The Ju 87A [warbirdphotographs.com]Prior to the Second World War, the Germans were experimenting with how to increase the accuracy of air bombing attacks. One solution was to use dive attacks, which greatly increased the chance of hitting the desired targets. By the mid-30s, a number of German aircraft manufacturing companies were experimenting with planes that could fulfill these dive bomb attacks. The Junkers Ju 87 proved to be the most promising design and would be adopted for service. The Ju 87 would become one of most iconic aircraft of the Second World War, being feared for its precise strikes, but also for its unique use of sirens for psychological warfare.
History
After the First World War, the Germans began experimenting with ideas on how to make aircraft more precise during ground attack operations. The use of conventional bombers that dispatched their payload from straight and level flight could effectively engage larger targets, such as urban centers, industrial facilities, infrastructure, etc. This method was less effective for destroying smaller targets, like bunkers or bridges. A dive-attack, on the other hand, provided a greater chance of hitting smaller targets and, to some extent, reduced the chance of being shot down by ground based enemy anti-aircraft fire. This concept of dive-attack aircraft would be studied and tested in detail by the Germans during the 1930s. These aircraft would be known as Sturzkampfbomber (dive-bomber), but generally known as Stukas.
The development of such aircraft was greatly hindered by the prohibitions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. To overcome this, some German companies simply opened smaller subsidiaries in other countries. In the case of the Junkers, a subsidiary company known as Flygindustri was opened in Sweden. There, they developed a K 47 two-seater fighter in 1929. It was tested for the role of dive-bomber and proved successful. But its price was too high for the German Luftwaffe to accept, so it was rejected.
The Junkers K 47 was a two-seater fighter from 1929. While showing to possess good dive-attack characteristics, due to its price, it was not adopted for service. [Wiki]As a temporary solution, the Germans adopted the He 50 in 1932. The following year, a more comprehensive test of the dive-bombing concept was undertaken at airbase Juterbog-Damm. During these trials, Ju-52 bombers were used. The overall results were disappointing, thus development of a completely new dedicated design was prioritized by the Germans. For this, Luftwaffe officials placed an order with all aircraft manufacturers to present their models for the dive-bomber competition.
In late 1933, the Junkers dive-bomber development project was carried out by engineer Herman Pohlmann. He stressed the importance of an overall robust aircraft design in order to be able to withstand steep diving maneuvers. Additionally, it should have had fixed landing gear and be built using all-metal construction.
The next year, a fully completed wooden mock-up with inverted gull wings and twin tail fins was built by Junkers. Officials from the German Aviation Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) inspected the mock-up during late 1934, but they were not impressed and didn’t place a production order. Despite this, Junkers continued working on the project. Junkers soon began construction of a full scale prototype. Due to many delays with the design, construction of the project dragged into October 1935. The first prototype received the Ju 87 V1 designation, bearing serial number 4921. Somewhat surprisingly, it was powered by a 640 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel 12 cylinder engine. The first test flight was completed in September 1935 by test pilot Willi Neuenhofen. While the first flight was generally successful, the use of a foreign engine was deemed unsatisfactory and it was requested that a domestic built engine be used instead. The V1 prototype would be lost in an accident when one of the twin tail fins broke off during a dive test near Dresden. Both the pilot Willi Neuenhofen and the second passenger, engineer Heinrich Kreft, lost their lives. The examination of the wreckage showed that the fin design was too weak and thus had to be replaced with a simple conventional tail fin.
The V1 prototype could be easily identified by its twin tail fin design. [warbirdphotographs.com]Ju 87 V2 (serial number 4922 and with tail code D-UHUH (later changed to D-IDQR) was built with the 610 hp Jumo 210 A engine and had a redesigned tail fin. Another addition was the installation of special slats that could be rotated at 90° forward, perpendicular to the underside of the wing, acting as dive brakes. The V2 also received a specially designed bomb release mechanism, meant to avoid accidentally hitting the lowered radiator and the propeller. When the pilot activated the bomb release during a dive, the specially designed cradle would simply swing forward. In essence, this catapulted the bomb safely away from the plane while still maintaining its trajectory toward the target. There were a number of delays with the redesign of the airframe, which led to V2’s first flight being made during late February 1936. While the test flight was successful, the Luftwaffe officials showed some reluctance with regards to the project, given the fate of the first prototype. Nevertheless, the Ju 87, together with the He 118, Ha 137 and Ar 81, were used in a dive-bomber competition. The initial results favored the Heinkel, but when the He 118 was lost during one of its test flights together with the engine problems, the RLM proclaimed the Ju 87 as the winner.
The unsuccessful He 118 aircraft. [Wiki]The Ju 87 V2 prototype. [warbirdphotographs.com]Winning the competition for the new dive-bomber design, Junkers was instructed to build more prototypes to improve the overall performance of the Ju 87. The V3 (serial number 4923 and designation D-UKYQ) received a number of modifications. It had an enlarged tailfin, added counterweights on the elevators, a modified landing gear, and a redesigned engine cowl to improve forward visibility. The first test flight was made in March of 1936.
The V4 (serial number 4924 and with D-UBIP) was further modified by once again increasing the size of the tailfin, adding forward firing machine guns, a rear defensive machine gun, and again redesigning the front engine compartment. It was powered by the Jumo 210 Aa engine. It was flight tested for the first time in June 1936. During its test flight, the maximum cruising speed achieved was 250 km/h (155 mph). The RLM would become increasingly concerned about the Ju 87 design, as this cruising speed was the same as that of the older He 50. Despite this, the handling and resilience of the whole airframe were deemed satisfactory. The V4 prototype would later serve as the base for the A-0 pre-production series. The last prototype, V5 (serial number 4925), was built in May 1936. It was built to test the installation of the DB 600 and Jumo 210 engines.
The V4 prototype, which served as base of the A-0 pre-production series. In addition, it was the first Ju 87 aircraft to see real combat action during the Spanish Civil War. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The Ju 87 ‘Anton’ Introduction
Following the success of the prototype series, the RLM officials issued orders for more Ju 87 aircraft. This would lead to a small production run of between 7 to 10 aircraft of the Ju 87A-0 pre-series aircraft (A for Anton, according to the German phonetic alphabet). While the first A-0 aircraft were to be built starting in November 1935, due to a number of delays, the actual production began in the spring of 1936. Following a series of tests conducted on the A-0 aircraft at the end of 1936, it was determined that these planes, equipped with the Jumo 210 Aa engine, were underpowered. A number of the A-0 aircraft would receive a new 680 hp Jumo 210 D engine as an upgrade. The A-0’s rear fuselage was also lowered to provide the rear gunner with a better firing arc. For the radio equipment, two ‘V’ shaped antennas were placed around the cockpit.
Further development led to the Ju 87A-1, which was powered by the Jumo 210 D as standard. The A-1 series was able to carry one 250 kg (550 lbs) bomb in its standard two man crew configuration. Alternatively, it could carry one 500 kg (1100 lbs) bomb but, in this case, the rear machine gunner had to be left behind.
The last version of the series was the Ju 87A-2. It was slightly improved by adding better radio equipment. In addition, the engine performance was improved, along with a new two-stage compressor, and a new propeller.
Technical Characteristics
The Ju 87A was designed as a single-engined, twin-seat all metal dive bomber. Its fuselage was built by connecting two oval-shaped sections with a simple structure design. The longerons consisted of long shaped strips which spanned across the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. These had a ‘U’ shape which was connected to the duralumin skin by rivets.
For construction of the Ju 87’s wings, Junkers engineers employed the doppelüger (a double wing construction). This meant that the full-span ailerons were hinged near the trailing edge of the wings. Another feature of the wings was that they had an inverted gull design. This was done intentionally by the Junkers engineers in an attempt to provide the crew members with the best possible all around visibility. The Ju 87 fuselage and wings were covered with a combination of duralumin and magnesium alloy sheeting. While the V1 prototype was equipped with twin tail fins, the A-series was equipped with a more orthodox tail design. The tailplanes had a rectangular shape, while the rudder had a square shape.
Rear view of the Ju 87A [asisbiz.com]The landing gear was fixed. It consisted of two larger front wheels, with one smaller tailwheel to the rear. The front landing gear and wheels were covered in large protective fairings, sometimes known as “spats.” This arrangement would prove to be problematic, and would later be replaced with a much simpler design.
The Ju 87 had a distinguishable fixed landing gear, protected by a larger housing. This design would be simplified in later version. [asisbiz.com]The Ju 87 engine was mounted specifically to provide easy access for replacement or maintenance. It was powered by an inline Jumo 210 D water cooled engine, with a variable pitch propeller with a 3.3 m diameter. The fuel capacity was 480 liters, placed in two tanks. The fuel tanks were located in the center part of the curved wings.
The Ju 87 had a large cockpit where the pilot and the rear gunner were positioned in a back-to-back configuration. The center of the canopy assembly was reinforced by a durable section of cast magnesium, meant to provide better structural integrity. The cockpit was also protected with a fire-resistant asbestos firewall. On the A-series, the pilot was responsible for operating the radio equipment. This task would be allocated to the rear gunner in later versions. The radio equipment consisted of a FuG VII radio receiver and transmitter.
The Ju 87A-1 was armed with one forward mounted 7.92 mm MG 17 and a rear positioned MG 15, also firing 7.92 mm, fitted on a flexible mount. The offensive armament consisted of either a 250 kg or 500 kg bomb (550 to 1100 lbs). When the larger bomb was used, the rear crew member had to be left behind. A small number of aircraft were equipped with bomb racks for four 50 kg (110 lbs) mounted under the wings. These were actually used for training purposes, as the bombs were actually made of concrete.
Diving Operation
The Ju 87 pilot would commence the dive-bombing run once the target was identified. The target would be located through a bombsight which was placed in the cockpit floor. The attack would usually be carried out from an altitude of less than 4,600 meters. The aircraft would then be rolled around by the pilot until it was upside down. The Ju 87 would then engage its target at an angle of attack of 60 to 90°, with a speed of 500 to 600 km/h (310-370 mph). During these dive-bombing runs, there was a chance the pilot could temporarily lose consciousness due to extensive G-forces. If the pilot was unable to pull up, a ground collision was a strong possibility. To avoid this, the Ju 87 was equipped with automatic dive brakes that would simply level out the plane at a safe altitude. Once the plane reached a level flight, the brakes would then disengage. The Ju 87 was also equipped with warning lights that informed the pilot when it was time to release the bomb.
Germans conducted extensive research to determine how much G-force a pilot could endure without any medical problems. The testing revealed that the pilot could overcome a 4G force without problems. At 5G , the pilot would experience blurred vision. The maximum G-forces were noted to be 8.5 G but only for three seconds. Any more could lead to extensive injuries or even death.
