using the experience they had learned to contribute to the company’s designs. In particular, the company was well known for its laminated wood, monocoque fuselages. Their first commercial product would be the LWF Model V, a two-seat reconnaissance/trainer aircraft for the United States Army Air Service. This would be their most popular aircraft, with over 100 being built before the end of the war. LWF would further experiment with the Model V, creating an improved prototype called the Model F. The Model F would replace the 135 hp (100 kW) Thomas-Morse engine of the Model V with a powerful 350 hp (261 kW) Liberty L-12 engine. This is claimed to be the first aircraft in the world to fly with a Liberty engine. The success of the Model F would inspire a successor design also using the Liberty engine, the Model G.
A pilot of the Model G-2 poses in front of the aircraft. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]The LWF Model G was drawn up in late 1917 as a high-speed reconnaissance/training plane using the aforementioned Liberty engine. It would bear a strong resemblance to the Model F, only differing in length and a few minor details. The first Model G aircraft was built in early January of 1918. On January 16th, the aircraft would take flight for the first time. The flight would start smoothly after takeoff but with a strong wind the aircraft was forced into a loop and entered into a tailspin, crashing into the ground and being completely destroyed. A second prototype would be constructed not long after the destruction of the first. This new prototype would be known as the Model G-1. The G-1 improved greatly upon the standard G model, but had more than its original reconnaissance and training role in mind. Instead of being solely a reconnaissance plane, the G-1 was envisioned as a capable two-seat fighter and light bomber. Each of the different configurations differed in terms of what they carried, whether it be weapons, bombs or extra armor. The G-1 was completed and flying by the summer of 1918, and its performance was superb. Test flights were done numerous times in front of both military and government officials to demonstrate the engine and its performance. By this point the Liberty engine had been upgraded to have 435hp (324.3 kW). Thanks to its more powerful Liberty engine, it was able to achieve incredible feats. In its fighter configuration, it was to carry an impressive armament of seven 7.62 machine guns. During a test flight, the aircraft was able to achieve a speed of 128mph (206 km/h) while carrying all of its weapons, fuel, and crew. In its bomber configuration, it would carry the same amount of guns, as well as additional armor and bomb racks.
The LFW Model F in flight, the predecessor to the Model G. Overall the two aircraft looked similar. [US National Archives]Testing of the Model G-1 continued into late summer, when it was reworked into the Model G-2. The G-2 had several modifications to increase performance and handling. The control surfaces were fixed to be more balanced, and the ribs of the wings were doubled to improve structural stability. The improved design is noted as performing significantly better than the G-1. During a fully loaded flight , the improved Model G-2 went 10mph faster than the G-1, clocking in at 138mph. In comparison, the French Spad XIII fighter, one of the most highest performing production aircraft of the war, had the exact same top speed of 138mph (222 km/h) as the Model G-2, and it was a considerably lighter aircraft with only two machine guns. Testing of the G-2 continued through 1918 and showed excellent results. The aircraft was trialed in all three configurations and performance was recorded for each. On November 11th, the First World War came to an end. Despite there being no need for a fighter like the Model G, the type was still tested. A week after the end of hostilities, November 18th, the Model G-2 took off again. The aircraft however had taken off in dense fog, making visibility difficult. Due to the fog, the G-2 would crash and be totally destroyed. With the war over and both military prototypes destroyed, the pursuit of the Model G as a combat aircraft was over and LWF instead focused on the now-growing civilian market. There is mention on a photograph of the Model G-2 that an order for 600 of the aircraft was put out by the Army Air Service, but there is no mention of this in other sources. No production aircraft were built outside of the two military prototypes.
The mail-plane version of the Model G in 1919. Note the lack of armament and four bladed propeller. [US National Archives]In 1919, a 3rd Model G was built as a mailplane. Little is known regarding this aircraft outside of a single photo. In the photo, which is dated April of 1919, long after both of the previous aircraft had crashed, an unarmed Model G is depicted. What is interesting about this version is that it had a four-bladed wooden propeller, whereas the previous models only had a two blade. Converting the Model G from a combat aircraft to a mailplane was a logical evolution. The Liberty engine would allow it to make quicker deliveries than its contemporaries, and it was able to carry up to 1,200 Ib (544.3 Kg) of cargo. Despite this advantage, only a single example was built. The fate of the mailplane is unknown, but it was likely scrapped years later once service was done, hopefully not meeting the same fate as the previous two Model Gs. No more work was done on the aircraft after the mailplane was finished.