Illustration of a Ju 87 dive-attack run. Source Pinterest
Organization
The Ju 87 were used to equip the so-called Sturzkampfgeschwader or simply StG (dive-bomber flight unit). The StG was divided into three Gruppen (groups). Each of these groups was further divided into three Staffel (squadrons).
In Combat
The Ju 87 saw its first combat action during the Spanish Civil War that lasted from 1936 to 1939. The Germans saw this war as the perfect place to test their new aircraft designs. For this reason, one V4 prototype was secretly disassembled and transported on a passenger ship to Spain in August 1936. It was part of the experimental unit (Versuchskommando) VK/88 (or VJ/88, depending on the source) of the Condor Legion. The overall performance or even the use of this aircraft is generally unknown. During this conflict, it received the designation 29-1. It may have taken part in the Battle of Bilbao in June of 1937, after which it was shipped back to Germany.
In early 1938, three more aircraft of the A-1 series were shipped to Spain. These received the 29-2, 29-3, and 29-4 designations. They were given to the 1st Staffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader 162 (dive bomber wing). While only three aircraft were used by this unit their original designations were often replaced with higher numbers in an atempt to decive the enemy. The initial pilots of these aircraft were Ernst Bartels, Hermann Hass, and Gerhard Weyert. The Germans would replace them with new crew members after some time, in the hope of increasing the number of pilots with experience operating the aircraft under combat situations.
Their initial base of operations was an airfield near Zaragoza, Spain. There were some problems with the forward landing gear covers, which would dig into the ground on the sandy soil of the airfield. To resolve this issue, the crews simply removed them. The use of a larger 500 kg bomb required the removal of the rear gunner, so the smaller 250 kg bomb load was more frequently used.
In March 1938,, the three Ju 87s attempted to attack retreating Spanish Republican units at the Aragon with somewhat limited success. The attacks were less successful, mainly due to the inexperience of the pilots. From July 1938 on, the Ju 87 showed more promising performance during the Spanish Republican failed counterattack at the Ebro River and Mequinenza. By October, all three Ju 87 As were shipped back to Germany.
A Ju 87A during the Spanish Civil War [Wiki]The overall performance of the A-series was deemed insufficient for combat operations early on. This, together with the fact that the improved Ju 87B version was becoming available in increasing numbers, leading to a withdrawal of the A version from service. These would be reallocated to training units, and would be used in this role up to 1944.
The Ju 87A would see only limited combat service, being mostly allocated to training units [warbirdphotographs.com]
In Hungarian Service
During the war the Germans provided their Hungarian ally with four Ju 87A aircraft. These were used mostly for crew training in later stages of the war.
Hungarian Ju 87A [Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945]
Production and Modifications
Production of the Ju 87 ended by the summer of 1938. By that time, some 262 were built by the Junkers factories located in Dessau (192) and Bremen (70). These numbers are according to M. Griehl (Junkers Ju 87 Stuka). Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka), on the other hand, notes a number of 400 aircraft being built.
The main versions were:
Ju 87 Prototype series – Five prototypes were built and used mostly for testing.
Ju 87A-0 – A small pre-production series.
Ju 87A-1 – Main production version.
Ju 87A-2 – Slightly improved A-1 aircraft.
Conclusion
While the Ju 87A fulfilled the role of dive-bomber well, it was shown to be inadequately developed to meet military requirements. For this reason, it was mainly issued for crew training. Its main success was that it provided the German with an excellent base for improvement and development of further aircraft. It also provided the German pilots with valuable experience in such dive-bombing flights.
Ju 87A-1 Specifications
Wingspans
45 ft 3 in / 13.8 m
Length
35 ft 4 in / 10.78 m
Height
12 ft 9 in / 3.9 m
Wing Area
104 ft² / 31.9 m²
Engine
Junkers Jumo 210D 680 hp engine
Empty Weight
5,070 lbs / 2,300 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
7,500 lbs / 3,400 kg
Fuel Capacity
480 liters / 127 US gallons
Maximum Speed
200 mph / 320 km/h
Cruising speed
170 mph / 275 km/h
Range
620 miles / 1,000 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
22,970 ft / 7,000 m
Crew
One pilot and the Rear Gunner
Armament
One forward mounted 7.92 mm MG17 and one 7.92 mm MG15 positioned to the rear
One 550 lb (250 kg) bomb for two-seaster
Or one 1100 lb (500 kg) bomb in the single-seater configuration.
Gallery
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Ju 87A with an unusual winter camouflageJu 87A-1 from the Dive bomber school 1, operated during winter 1940-1941Ju 87A used for pilot training in late 1939Ju 87 A-1 1st Staffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader 162 during the Spanish Civil War
Credits
Article by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
Illustrations by David Bocquelet & Carpaticus
M. Griehl (2006) Junkers Ju 87 ‘Stuka’, AirDOC.
M. Guardia (2014) Junkers ju 87 Stuka, Osprey Publishing
D. Nešić (2008). Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
D. Monday. (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
Z. Bašić (2018) Građanski Rat U španiji 1936-1939, Čigoja Štampa.
G. Sarhidai, H. Punka and V. Kozlik. (1996) Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945, Hikoki Publisher
The Ba.65 was ultimately an unsuccessful design, and was built in relatively small numbers. [warbirdphotographs.com]The Breda Ba.65 was an Italian ground attack aircraft that first saw action during the Spanish Civil War. It was built in both single and two-seat configurations, and was exported to various nations prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, but only saw large-scale combat operations with the Regia Aeronautica in Northern Africa.
History
During the thirties, the Italian aircraft manufacturer Breda began working on developing several ground attack plane designs based on the theoretical principles set by World War One veteran fighter ace Colonel Amadeo Mecozzi. According to Colonel Mecozzi, the best use of aerial forces was the quick neutralization of military targets deep into enemy territory by using fast and very agile aircraft. Per his request, the major Italian aircraft manufacturers were to present their aircraft proposals for future use by the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica).
The first aircraft design that tested Mecozzi’s idea was the Caproni A.P. 1 monoplane. It was utilized in small numbers during the Spanish Civil War, but the overall performance was underwhelming and, besides the small numbers built, it was not adopted for larger scale service. In the early thirties, Breda built a prototype of a ground attack plane named Ba.64, an all-metal low-wing aircraft powered by a single 700 hp Bristol Pegasus radial engine, license-built by Alfa Romeo. It was armed with four 7.7 mm (0.311 in) Breda-SAFAT guns in the wings, with one additional mounted in the rear gunner position, and a bomb load of around 400 kg (880 lb.) The Ba.64 was built in small numbers and by 1939, only 27 aircraft were reported in the Italian Air Force, which were used for second line duties only.
Side view of the Ba.65 K-14 two seat version. [warbirdphotographs.com]A new improved design was built under the designation Ba.65 as a multi role aircraft, but it would end up being used mostly for ground attack. The prototype made its first flights in September 1935, piloted by Ambrogio Colombo. After a series of test flights, the prototype was handed over to the Air Force for further trials on the 27th October. The Ba.65 prototype made a flight from Milan to Rome, where it was to be handed over to the military, with an average speed of 412 km/h (256 mph). During its evaluation, a doctrinal problem emerged. Neither the Air Force Command staff, nor Mecozzi precisely specified what kind of performance specifications a ground attack aircraft should achieve. In order to solve this dilemma, the Air Force requested that the Ba.65 be flight tested with the results to be compared with those of the Fiat CR.32 biplane. The performance tests were held at the Guidonia Experimental Center near Rome. While the CR.32 biplane proved to have better handling, the Ba.65 was faster.
The production of the first group of 81 aircraft was started in 1936, and as the Ba.65 was produced in sufficient quantities, these were slowly adopted for service. Immediately after introduction to the Air Force, the Ba.65 proved to be a problematic design. From the beginning, pilots had significant problems learning how to control it, which resulted in several accidents, many fatal. Due to these accidents, the Ba.65 gained a bad reputation with Italians pilots. The main causes of the Ba.65’s difficulties mostly lie with poor pilot training, insufficient preparation, poor organization, and a lack of adherence to regulations.
Technical Characteristics
The Ba.65 was designed as a low-wing, single-engine, mixed-construction multi-role aircraft, including light bomber, attack aircraft, reconnaissance, and interceptor. The Ba.65’s fuselage was constructed of welded chrome-molybdenum steel tubes. The front fuselage and cockpit area (and the rear gunner area in the two-seat versions) were covered with sheet metal panels. This was done to make engine, or any other forward fuselage repairs much easier. The remaining fuselage was covered with fabric.
The wings were built using chrome-molybdenum steel tube spars, which were additionally connected with diagonal steel tubes. The leading edge of the wings consisted of duralumin sheets while the rear part was fabric covered. The ailerons and tail were also built using metal tubes covered in fabric. The tail consisted of two parts, the cantilever fin and the strut-braced tailplane.
Breda Ba.65 K-14 (MM 75085) two seat version equipped with the rear turret, which was armed with a Breda-SAFAT 7.7 mm ( 0.311 in) machine-gun. The Ba.65 was a relatively heavy aircraft, so the rear machine gun position was removed in the hope of reducing weight. [warbirdphotographs.com]The Ba.65 had a then-modern retractable landing gear. It consisted of two larger front wheels, both of which retracted to the rear under-wing fairings. The landing gear system could be operated hydraulically or mechanically if needed. The smaller rear tail wheel was fixed. The landing gear was usually protected from damage by metal covers, but in some cases these were removed, probably due to damage, or to make repairs easier.
The cockpit was well placed, with ample forward visibility. It was protected by a large fully glazed canopy which could be opened to the rear. The canopy did see a number of design changes during the Ba.65’s service life. Beside the standard control panel, the Ba.65 was also equipped with oxygen tanks, a voicepipe for communication between the pilot and the rear gunner (two-seat version only,) an electric generator, and fire extinguishers. There was space inside the cockpit for additional equipment, such as a radio or cameras, but these were never installed in any Ba.65. In the two-seat versions, the rear position housed the gunner/observer (depending on the mission.) The rear position would also undergo many design changes during the Ba.65’s operational service life, from being protected by a fully enclosed turret, to being open and later even removed in the hopes of reducing weight.
Isotta Franschini K 14Fiat A 80
The engine used on the prototype and the first series of 81 planes was the 870 hp Isotta Fraschini K-14 fourteen-cylinder engine. There are differences in the engine strength depending on the source, with some indicating, 700 hp, 870 hp, or even 900 hp (D.. Monday, G. Garello., J. W. Thompson., respectively) Later, it was replaced with the stronger 1,000 hp (746 kW) Fiat A.80 RC.41 eighteen-cylinder engine. The engine was placed in a steel housing that was connected to the fuselage by four bolts.
The aircraft’s fuel was held into two tanks located behind the pilot, with a total capacity of 650 l. An additional fuel tank could be added in the bomb bay with a capacity of 370 l. With the standard fuel tanks, the Ba.65 had a flight endurance of 3 hours and 25 minutes. With the additional fuel tank, flight time increased to 5 hours. The main fuel tank was equipped with a “Semape” self-sealing system.
The two left wing machine guns. [warbirdphotographs.com]The main armament consisted of two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns and two 7.7 mm (0.311 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns. The machine guns were placed in the central parts of the wings. For the two-seat version, one additional 7.7 mm (0.311 in ) machine gun was placed in a ring mounted turret. During development, there were several different rear turret designs, either partially or fully enclosed. There is some disagreement in the sources about the designation of these turrets. Gabrielo G. named the fully enclosed version as type M and the partially enclosed one as the type L. Author David M. mentions the enclosed turret as type L. The standard ammunition load was 350 rounds for the heavier machine guns and 500 for the smaller caliber machine guns (without the rear machine gun). According to some sources, the type L turret was armed with one 12.7 mm (0.5 in ) heavy machine gun.
The interior bomb bay could be equipped with either four 50 kg (110 lb) or two 100 kg (220 lb ) bombs placed vertically. Another optional loadout consisted of a container with 168 smaller 2 kg (4 lb). Additionally, 200 kg (440 lb) of bombs could be carried on the bomb racks located under the wings, but these were not always used. The theoretical maximum bomb load was 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) but, due to the plane’s excessive weight and the poor engine performance, this loadout was never used operationally nor in combat. The bombsight was located in the cockpit.
Further Development
Due to its poor performance, the Italian Air Force formed a commission with the aim of determining if the Ba.65 could be modified or improved to justify its continued production. The commission was made up of five Air Force officers and was led by Engineer Parano. After a short analysis, the commission noted that the Ba.65’s two-seat configuration was too heavy. This, combined with an underpowered engine, were the main reasons for the Ba.65’s poor flight performance. The commission made several modification suggestions which would be implemented in the second Ba.65 production series.
Engine Cowling for the K14Engine Cowling for the A80
The previous K-14 engine was replaced with a stronger 1,000 hp eighteen cylinder Fiat A.80 engine. This resulted in an increase in the overall performance during climbing, take-off and cruising at top speed. The maximum speed with the stronger engine was 430 km/h (270 mph) with an effective range of some 550 km (340 mi ) and a service ceiling of up to 6,300 m ( 20,700 ft). The two engines had different cowling designs. The K-14 had 28 (14 pairs) smaller cylinder covers, and the A.80 had 18 longer cylinder covers. The new improved version is often designated simply as Ba.65 A.80 but, in some sources, it is also called “Ba.65 bis”.
The Ba.65 was also tested with the Piaggio P.XI engine, which was some 100 kg (220 lb) lighter than the K-14. The overall flight performance was improved, but due to the high cost, the proposal that all aircraft should be equipped with this engine was rejected. Additionally, a Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engine was allegedly tested on the Ba.65 (intended for Chinese export), but it is unknown if it was actually installed, or just planned.
Other improvements were made to the A-80 version. The rear machine gun mount was replaced with a new ring mounted machine gun turret. The landing gear was redesigned and improved. Great attention was given to reducing the weight as much as possible. To solve the problem with the overloaded wings, two Handley-Page slats were installed at the wings’ leading edges, which also improved the flight performance. On the tail, additional weighted ballasts were added to help with stability during flight.
Despite these modifications, the newly produced Ba.65 was criticized by pilots who were unhappy with its flying performance. There were also a number of accidents which forced the Air Force to issue special orders in October 1938, according to which it was forbidden to fly unnecessary aerobatics unless it was approved or for training purposes. By April 1939, the Italian Air Force Command, in the hope of finally solving the problems with weight and flight performance, ordered the removal of the rear machine gun position and equipment. In July, additional orders extended this modification to the older Ba.65 K14 versions. Despite these modifications, the Ba.65 never achieved the potential the Air Force High Command hoped for, and the Italians entered the Second World War without a dedicated ground attack aircraft.
Training Version
Small numbers of Ba.65, together with Ba.64 and A.P.1 planes, were used for a short time as trainers at the Foggia Flying School. As the concept of ground assault was abandoned by the Regia Aeronautica in November 1939, all remaining Breda aircraft at this school were scrapped.
In Italian Operational Service
In Italian military service, the Ba.65 saw action in small numbers during the Spanish Civil War, while the only other major engagement was in North Africa. Allegedly, according to author J.W. Thompson, it was also used during the Axis forces attack on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April 1941, but this is unlikely as there is no proof to corroborate this.
Pre-War Use
Front view of the Ba.65 (MM 325) prototype aircraft. [warbirdphotographs.com]In June 1936, the Ba.65 (MM.325) prototype was allocated to the 160a Squadriglia (Squadron) stationed near Ciampino for operational use. After the flight testing at Furbara, the first production aircraft was allocated to the 167a Squadriglia. At this time, the Italian Air Force began reforming the “Assalto” (attack) units into the 5a Brigata Aerea, which consisted of 5° and 50° Stormo (regiment) commanded by Colonel Mecozzi himself. At the time of formation, the 5a Brigata Aerea was equipped with older Caproni A.P.1 and Ba.64’s.
Due to slow production of the Ba.65, by 1937 only 20 were available for operational service. In 1938, the newer and improved Ba.65 A.80 version was ready for service. Immediately after sufficient numbers of the A.80 were produced, the 5° and 50° Stormo were reequipped with them and the older K-14 versions were given to 2° Fighter Stormo.
The improved A.80 version, stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. [warbirdphotographs.com]In May 1938, during Adolf Hitler’s visit to Italy, a live strafing exercise was organized at the Furbara airfield with 18 Ba.65 and 7 A.P.1 aircraft. During this exercise, a single Ba.65, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Savarino, was flight tested with a payload over 1,000 kg (2,500 lbs) of equipment and bombs) of 1,160 kg (2,560 lb). After his first test flight, the pilot noted that it was nearly impossible to fly the fully loaded Ba.65. In a second test, the load was reduced to 900 kg (1,990 lb). This time, the flight was more successful, but the aircraft was still reported as uneasy and unpleasant to fly.
During 1938, there were many flight accidents in which eight pilots lost their lives. This forced the Air Force to ground all Ba.65 from October 1938 to January 1939. Because of this decision, training of all pilots in the ground attack role was reduced, which affected combat readiness. At this time, the order for a further 33 aircraft was put on hold until a final decision was made about the fate of these units and the type of aircraft with which they should be equipped. The introduction of the new Breda Ba.88 (which turned out to be an even more disappointing design) persuaded the Italian Air Force Command to replace the Ba.65 with this aircraft. The 5° Stormo was reequipped with the new Ba.88, while 50° Stormo still operated Ba.65 aircraft in a limited role by early 1939.
A Ba.65 flying above Rome during a training flight. These were part of 5° Stormo. [warbirdsphotographs.com]
In Spain
During the Spanish Civil War, Italy and Germany actively supported Francisco Franco’s fascist forces by sending significant military support which consisted of military equipment like small arms, tanks, aircraft, troops, engineers and trainers. This war would be used as a testing ground for many new military aviation designs, including the Ba.65.
In April 1937, the first group of 13 single seat Ba.65 K-14 arrived in Seville. They were attached to the 65a Squadriglia (Sq) Aviazione Legionaria under the command of Captain Desiderio. This unit’s entry into operational service would be delayed until August 1937. This unit was later relocated to Tudela in order to help fascist forces during the battle of Teruel in late December 1937. During this battle, the 65a Sq, under the new leadership of Captain Fanali, performed large, aggressive sorties against Republican forces. The 65a Sq was also very active during the Republican Ebro offensive in July 1938. The battle ended after 115 days with a Republican defeat, with over 80,000 casualties and the loss of large numbers of planes. The Ba.65s were used during the capture of Barcelona in late January 1939.
As the Spanish Civil War ended, the Ba.65 crews were sent by ship to Italy, with the remaining 11 aircraft given to the new fascist Spanish state. During the war, Italy sent around 23 Ba.65 aircraft, of which half were lost. Only three Ba.65 aircraft were destroyed by enemy action. The Breda was used in several different roles during the war. It performed poorly in the role of interceptor due to its inadequate handling and the slow climb rate. Due to stiff controls, lack of an oxygen mask, and the ensuing physical fatigue of the pilots, high altitude scouting missions were also unsuccessful. The only real success was achieved in the fighter-bomber role.
During the war, the Italian crews added bomb racks under the wings. The bomb load was increased with two 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs which were dropped at an angle of 30-35°. An additional 168 smaller 2 kg (4 lb) fragmentation bombs (carried in the position of the second crew member) could be dropped during the climb. After the bomb load was dropped, the Ba.65 could engage ground targets with its four machine guns (two were heavy machine guns). During the Spanish Civil War the single seat version was mostly used, with the exception of a few missions when a rear observer or specialist was requested.
In Africa
Routine aircraft maintenance was necessary during the North African campaign. This picture was taken near Tobruk in November 1940. [warbirdphotographs.com]Prior to the beginning of the War in Africa against the British, the 50° Stormo was plagued by a general lack of adequate training, poor organization, and bad mechanical condition of the Ba.65 aircraft. By June 1940, the Italians had around 160 Ba.65 aircraft, but only 11 were actually fully operational and could be used for front line service.
The 50° Stormo was moved to Benghazi in Libya. Once there, mechanical problems cropped up as the A.80 proved to be prone to overheating and the desert sand caused significant issues for the engines. In Libya, a series of accidents forced Air Marshal Balbo to order the Ba65 removed from operational frontline service. All Ba.65 were dismantled and were to be sent to Italy, with assault units to be equipped with any available aircraft capable of assault sorties. The only planes fit the role were the Caproni Ca.310, a twin-engined bomber trainer aircraft, which was far from ideal, and the older Fiat CR.32 biplane.
The 50° Stormo (with no Ba.65) was relocated to Sorman airfield near Tripoli in order to provide support to the ground forces during attacks on Tunisia. Due to the rapid British advance, this unit (with only seven Ca.310B) was moved to the T.2 military airfield near Tobruk. The Ca.310B proved to be inadequate for the task, and after only two bombing attacks on the British armored columns in June, they were removed from these units. Due to this, the Italian Air Force commander in North Africa, General Porro, was forced to order the return of all available Ba.65 planes to operational service.