Design
Complimentary image to the gunner showing the elevation, here the depression is shown. Note the ventral gun pointed straight down. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives] Two of the forward facing guns are visible, one above the engine and one in the removed cowling area. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]The LWF Model G, and its upgrades, were a two-seat biplane multirole aircraft. The fuselage was constructed of laminated wood monocoque in a very aerodynamic cigar shape. It bore a resemblance to the sleek monocoque fighters of Germany, like the Pfalz D.III or Albatros D.V. In the nose, a Liberty L-12 engine was connected to a 2-bladed wooden propeller. At first the engine would be 350 hp (261 kW) but it was later upgraded to 435hp (324.3 kW) on the Model G-1 and onward. On the postwar mailplane, a four bladed propeller was used. The engine itself wasn’t fully covered, with about half protruding from the fuselage. On the nose were two radiators. Behind the engine sat the pilot. A windscreen protected the pilot from the wind and elements. Flight surfaces were controlled via two control sticks. The wings were two-bay and covered in fabric, with ailerons used on both pairs of wings. Beneath the fuselage was the landing gear. Two rubber lined wheels held the aircraft up on a basic landing gear frame. At the end of the fuselage was a landing skid. Behind the pilot sat the observer, who would handle observation duties in its basic configuration, and would serve as the gunner on the fighter and bomber configurations. His position was protected by a small windscreen as well. At the end of the tail were the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. The horizontal stabilizers were supported by two struts connected to the tailfin.
Another view of the gunner/observer position demonstrating the elevation of the double 7.62mm gun mount. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]On the Model G and reconnaissance/training versions of the G-1 and G-2, no armament would be used. For armament on the fighter and bomber versions of the G-1 and G-2, a total of seven 7.62mm machine guns would be used; five Marlin and two Lewis guns. Two would be built into the fuselage, forward facing. Two more would also be forward facing but would be mounted on the engine itself. The remaining three would be operated by the gunner with two on a movable mount and the last protruding from the underside of the belly. The double mount was highly mobile and offered a great range of fire for the gunner to defend the aircraft. Four bomb racks capable of carrying up to 592 Ibs (268.5 Kg) of bombs were equipped for the bomber configuration. The bomber configuration also carried 66 Ib (30 Kg) of armor for protection of the crew/internals.
The aircraft was painted overall in two tones. From above it was painted a dark brown to blend in with the ground, while from below it was painted a sky blue. The tailfin was painted in the signature red-white-blue found on other American combat aircraft. Two Army Air Service roundels were painted on the upper and lower wings.
Conclusion
View of the pilot and gunner/observers position in the aircraft. Note the small windscreens. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]The LWF Model G was an impressive aircraft all around, being able to carry a large arsenal of weapons while maintaining a high speed for an aircraft of its stature. Unfortunately, despite being so successful, the aircraft wasn’t adopted for production and with the loss of both prototypes, the military was possibly wary of the aircraft despite its success. With the war over, a need for the type wasn’t necessary, as the aviation industry moved into a more civilian-oriented market.
In the time frame of its development, even if it had been selected for production, it was so late in the war it likely wouldn’t have seen combat. Had it however, the LWF Model G would have been a truly terrifying foe to enemy aircraft, thanks to its powerful armament and fast top speed. With its seven 7.62mm machine guns, it carried more guns than several bombers of the time period.
LWF would continue designing their own aircraft post-war, most of them mailplanes like the Model G, but they too would never catch on. LWF would also license build aircraft from other companies during the 1920s. This wouldn’t last long, however, as the company would file for bankruptcy and become defunct in 1924.
Variants
LWF Model G – Prototype, unarmed. Equipped with Liberty V-12 engine. Crashed on first flight. One built.
LWF Model G-1 – 2nd Prototype, multirole. Improved upon the Model G and could be configured to do reconnaissance, dogfighting or bombing. Carried an impressive seven 7.62mm machineguns. Increased engine performance.
LWF Model G-2 – Modified version of the G-1. Had changes made to the design to increase handling and performance.
LWF Model G Mailplane – Unarmed mailplane version of the G-2. 1 built after the war.
Operators
United States of America – The LWF Model G was designed for use by the Army Air Service. Despite its success, the end of the war made the aircraft no longer needed. The 3rd Model G served as a mailplane.
LWF Model G-2 Specifications
Wingspan
41 ft 7 in /12.5 m
Length
29 ft 1 in / 8.8 m
Height
9 ft 4 in / 2.7 m
Wing Area
515.54 ft² / 47.9 m²
Engine
1x 435 hp ( 324.3 kW ) Liberty V-12 inline engine
Propeller
1x 2-blade 9 ft 7 in / 2.7 m wooden propeller (1,800 RPM)
Fuel Capacity
90 US Gal / 340.6 L
Water Capacity
14 US Gal / 53 L
Oil Capacity
6 US Gal / 22.7 L
Weights
Empty
2,675 lb / 1213.3 kg
Fighter
4,023 lb / 1824.8 kg
Bomber
4,879.5 lb / 2213.3 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Standard)
7.28 minutes
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Fighter)
9.18 minutes
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Bomber)
14.15 minutes
Maximum Speed
130 mph / 209.2 km/h at 10,000 ft / 3048 m
138 mph /222 km/h at Sea Level
Landing Speed
50 mph / 80.5 km/h
Endurance
4 hours
Maximum Service Ceiling
24,000 ft / 7315.2 m (Model G)
Crew
1 Pilot
1 Observer/Gunner
Armament
5x 30 Caliber (7.62mm) Marlin machineguns
2x 30 Caliber (7.62mm) Lewis machineguns
4 bomb racks (carrying capacity 592 Ib / 268.5 Kg)
Jane, F. (1969). Jane’s all the world’s aircraft 1919. New York: Arco Pub.
Green, W. & Swanborough, G. (2002). The complete book of fighters : an illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft built and flown. London: Salamander.