The A.80 version, possibly somewhere in North Africa. [warbirdphotographs.com]They were to be relocated from Benghazi to the T.2 airfield as soon as possible. Besides the 50° Stormo, the Ba.65 would be supplied to 12° (150th and 160th Squadrons) and 16° (167th and 168th Squadrons) Gruppo (Group). The 12° Gruppo saw heavy action and high attrition rate, and by the end of June only five Breda Ba.65 and five Fiat CR.32 were operational. In July, the 16° Gruppo arrived at T.2 airfield equipped with the CR.32 and a few older Ba.65 K-14 collected from Italy. These units achieved great success when attacking the British forces near Sidi Rezegh (25-27 July 1940), inflicting heavy damage. In August, six Ba.65 A.80 (with fighter cover of unknown type and numbers) attacked a British supply depot but were intercepted by British Gladiators. The engagement ended with three lost Gladiators, but the Italian losses (if any) are unknown. During General Graziani’s short offensive action toward Sidi Barrani in September, all Ba.65 equipped units were active. By the end of the Italian offensive, only 10 Ba.65 and 18 CR.32 were still operational.
On 18th October, a formation of six Ba.65 and seven CR.32 managed to attack a British airfield far behind the front line, in Egypt at Siwa Oasis. This air raid was repeated on 7th November 1940, with six Ba.65 and eighteen CR.32. Bombing actions continued throughout November. By the end of the month, the 12° Gruppo was sent to the rear for rest, recreation, and aircraft overhauls. At the same time, the British launched Operation Compass, which eventually led the attacking Italian Army to collapse. The 12° and 16° Gruppo were allocated to the A.3 airfield near Amseat.
In early December, Britain’s 7th Armoured Division under the command of General O’Connor managed to break the Italian line of defense and began racing to the west. The 50° Stormo, along with all its planes, was dispatched to stop British armored attacks. This attempt failed and the unit lost all its aircraft. The same fate was met by the 16° Gruppo, which was evacuated to Italy on 2nd January 1941, without any operational aircraft. The 12° Gruppo lost most of its aircraft in January and, by the 14th of February, it also was relocated to Italy. With its departure, the Ba.65’s combat service ended.
In Foreign Service
After World War I, Italy became known around the world for the production and export of aircraft, especially during the thirties. This was mostly achieved due to a successful commercial strategy in the international aviation market. Despite the Ba.65 being an unsuccessful design, several countries showed interest in buying this type of aircraft, but their use was very limited. These include Iraq, China, Portugal and Chile. Italians also presented the Ba.65 to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but nothing came from this.
In Iraqi service
Iraq was under the great political and military influence of Great Britain, which meant that they were more or less forced to accept any British Foreign Office decision, including the acquisition of weapons. For a long time, the Iraqis wanted to break away from British influence, or at least reduce it. For this reason, the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff Colonel Jewad visited Italy in 1937, in the hopes of concluding a contract for the purchase of new aircraft types which would be used to equip the Iraqi Air Force. During the negotiation with the Italian Aeronautical Export Committee (AEROCONS) in 1938, it was agreed that Iraq would buy 15 (25 according to David M.) Breda Ba.65 aircraft, two of which were the dual control version. In addition, 25 A.80 engines were also bought. All combat aircraft were two-seaters, equipped with the rear mounted Breda turret.
These aircraft were shipped and disassembled into smaller parts, arriving by ship in Iraq. Along with them, a group of Breda engineers under the leadership of Lieutenant Guza, were sent to help with assembly. The transportation process was slow due to the long distance, and the need to test each aircraft after assembly meant that these planes could not enter operational service before November 1938. After this, the process of training the Iraqi pilots began. The Iraqis did not have any problems adapting to the Ba.65 and only one accident was recorded with the loss of the pilot’s life. In May, Guza and his team returned to Italy, with a positive report about the Ba.65 in Iraqi service.
In 1941, there was an uprising led by Rashid Ali, who, with the promise of Axis support, began preparations to expel the British Forces from Iraq. During the Anglo–Iraqi War in May of 1941, all Ba.65s were allocated to the 5th Squadron. This unit saw action against the British forces, but after several attacks only two were left operational. The Italians sent a CR.42 squadron to help the Iraqis but it arrived too late to change the war’s outcome. This unit, seeing the poor Iraqi situation, returned home after a short time. The fate of the surviving Ba.65s is unknown.
Production Attempts in China
For some time, the Italians were trying to negotiate with Chinese authorities about opening an aviation production factory in China. After initial negotiations in June 1934, the Chinese signed a contract with the Aeronautico Italiano per la China (Aerocina). This company was owned by the Italian Government in conjunction with Caproni, Breda, Fiat and SIAI. According to this contract, the Italians were to build the SINAW (Sino-Italian National Aircraft Works) factory in Nanchang. With this agreement, the Italians were to provide tooling, parts, and machines necessary for the factory to work. The head of the soon-to-be factory was the Italian Luigi Acampora and the Director was General Chu Lin. The production of the first operational aircraft was to begin from July 1937 and all Italian personnel were to return to Italy after five years of cooperation.
SINAW officially started production in November 1936 with six Savoia-Marchetti SM.81B bombers. Future plans included local assembly of 30 Breda Ba.65s and 50 Fiat G.50s. Immediately after the start of the Italian-Chinese corporation, there was a disagreement about the assembly of the Ba.65. The Chinese officials insisted that it should be powered by the Pratt and Whitney R-1830 engine in place of the Italian K-14. The Italians were against this, but there was a compromise to equip them with the stronger A.80 engines. Despite this, the Chinese later on insisted on the Pratt and Whitney engines which led to delays in the realization of the project.
The factory was slightly damaged during the Japanese bombing action of Nanchang on the 20th of October, 1937. By November, the Italian Government made a decision to discontinue any further cooperation, and stopped all further deliveries of equipment and materials. This was done mostly due to Japanese military actions, and poor relations with the Chinese side. By early December 1937, all Italian personnel returned home, and the deal with the Chinese was abandoned without a single Ba.65 being built.
In Chilean Service
Rear view of a Chilean Ba.65. Chile bought 17 single-seaters and 3 dual control training versions in 1938. These were powered by the Piaggio P.XI engine instead of the weaker K-14 and armed with 12.7 mm Madsen type heavy machine guns. [warbirdphotographs.com]In the summer of 1937 representatives of the Chilean Air Force force were sent to Italy to begin negotiations for the purchase of several different Italian aircraft designs. These negotiations were successfully completed, and a purchase was arranged for nine Nardi 305 trainers and seventeen single engine and three dual control training versions of the Ba.65. These were to be powered by Piaggio P.XI engines instead of the K-14. Also, the Chileans demanded that the 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda SAFAT heavy machine guns be replaced with Madsen machine guns of the same caliber. Due to these changes and the long voyage to Chile, the Bredas reached their destination on 14th December, 1938. The aircraft were stationed at El Bosque airfield, awaiting the training of the pilots to begin, but due to many delays this only began in March 1939. During these training flights, there were two accidents due to pilot errors. The Chilean Air Force was under great pressure from the press about the quality of these planes, which eventually led to the suspension of any further flights of the Breda. These accidents were caused mostly due to the poor quality of pilot training. Not willing to admit their mistake, the Chilean Air Force began negotiation with the Italians to exchange the Ba.65 with the CR.32. But the negotiations were delayed and were never resolved as the war in Europe broke out. The Ba.65 would be used up to the end of 1941, when the last flight was recorded. These would be replaced with more modern American planes later on.
In Portuguese Service
In January 1937, the Portuguese showed interest in the Ba.65. After some negotiations, the Portuguese Air Force ordered 10 Ba.65 A.80, some of which were equipped with the Breda M turret. The inexperienced Portuguese pilots were to be sent to Italy for extended flight training.
The Ba.65 would be used in the coming year, but due to the lack of resources and maintenance, the Portuguese had problems keeping them in working condition. In February 1941 a heavy storm caused the hangar that all the Bredas were stored in to collapse. As all were damaged beyond repair, the Portuguese Air Force ordered them to be scrapped.
Production and Modifications
Besides the prototype, serial production of the Ba.65 began in 1936, with an initial production run of around 81 (MM 75091-75161) being produced by Breda. The second and the last production series was completed by July 1939. In the second series, Breda produced an additional 80 with an additional 57 built by Caproni. The total production run was 218 operational aircraft, in addition to the single prototype. Of the total produced, around 60 were sold to Iraq, Chile and Portugal.
Only one major modification to the original aircraft was ever made on the Ba.65, as it was used for only a short time.
Ba.65 – Prototype
Ba.65 K-14– Single and two seat versions
Ba.65 A.80 – Single and two seat versions
Ba.65 Trainer Version – Small numbers were used as training aircraft for a short time before being scrapped
Ba.65 P.XI – One aircraft was tested with the 1.000 hp Piaggio P.XI engine, but was not adopted for service.
Operators
Italy – Operated less than 160 Breda Ba.65 in total.
Iraq – Bought around 15 A.80 aircraft, of these two were modified as dual control trainers.
China –There were negotiations with Italy to domestically assemble thirty Ba.65s, but this was never achieved.
Fascist Spain – Used all surviving Ba.65s left by the Italians after the end of the Civil War.
Chile – Bought some 17 single-seaters and 3 dual control training version in 1938. These were powered by Piaggio P.XI engines and armed with 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Madsen type heavy machine guns.
Portugal – Bought 10 mostly two-seat versions, while some were equipped with the Breda M turret.
Breda Ba.65 A.80 Specifications
(Single Seat Version)
Wingspan
39 ft / 11.9 m
Height
10 ft 2 in / 3.10 m
Length
32 ft 4 in / 9.9 m
Wing Area
252.96 ft² / 23.50 m²
Engine
One 1,000 hp (746 kW) Fiat A.80 RC.41 18-cylinder radial piston engine.
Empty Weight
5,510 lb / 2,500 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
6,950 lb / 3,150 kg
Fuel Capacity
650 + 370l
Maximum Speed
267 mph / 430 km/h
Cruising Speed
220 mph / 350 km/h
Range
340 mi / 550 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
20,670 ft / 6,300 m
Crew
1 Pilot
Armament
Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns and two 0.311 in (7.7mm) Breda-SAFAT machine guns.
Four 110 lbs (50 kg) or 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs
168 smaller 4 lb (2 kg) bombs
Additional two 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs carried under the wings
Gallery
Ba.65 during the Spanish Civil WarBa.65 from 2° Stormo 1938Ba.65 from 5° StormoBa.65 from the 2° Stormo
Credits
Article by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
Illustrations by Pavel
D. Monday (1984, 2006), The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft of World War II, Aerospace Publishing
G. Garello (1997), Breda Ba 65, La Bancarella Aeronautica – Torino
D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija,, Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
Kingdom of Italy (1936)
Ground Attack Aircraft – 148 ~ 155 Built
A Ba.88 during a flight, possibly a training exercise. Despite having an excellent aerodynamic shape, it performed so poorly that it had to be removed from service. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
The Ba.88 was an Italian twin-engine aircraft design built in 1936. Despite managing to break a few world speed records, it was an unsuccessful design. When it was adopted for military service, its performance deteriorated and only a small number of aircraft were ever built.
History
On 20th January 1936, the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) made a request for the development of a new twin-engine multipurpose aircraft. This new aircraft design was meant to be capable of achieving a top speed of least 470 km/h (290 mph). Heavy armament was also required, which would have to consist of two to four 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns or two 20 mm (0.78 in) cannons. It was requested to have an operational range of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) and to be able to reach a height of 6 km (20,000 ft) in around 9 minutes. The cockpit also had to have a good all-around field-of-view.
Italian Air Force officials invited all Italian aviation companies to submit their proposals for the new multi-role design. Many companies responded to this request with their own suggestions. These included the I.M.A.M Ro.53, Fiat CR.25, Bonomi BS.25, Chiodi CH-2 and the Breda Ba.88. As the Breda Ba.88 showed the most promise, at least on paper, it was chosen as the winner of the competition.
Beginnings
Work on the first prototype began soon after. The development of the Ba.88 was given to a team led by Antonio Parano and Giuseppe Panzeri. The Ba.88 was influenced by an earlier Breda design, the single engined Ba.75, with which it shared some similarities, such as the tail and fuselage design.
The first Ba.88 prototype, named M.M. 302, was completed relatively fast and was ready in Autumn 1939. A series of flight tests began in October 1936, piloted by a young test pilot named Furio Nictol Doglio. During these initial tests, the Ba.88 was shown to have potential weight issues, but development continued.
Ba.88 prototype under construction. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
In early February 1937, the prototype was moved to the Guidonia Experimental Centre for further testing. Once there, it was tested by several Breda test pilots. In April of 1937, Furio Nictol managed to achieve an average speed of 518 km/h (322 mph) during a 100 km (61 mi) long flight from Fiumicino, Toraianica to Ancio. This was actually a world speed record at the time. On the 10th of April, Furio Nictol managed to reach an average speed of 476 km/h (295 mph) over a much longer distance of 1,000 km (620 mi). Of course, the Fascist regime was quick to take advantage of these results and used them for propaganda purposes around the world.
To further improve the Ba.88’s performance, the engines were replaced with stronger 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI. In addition, the single vertical tail was replaced with twin fins and rudders. In November 1937, the modified Ba.88 made many more test flights in order to determine its performance. In early December, two new speed records were made, the first with 555 km/h (345 mph) and then 523 km/h (326 mph).
The Ba.88 prototype, easily identified by the tail assembly. https://comandosupremo.com/breda-ba-88/
Initial Problems
During this time, the Italian Air Force began showing interest in a heavy fighter design (like the German Me-110, for example) and asked Breda to adapt the Ba.88 to this role. During 1938, testing on the Ba.88 continued. During this time, many issues with its design began to arise. In October, when adopted for military testing, the plane was shown to have many issues. The pilots noted that the Ba.88 was difficult to fly, maneuvering was slow and heavy. A report made by General Pinna, dated 21st November, states that the Ba.88’s maximum realistic speed was around 464 km/h (290 mph) at heights of 5.2 km (17,000 ft). He also noted that there is only a small probability that the speed could be improved and that the achieved speed was inadequate for a military aircraft of this type.
While Breda’s test pilots tried to defend the Ba.88, the army pilots were not so impressed. Colonel Lippi echoed General Pinna’s concerns, noting in his report that the Ba.88’s overall performance was poor and it was difficult to control. He also noted that the canopy could not be opened during flight, which was a significant problem if the pilot needed to initiate an emergency bail out. The situation worsened with the installation of military equipment, like the weapons, ammunition, cockpit equipment, extra fuel etc. The weight problem was so severe that the installation of bombs was only possible after removing internal equipment. The lower heavy machine gun was rarely installed in order to save weight. For these reasons, the Italian Air Force put Ba.88 production on hold.
Technical Characteristics
The Ba.88 was an all-metal, high wing, two engine ground attack aircraft. The fuselage was built by using welded chrome-molybdenum steel tubes. Its overall fuselage design could be divided into three sections: the front nose section, the lower section where the bomb bay was placed and the longer section that covered the remainder of the aircraft. The whole fuselage construction was covered with duralumin sheets held in place by longitudinal stringers, rivets and bolts.
The wings were made using chrome-molybdenum tube spars held in place by tube beams. This wing construction was then covered with sheet metal plates. The wings were connected with the Ba.88’s fuselage by using conical wrist pins and bolts. The original prototype had a standard single vertical tail assembly, but this was later changed to a new modified tail unit with twin fins and rudders.
Ba.88 side view. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com
The Ba.88 had two landing wheels that retracted backward into the engine nacelles. The rear tail wheel was also retractable, and could be steered if needed. The landing gear wheels were equipped with shock absorbers in order to ease landing.
The prototype was powered by two 900 hp Fraschini K14 engines. The production version was powered by two 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 14-cylinder radial piston engines. Two 10.5 ft (3.2 m) duralumin three blade propellers, which could rotate in opposite directions, were used. The engine mounting was made using welded steel tubes. There were plans to test different engines in order to reduce the overall weight and improve performance. This included the less powerful but lighter and more aerodynamic Fiat A 74, and stronger 1,000 hp A 76 and Isotta Fraschini L.121. Foreign engine designs were also proposed, like the German Daimler Benz DB.601 or even the French Hispano Suiza 12Y. There were twelve armored fuel tanks with a total capacity of 1,379 liters (365 gallons). These were arranged with two in the engine nacelles, four in the fuselage, and six in the wings.
The Ba.88 had more or less a standard cockpit layout, with a rear sliding canopy. The pilot was provided with all instruments needed to efficiently fly the Ba.88. The radio used was the R.A.350/II, supported by an A.R.8 receiver. Additional equipment, like a photo camera, could be added in the fuselage nose. To the rear of the pilot was the machine gunner’s position. He was seated with his back to the pilot.
The main armament consisted of three 12.7 mm heavy Breda-SAFAT machine guns with 1,250 rounds of ammunition each. The rear gunner operated one 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun with 250 rounds of ammunition and an additional 250 rounds in reserve. The bomb bay was semi-exposed and could accomodate a few different bomb load configurations: Three 50 kg (110 lbs) bombs, three 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs or two 250 kg (550 lb) bombs. There was also the option to install 40 small 2 kg (4.4 lb) bombs. Theoretically, the Ba.88 could be equipped with a total bomb load of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), but this was never done due to the airframe’s weight problems.
The rear machine gunner position with its 7.7 mm (0.31 in) machine gun can be clearly seen. In addition, despite the prototype having a simple single vertical tail assembly, the production version would have a new modified tail unit with twin fins and rudders. Source:www.warbirdphotographs.comA good top view of the Ba.88. www.warhistoryonline.com
A New Chance
With no other options, the Regia Aeronautica ordered the Ba.88 to be put into small production on the 20th of April, 1939. Production was to start in May of 1939, and by October 1939 some 80 had been produced. During 1938 and 1939, the Ba.88 was advertised abroad and several countries showed interest namely Sweden, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and Lithuania, but no orders were placed.
In Autumn of 1938 and early 1939, three newly produced Ba.88 were moved to Guidonia for more testing. The first Air Force units to be equipped with Ba.88s were the 7° Gruppo and the 19° Gruppo. In early May 1939, the first five Ba.88s were reallocated to the 76° Squadriglia of the 7° Gruppo. By September 1939, the 7° Gruppo (76°, 86°, 98° Squadriglia) and the 19° Gruppo (100°, 101°, 102° Squadriglia ) were equipped with 27 Ba.88 aircraft each, with 9 aircraft in each Squadriglia.
This Lince was part of the 7° Gruppo. Source:www.warbirdphotographs.com
With the installation of additional military equipment and armament, the performance and flight characteristics deteriorated dramatically. The top speed achieved with full military equipment and armament was much lower than that during the test flights. Italian army test pilots expressed concern about its flight characteristics, since even simple maneuvers were hard to achieve. In the hope of fixing some of these issues, a number of weight saving modifications were done during the war, but these problems would never be completely solved.
The Ba.88 During the War
During the war, the Ba.88 would be used only during the limited Italian attack on France and in North Africa. A small number were modified as experimental ground attack planes stationed in Italy but none were used operationally. Despite being originally designed as a multi-purpose aircraft, it would only be used in the ground attack role.
On the Western Front
After the German attack in the West in May 1940 and the rapid defeat of Allied forces in Holland and Belgium, the Italians tried to take advantage of the situation and declared war on the Allies. On 16th June, some 12 planes from the 7° Gruppo (or 19° Gruppo, depending on the source) made several bombing raids on airfields in Corsica. The next day, the attack was repeated with 9 Ba.88s. By 19th June, the battle was over. Italian combat analysis of these air attacks had led to the conclusion that the Ba.88 had only limited value as an effective operational aircraft.
In North Africa
The next use of the Ba.88 in combat was in North Africa, starting in August 1940. The Ba.88s of the 7° Gruppo were moved to Libya in August, and were part of the 5° Squadra Aerea. Due to the need to adapt them for desert conditions (with sand filters, for example), they were not combat ready until September. On 14th September, the 7° Gruppo was tasked with attacking Sidi El Barrani, a British airfield about 250 km (155 mi) behind the front. For the first attack, a group of three fully equipped Ba.88s, with full fuel load and ammunition, and carrying 250 kg (550 lb) of bombs were used. The attack failed as the Ba.88s were not able to take to the sky successfully. One Ba.88 had to return to the airfield as the aircraft could not maintain flight and another did not even manage to take off from the airfield. The last one, piloted by the unit commander, managed to take off but was constantly losing altitude and he was also forced to abandon the mission.
While the Ba.88 was used in the North African theater, its operational service life was disappointing due to it being mostly unusable for effective military service. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html
Many planned flights were also halted due to the Ba.88’s poor performance. Due to the heavy weight, low engine performance and increased drag (due to the addition of externally mounted bombs), the Ba.88’s performance fell dramatically. In a desperate attempt to improve its performance, all unnecessary internal equipment and the rear gunner positions were removed. In addition, many modifications to the design were also added but, in the end, none of these efforts made any appreciable difference.
By October only 10 Ba.88s were fully operational, down from a total of 29. On the 14th October 1940, three Ba.88s from the 98° Squadriglia were ordered to attack British armored forces around Sidi El Barrani and Bir Emba, but they failed to locate their targets. The next day, while on a reconnaissance mission, one was damaged by Italian anti-aircraft fire, as it was mistaken for a British plane.
Due to its disappointing performance, the Ba.88s were ordered to be removed from service. By the 16th of November, the 7° Gruppo had only 2 or 3 fully operational Ba.88 aircraft left. Because of the problems, most if not all surviving Ba.88 had been stripped of all useful equipment and armament, and were scattered around major airfields mostly to act as decoys for British attack aircraft.
Further Modifications: Ba.88 A74 and Ba.88 A74Bic
Despite being rejected from further military use, a second series of 60-70 Ba.88s was completed by Breda and I.M.A.M. None were used to equip any military units, and most were scrapped or used as target practice.
In a desperate hope of reusing the surviving operational Ba.88s, the Italian Air Force ordered them to be modified as dive bombers. The first tests were carried out at the Guidonia Experimental Centre air tunnel. There, different types of under wing brakes were tested, including the ones used on the German Junkers Ju-87. In order to save weight, the Piaggio engines were replaced with less powerful but much lighter Fiat A.74s. Great attention was given to reducing the weight as much as possible. This started with the engine, followed by reducing the fuel capacity by 117 liters (31 gallons), removing the rear machine gun turret position, the wing mounted bomb racks and the lower front machine gun.
Four Ba.88s (M.M. 3985, 3971, 3963 and 4034), together with one dual-control version, were modified with the A.74 engine. These received the Ba.88 A.74 and Ba.88 A.74 Bic (for the dual-control version) designations from Breda. These improved Ba.88 A.74 planes were equipped with modified wing mounted bomb racks in order to increase their offensive capabilities. It was possible to equip one larger 500 kg (1,100 lb), two 250 kg (550 lb) or three smaller 100 kg (220 lbs) bombs. In March 1942, these were given to the 1° Nucleo Addestramento Tuffatori stationed at Lonate Pozzolo. For further intensive testing, two Ba.88 A74 were allocated to the 101° Gruppo Tuffatori also based at Lonate Pozzolo. The tests proved to be disappointing and this unit was instead equipped with the older CR.42.
The Ba.88M
A last ditch attempt was made in the summer of 1942. One Ba.88 A.74 was modified with an 80 cm (31.5 in) longer fuselage and a wider wingspan of 2.3 m (7.55 ft). Parts of the metal wing construction were replaced with wooden panels. These modifications were done by Magni and Augusta. They received orders to modify an additional 6 Ba.88s. These received the Ba.88M designation, where M stands for ‘Modificato’, modified.
The Italian Air Force gave orders to these manufacturers to modify as many Ba.88 as possible. According to the original plan, a group of 40 improved Ba.88s was to be formed. Half of these would have been the single seat version and the other half two seat versions. In March 1943, additional modifications were required (by order of Air Force General Eraldo Ilari) in order to adapt the Ba.88 for dive bomber operations. These included the installation of only one 12.7 mm machine gun with an additional three that could be added if needed (two in the wing roots and one the fuselage), the possibility of adding armored plates for the pilot’s protection, removing parts of the wing’s leading edge in order to provide the pilot with a better view etc. Despite these improvements, the weight was actually increased by some 200 kg (440 lb).
By the end of July 1943, around 12 Ba.88s were gathered for modification. A few completed Ba.88Ms were allocated to 103° Gruppo Autonomo Tuffatori (independent dive-bombing group). This unit was also equipped with the German Ju-87. In August 1943, it was moved to Lonate Pozzolo and all its Ju-87s were given to 102° Gruppo. None of the Ba.88M were used in combat and, as the Germans occupied Italy, all surviving Ba.88s were scrapped for materials. Only one Ba.88M (MM 4605) was operated by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana in Northern Italy under German markings.
This is the Ba.88 that was operated by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana.Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/vvsregiaavions/regiaindex.html
Production and Modifications
Production of this aircraft began in May 1939 the Breda Bresso 81 workshop. In the first production series (around 80 aircraft), eight Ba.88 were built as dual-control trainers, with the added rear cockpit for the instructor, in place of the rear machine gunner. In addition, one modified single seater was built to be tested with an anti-tank cannon. An additional 24 aircraft were built by I.M.A.M. Later, in 1940, some 67 (or 42) new aircraft were built, 19 by Breda and 48 (or 23) by I.M.A.M. In the end, the total production was (depending on the source) 148 to 155 aircraft plus the prototype.
Newly produced Ba.88s. While difficult to spot, the last six aircraft (to the picture’s left) are actually the two-seater version. Sourcewww.warbirdphotographs.com
Variants:
Ba.88 Prototype – One built.
Ba.88 – Production version.
Ba.88 Single seat prototype – One built to be tested with an anti-tank cannon.
Ba.88 Dual-control trainer – Eight were built.
Ba.88 A.74 – Experimental dive bomber version. A few were modified, but were not adopted for production. This model served as a base for the Ba.88M.
Ba.88 A.74 Bic – Two-seat version of the previous model, one built.
Ba.88M – Three modified aircraft in order to improve the Ba.88’s flight performance.
Operators
Regia Aeronautica – Operated small numbers of the Ba.88, but were quickly withdrawn from front service.
Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana – Operated one Ba.88M given to them by the Germans.
Germany – After the surrender of Italy, seized all surviving Ba.88s, but none were ever used operationally.
Sweden, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and Lithuania – These countries showed interest in the Ba.88, but buying orders never came from any of them.
Conclusion
Despite a promising start with excellent speed records, the Ba.88 would never fulfill the role which the Italian Air Force had hoped for. The greatest problem was the Ba.88 was a combination of excess weight coupled with underpowered engines, as it showed in Africa where even limited combat flights were nearly impossible with the aircraft barely able to take off with a full load of fuel and bombs. Later attempts to adapt it for dive bombing operations were also unsuccessful. In the end, the Ba.88 proved to be an ill-fated design and a complete failure.
Ba.88 Specifications
Wingspans
50 ft 5 in / 15.4 m
Length
35 ft 3 in / 10.75 m
Height
9 ft 10 in / 3 m
Wing Area
358.88 ft² / 33.34 m²
Engine
Two 1000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 14-cylinder radial piston engine
Empty Weight
10,250 lbs / 4.650 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
6,750 lbs / 6.750 kg
Fuel Capacity
1,397 l / 370 Gallons
Climb Rate to 3 km
In 7 minutes 30 seconds
Maximum Speed
304 mph / 490 km/h
Cruising speed
273 mph / 440 km/h
Range
1,020 miles / 1640 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
26,245 ft ft / 8,000 m
Crew
One pilot and the rear gunner
Armament
Three 0.5 in (12.7 mm) and one 0.3 in (7.7 mm)
Different configuration bomb loads – Three 110 lb (50 kg) bombs
Three 220 lb (100 kg) bombs
Two 550 lb (250 kg) bombs
40 small 4.4 lb (2 kg) bombs
Gallery
Ba.88 Lince 100-7 – 100 Squadriglia, 19 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – Lonate, Pozzolo Italy – July 1940Ba.88 Lince 100-4 -100 Squadriglia, 19 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – Lonate Pozzolo Italy – July 1940Ba.88 Lince 11 – 7 Gruppo, 5 Stormo Assalto – St. Castel Benito, Libya – September 1940
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. and Ed J.
Nešić, D. (2008). Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija. Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
South Africa (1990)
Combat Support Helicopter – 12 Built
Rooivalk Mk1 with full traditional weapons loadout. Visible is the MISTRAL ATAM launcher, M159 rocket launcher pod, ZT-6 Mokopa ATGM and GIAT 20 mm F2 duel feed cannon. Source DENEL.
The Rooivalk (Red Kestrel) Combat Support Helicopter (CSH) is considered by many as one of the most advanced weapon systems produced by the South African defense industry. It was designed and developed for the hot, humid, and dusty Southern African battlespace based on the lessons learned during the South African Border War (1966-1989) to operate in a high-intensity conventional war. According to the then Minister of Defence, Mr. Joe Modise (1994-1996), the Rooivalk represents a combat helicopter of world-class standard. The Rooivalk Mk1 allows the South African Air Force (SAAF) the needed flexibility to help maintain the country’s national security interest and project force where required, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Development
With the South African Border War (1966-1989) operations shifting from low intensity to a high-intensity conventional war in 1985, the South African Defence Force’s (SADF) need for a dedicated attack helicopter capable of defeating enemy armor became paramount. South Africa had also become subject of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 on 4 November 1977, which imposed an arms embargo. This isolation would lead to South Africa having to develop an attack helicopter, as none could be sourced internationally (if the need ever arose).
The Atlas Aircraft Corporation, a division of the Armaments Corporation of South Africa (ARMSCOR), not only provided support for SAAF aircraft but also gained significant experience upgrading the SAAF Mirage IIIs in the 1970s. A project study was undertaken to come up with a workable configuration in 1976/8, which placed Atlas in the position to make a helicopter industrialization program. A significant point of debate was whether a small or large helicopter would be best. The latter would win out the subjective assessment, and objective operational analysis clearly showed a light helicopter would lack the range, payload, and survivability required in a high threat environment. The requirements for an attack helicopter included: survival in a high-threat regime, commonality with the existing medium transport helicopter fleet (Oryx/Puma), quick response to the mission task, day and night operability, low pilot workload, a very accurate navigation suite, simple “in-the-field” maintenance, an operational lifespan of 30 years, the ability to come quickly under existing Army command, control and communications systems, be operable in the “‘operational ”window’ (5-15 m above the terrain) for 95% of its lifetime, long-endurance capability, ability to ferry great distances and be built within the existing industrial infrastructure of South Africa. The future attack helicopter would place speed and maneuverability above protection to fulfill the prime objectives of mission success with maximum survival chance for both crew and aircraft.
When the requirement for an attack helicopter came to light, funds were made available to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to conduct a feasibility study. A signed contract with the SAAF in 1981 led to the development of the Alpha XH-1 prototype, which was based on the French Aérospatiale SA 326B Alouette III helicopter. The purpose of the Alpha XH-1 was to serve as a learning and capacity-building platform for South African engineers, supporting industries as well as testing various concepts and systems. This development resulted in much of the components, such as the engine, gearbox, and rotor systems, being produced in South Africa. Unlike the Alouette III, the prototype had a semi-monocoque airframe. It featured a GAI Rattler 20 mm cannon on a steerable turret under the aircraft’s nose, controlled by the weapons officer’s Kukri helmet-mounted sight. The Alpha XH-1 was never regarded as anything more than a test platform for hardware development. The Alpha XH-1 flew for the first time on 2 February 1985. It flew only a few times, as the main Attack Helicopter project had surpassed its need. The XH-1 was revealed to the public in 1986.
Meanwhile, Atlas Aircraft Corporation continued with its helicopter industrialization program to build capacity to provide more critical components for the Alouette family and Aérospatiale SA330 Puma helicopters in service with the SAAF. Further development of systems, such as avionics and weapons, required testing, which resulted in the purchase of two Puma 330Js which would serve as testbeds to support parallel development activities. The first of these helicopter’s, Experimental Test Platform 1 (XTP-1), also known as Puma J1, flew in 1986 and featured locally developed avionics and weapon systems, as well as a fully configured flight test engineering station in the cabin that recorded test parameters, as well as the ability to vary several input flight parameters in the development of higher mode autopilot functions. Also included were cockpit workload assessments during simulated anti-tank missions and aerodynamic effects of the stub-wings through the flight envelope. The XTP-1 was revealed to the public in 1987.
The Puma J2 loaded with V3 air-to-air missiles, ZT3 anti-tank missiles, and fitted with a belly-mounted 20 mm cannon. Courtesy of: Rooivalk – a legend in the making
The second Puma J, J2, was similarly configured as J1 and flew shortly after J1. J1 was mainly used as the test platform for systems development, and J2 was used to test the weapon systems with actual weapons firing. Extensive testing was carried out on the blast effect of the ZT3 anti-tank missile and recoil force of firing the 20 mm cannon, aerodynamic interaction, and drag between the various mounted weapons, resonance, thermal dissipation, and power consumption. Both Puma Js featured stub-wings mounted on the cabin sides, which carried two 18 round 68 mm rocket pods, two four-tube ZT3 ATGM launchers, in addition to the ventral mounted turret with a 20 mm GA-1 canon linked to the weapon officer’s helmet-mounted sight. Two missile tests were conducted. The first, in December 1988, at the St Lucia test range, was meant to determine the blast effect of the ZT3 missile on the helicopter’s tail boom and the accuracy of the weapons and supporting systems. Of note is the accuracy of the ZT3 anti-tank missile, which hit a stationary target 5km away being just 450 mm off the target center. The second test occurred in 1989 and involved a combination of the 20 mm cannon, 68 mm rockets, and ZT3 missiles in determining the post-launch maneuvers and different types of operations.
In parallel to the Rooivalk development, the Medium Transport Helicopter (MTH) requirement was also being industrialized, and Atlas was being set up to manufacture common parts for both Oryx and Rooivalk, such as the main rotor and tail rotor blades, the full transmission system including gearboxes and engines, and various subsystems to the point where the Oryx, as an upgrade to the Puma, was born based on the Super Puma dynamics
The Rooivalk’s development began under the project name Chickadee in 1984, which became Impose as a later project name. Much of the technologies developed for the XTP-1 would find their way to the Rooivalk eXperimental Development Model (XDM). Its primary purpose was to test the aircraft dynamics, mechanical, aerodynamic, and structural design, flight performance, and to do weapons carriage clearance. The XDM was used in the first phase testing of the dynamic components, which included the engine, air intake system, propulsion system controls, lubrication, and cooling. It was suspended in tie town jigs and repeatedly subjected to startup, shutdown, and transient system operation, with the first test commencing on 21st December 1989. The XDM was rolled out on 15 January 1990, after nearly four years of construction. It flew for the first time on 11 February 1990, as part of its 20 hour endurance testing. By May 1992, it had amassed 180 flying hours. It was also during this time that the horizontal and vertical stabilizers were finalized in their optimized form. The vertical tail configuration is designed for high-speed flight and to optimize lateral stability and low-speed responsive yaw control. The XDM can be distinguished from the other airframes by the rounded ammo bin aft of the cannon, and the exhaust was initially without infra-red suppressors, although, later in the development program, the XDM was fitted with a set of development IR suppressors.
The XDM during the tie-down jig testing. Courtesy of: Rooivalk – a Legend in the Making
The contract for the Advanced Development Model (ADM) was placed in 1988, completed in 1992, with its first phase flight on 22 May 1992. The ADM was used to verify the avionics design and implementation, weapons development, and integration platform. The traditional instruments were replaced by three multi-function displays (MFD), and the avionics system proved to minimize the aircrew workload significantly. The Rooivalk ADM would be the first-ever attack helicopter to fly with an MFD” “glass cockpit”. The ADM featured the MIL-STD-1553B digital databus system and was equipped with ZT3 Ingwe ATGM missiles, as well as a 20 mm cannon mounted to a TC-20 chin turret. The second phase of testing commenced on 23rd July and lasted until 4th December 1992 and involved in-flight operation of the Integrated Management System, the Health Monitoring System, the Automatic Flight Control System, and the Communication System. The third phase of testing was focus on the weapon systems and included the nose-mounted Main Sight System (MSS), 20 mm cannon in August 1993, and ZT3 anti-tank missile in March 1994. Both weapons systems were successfully tested.
XDM again during the subsequent flight trials program. Courtesy of: Rooivalk – a Legend in the Making
The ADM made its international debut at the Dubai air show in 1993, followed by the Malaysia air show in 1993. In 1994, the ADM was on display at the Farnborough International Air show in England. With potential international exports in mind, the Rooivalk was developed according to US military requirements and standards, which would only require small adjustments to make it compatible with US weapons systems such as the Hellfire ATGM. Meanwhile, the SAAF was contemplating an order of 16 Rooivalks with an updated User Requirement Specification which specified a more powerful cannon and longer-range missiles. Although 36 Rooivalks were envisaged to complete three squadrons, cuts to the defense budget and a change in the defense force strategy resulted in only 12 being ordered.
The Engineering Development Model (EDM) was developed as a platform to incorporate lessons learned from the XDM & ADM, to incorporate the SAAF’s updated User Requirement, as well as for doctrine and mission development. Design and development began in March 1993. The completed aircraft rolled out on 17th November 1996 and a flight was presented on 17th February 1997 by Denel. The purpose of the EDM was to qualify the avionics, weapon systems, airframe, and airborne systems before serial production could commence. Additionally, the EDM was used to refine the required logistical support. With the EDM, the ammo bins were moved to each side of the cockpit and the infra-red suppressor exhaust was directed upwards into the main rotor blades to dissipate the heat more efficiently. Additionally, the EDM saw many structural changes, as well as weight reduction. It represented the beginning of the Rooivalk assembly line.
The Rooivalk ADM international debut during the Dubai 1993 air show. Screengrab from Paratus Magazine. Original photo by S. BaschEDM 70 mm rockets loading (left) and firing (right) tests. Courtesy of: Rooivalk – a legend in the making
In 1994, the Rooivalk was entered into the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) tender for an attack helicopter. An audit by the MoD in March 1994 allowed Denel Aviation to submit its Invitation to Tender (ITT). Although ultimately unsuccessful, the experience was invaluable for future tender processes.
On 2nd August 2005, Rooivalk 679 sustained damage when it suffered a hard landing testing a newly installed autopilot. The main rotors were damaged, and the tail boom broke off. The Rooivalk’s design philosophy of protecting the crew succeeded, as neither were seriously injured. It was deemed uneconomical at the time to repair and it was subsequently stripped of usable parts. In 2016, Denel was still in talks with the SAAF to make use of Rooivalk 679 as a prototype platform for further development. The full order of 12 aircraft was completed by 2004. The total cost is estimated at R6.2 billion in 2015 for the full development activity and the production run of 12 aircraft.
The first SAAF Rooivalk was delivered on 7th May 1998 and was subsequently upgraded in blocks, starting with 1A, up to its current 1F, which is referred to as Mk1 baseline. The SAAF would only take delivery of six fully operational and military certified Rooivalk MK1s in April 2011. The Rooivalk Mk1 included 130 modifications, such as improved sighting and targeting system, communications systems, gearboxes, self-protection, the ability to fire the Mokopa ATGM and improved reliability of the 20 mm cannon. Additionally, fuel drop tanks were added which became invaluable for self-deployment to the DRC. The remaining five aircraft entered service by March 2013.
In 2015, the South African Department of Defence was considering restarting the Rooivalk manufacturing. The acting chief executive of Denel, Zwelakhe Nshepe, stated in 2017 that the Rooivalk MK1 would hopefully lead to the next generation Rooivalk MK2, which would be aimed at the export market. It features better sights, more firepower, a higher payload, and increased survivability. It was noted that a minimum of 75 airframes would need to be ordered for the project to be financially viable. At the time, Brazil, Egypt, India, and Nigeria were identified as potential target markets.
Denel has approved the Rooivalk Mk1.1 upgrades and was negotiating with the SAAF on the matter as a midlife upgrade, already due in 2016.
South Africa is the only user of the Rooivalk Mk1 CSH, which is assigned to 16 Squadron at Bloemspruit Air Force Base in Bloemfontein.
Design Features
The Rooivalk’s mission was envisaged according to the role at the time of an armed helicopter in a conventional war. This included operations with mechanised forces, deep penetration into enemy territory, air defence suppression, counter helicopter and anti-armor operations, counter-air operations against airbases, helicopter escort missions, maritime patrol, and reconnaissance. Based on those requirements, the Rooivalk design philosophy centred around four pillars, namely not to be seen, if seen not to be hit, if hit to sustain flight and if the flight could not be maintained the pilots had to survive the crash.
Performance
The Rooivalk was designed to exceed the demands required during the first 24 hours of a high-intensity war while in unfriendly territory. The Rooivalk is powered by two Turbomeca Makila 1K2 turboshaft engines which produce 1845 shp (246 shp/t).
It has an empty weight of 5910 kg and a max take-off weight of 8750 kg, which equals a carrying capacity of 2840 kg. Its typical mission weight is 7500 kg.
Its broad performance envelope includes operating in temperatures of between -35° C to +50° C, being able to take-off and land between -3000 ft to +19200 ft, and have a flight altitude of 20000 ft. Its hover over ground effect is 5,029 m, which is comparatively high compared to the AH-64 Apache (3,866 m), Mi-28 Havoc (3,600 m), Ka-50 Kamov (3,600 m), and Eurocopter Tiger (3,200 m). At mission weight, it has a cruising speed of 278 km/h and a top speed of 309 km/h. It can fly sideways at 92 km/h. At sea level, it can ascend 670 m a minute (11 m/s) with a maximum hovering ceiling of 5,545 m and a service ceiling of 6,095 m.
The Rooivalk has a minimum endurance of 216 minutes and 412 minutes with external fuel drop tanks, allowing it to self-deploy some 1260 km. Its combat radius (when fully armed) is 740 km with reserve fuel.
The airframe is rated at +3.5/-0.5 g.
The Rooivalk ranks among the top helicopters with regards to cruise speed, operational range, rate of climb, weapons loadout and power to weight, which are all essential during combat operations.
Aircraft Layout
The airframe has a length of 16.39 m (nose to the rear wheel), height of 5.19 m (ground to rotor head fairing) and width of 6.95 m (from either side of the stub-wings). The diameter of the four composite blade main rotor is 15.58 m and expands to 18.73 m when rotating. The tail rotor is 3.05 m wide.
The fuselage consists primarily of aluminium alloy to save weight and access doors hinged to the central I-beam and made of composite material that allow easy access to the interior.
The aircrew stations are placed in a step, which reduces the glare from the sun associated with tandem designs. Access to either side of each station is via upward hinged flat bulletproof windows. The aircrew stations are ergonomically designed to reduce aircrew workload and fatigue, which enhances endurance and battlefield awareness. The aircrew station for the pilot seated in the rear and Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) seat in front make use of Hands-On Collective and Stick (HOCAS) controls. The dashboard features three MFD displays, which are vital, as the Rooivalk would spend 90% of its time between 5 – 15 m off the ground during a combat mission.
The engines are fitted alongside the main gearbox, with the rear output shaft aligned to drive the gearbox from the rear. The gearbox itself is mounted on a tuned beam (vibration Isolation System) to minimise vibration on the airframe. The engine air intakes are fitted with a highly efficient particle separator (to keep dust and debris out) with a 97% efficiency against particles of 10 microns. Air from the engines is directed upwards through infra-red suppressors into the rotor blade downwash to disperse the heat and reduce its Infra-Red (IR) signature.
The Rooivalk has three internal fuel tanks located in the middle of the airframe, under the stub-wings centre section, each with a 480 kg (total 1440kg) carrying capacity. It makes use of Jet A-1 type fuel.
The stub-wings are fitted on either side of the airframe and have a straight rectangular shape.
The landing gear is of fixed design and consists of two forward wheels on the forward section of the airframe and a tailwheel. The wheelbase is 11.77 m (38ft 7in) and the wheel track 3 m (9ft 10in).
Endurance and Logistics
During the South African Border War, the SAAF made extensive use of Alouette III and Puma helicopters, gaining valuable operational and logistical experience. The Rooivalk was subsequently designed to operate for extended periods with minimal support and maintenance in the field with basic spares which are transportable via Oryx helicopter. The airframe has many large access panels which make access simple, as no tools are needed. The stub-wings and cowling (cover over the engine) are functional as working stations, and no ground support equipment is needed. It can be maintained with a ground crew of four in the field with spares that can be flown in an Oryx. The ground crew’s task is made easier with onboard test functions and line replacement units. The Rooivalk’s overall design also incorporated easy refuelling and re-arming. The engine features highly efficient sand filters which help reduce wear and tear and extends service life.
Avionics and Weapon System
The Rooivalk makes use of the advanced international digital Military Standard (MIL-STD-1760B) Class 2 weapons station and MIL-STD-1553B avionics system. The systems allow total mission modes, target acquisition, flight control, health and usage monitoring, communication, threat detection, and control of flight and fuel.
The avionic system is fully digital and incorporates night vision goggle compatible glass cockpit technology for low light night vision. This allows accurate navigation, pre-programmable tactical flight plans with moving digital map and flight data projection on two liquid crystal multi-function display. The multi-function displays allow the aircrew to switch between navigation, flight control, weapons control, threat warning and imagery from the sensors when required.
Flight control avionics consists of a duplex four-axis digital automatic flight control system. The latter is coupled with ring laser gyros with navigation and position input from a radar altimeter, eight-channel GPS, Doppler velocity sensor, magnetometer heading sensor, air data unit and an omnidirectional airspeed sensor. All of these systems are linked to a dual redundant navigational computer.
The autopilot system makes use of an eight-channel Global Positioning System (GPS) and Inertial Navigation System (INS). The system allows for normal as well as higher mode linkage to the avionics and weapons system. The one-touch feature for auto-hover, altitude hold, follow a planned route and target orientation is based on the main sighting system. The former two features allow the aircrew to recover from vertigo which could occur during night time low-level tactical operations or poor weather.
WSO cockpit layout illustration, Courtesy of Rooivalk – a Legend in the Making
The nose-mounted gyro-stabilised sensor turret housing with auto-tracking contains the target acquisition designation sight known as the NightOwl system. The system was developed by Société de Fabrication d’Instruments de Mesure (SFIM), which was absorbed by the Société d’Applications Générales de l’Électricité et de la Mécanique (SAGEM) in 1999/2000. It consists of 3-FOV FLIR with automatic tracking, LLTV and laser rangefinder and designator. The three fields of view, which include thermal and low light displays, have recording function with playback facilities and sight cueing. This allows for pop-up missile engagements based on target location recorded during high threat situations. The missile command and control system is integrated with the avionic system, which provides continuous navigational updates, flight control handover and weapons computing parameters. The weapons system additionally provides weapons and stores management. The aircrew’s helmet-mounted sight displays both flight and weapon data and can both cue the turret-mounted GI2 20 mm cannon and other armaments.
All armament can be used by either the pilot or WSO, although the use of the Mokopa could be laser designated by sight or from an external source. The pilot can, for example, use the cannon and rockets to suppress enemy fire while the WSO fires the Mokopa. The pilot and WSO cue the primary sight via their helmet sight and thereby show the other a target of opportunity or imminent threat. The fire control system (FCS) allows the flight crew to pop up from behind cover, scan the surrounding area, drop back down and identify targets via video cassette recording playback function, select targets and attack or relay target information to another Rooivalk or ground forces via secure data link.
Cockpit Layout
Both cockpits are equipped with two main color MFD with multi-function push buttons for displaying sight images, maps or information at high resolution. There is also a secondary control and display interface unit onboard system.
Helmet Mounted Sight Display
The helmet-mounted sight display (HMSD), or TopOwl, incorporates an integrated measurement system to control the weapons. The helmet makes use of electromagnetic tracking which allows the pilot or WSO to look at a target, thereby directing the weapons on the target. The helmet has an integrated Generation IV image intensifier and FLIR capability which can be switched between with the push of a button. The TopOwl HMSD was developed by Sextant Avionique, which later merged with Thales. The pilot night vision system (PNVS) is located on the top of the nose of the Rooivalk and was developed by Cumulus, which was absorbed by Denel Optronics, and later Cassidian Optronics.
Both helmets have two monocular display modules with integrated CRT which can project Heads-Up Display (HUD) information as well as video images into the crew member’s line of sight. This allows them to retain access to their HMDS information even when using NVGs. The pilot can access real-time imagery from the PNVS while flying NOE.
HMSD symbol legend is projected onto the crewmembers visors. Courtesy of: Rooivalk – a Legend in the making
Communication Systems
The Rooivalk makes use of pre-programmable secure voice, image and data communication for enhanced battlefield communication. The communications suite consists of a Reutech Radar Systems ACR500 transceiver and AC500 controller. The suite includes two dual-frequency hopping Very High Frequency (VHF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) transceivers with frequency modulation (FM), amplitude modulation (AM) and digital speech processing, and one High Frequency (HF) radio with secure voice and data channels for Nap of the Earth (NOE) flying. Also included is an Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder.
Main Armament
During its development, the Rooivalk’s weapons system allowed for a wide range of South African weapons. The layout and complement of armaments have remained generally the same. For this section, the initial Rooivalk ADM (1994) will be unpacked, followed by the present (2020) Rooivalk Mk1.
The Rooivalk ADM’s stub-wings each had three weapons pylons. One was on the stub-wingtips for an air to air missile and two underneath. The weapons pylons could be arranged according to mission requirements.
Under the Rooivalk ADM’s nose was a TC-20 hydraulically driven mount for a GA1 20 x 84 mm single feed Rattler cannon. It had a muzzle speed of 720 m/s and a fire rate of 600-750 rpm. Ammunition consisted of 20 x 82 mm HE-I, HEI-T, AP-HEI. Some 400 rounds were carried in an ammunition magazine located under the weapons officer’s station.
The air to air missile was a single South African supersonic passive heat-seeking V3B Kukri with proportional navigation. It has a maximum speed of 1,870 km/h, a range of 5 km, 40 g tolerance with a flight duration of 25 sec. It is the first successful helmet slaved missile in the world.
Rooivalk ADM on display in Farnborough International Airshow, United Kingdom, 1994. Visible is the V3B Kukri, HR-68 rocket launcher and 68 mm SNEB FFAR, ZT-3 Swift ATGM, external 750-litre fuel drop tank and GA-1 20 mm single feed Rattler cannon. With permission from Aviation Central.The ZT series of ATGM missiles. ZT-3 Swift (bottom), ZT-35 Ingwe with active proximity fuse (middle) and contact probe fuse (top). Screengrab from PARATUS Magazine, April 1994.
The HR-68 rocket launcher pod carries 18 x 68 mm Societe Nouvelle des Etablissements Edgar Brandt (SNEB) unguided Folding Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR). The rocket is powered by a 31 kg rocket motor which gives a maximum velocity of 450 m/s, and slant range is 1600 m, with an accuracy of 2 mils.
The quarto missile tube for either the ZT-3 Swift or ZT-35 Ingwe laser beam riding anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) have a 4 km and 5 km standoff range, respectively. Both are equipped with a high explosive anti-tank warhead (HEAT). The ZT-3 Swift can penetrate 650 mm of rolled homogenous armor at zero degrees and the ZT-35 Ingwe 1000 mm (with active proximity fuse). The latter is also equipped with a tandem warhead to defeat explosive reactive armor (ERA).
The Rooivalk Mk1 weapons compliment differs significantly from the ADMs. The stub-wings retained the three weapons pylons, however, the stub-wingtip pylon has moved under the wing.
For the Rooivalk Mk1, the cannon was changed to the battle-proven GI2 20 mm (mounted on the Ratel 20 Infantry Combat Vehicle), with a new chin mounting system, which includes a hydraulic-driven elevation and azimuth drive control. It has a fire rate of 720-740 rounds per minute. Its operating envelope is -110 to +110 degrees in azimuth and -55 to + 15 degrees elevation. Reaction time is 1.8 sec from selection to firing at 60 degrees traverse at -45 elevation. It has a slew rate of 90˚/sec. The cannon has two modes of operation, namely quick reaction and accurate mode. The former entails using the helmet-mounted sight for slewing the cannon on target, while the latter makes use of the nose-mounted sight.
TC-20 hydraulically driven mount with a GI2 20 mm cannon (left), ammunition feed belt with APCT rounds (right). Source Denel
The cannon rounds are kept in two sponsons on either side of the forward fuselage and fed into the cannon via a dual-feed system from inside the turret shroud. The primary ammunition used is 20 x 139 mm (HS820) High Explosive Incendiary (HE-I) and Armor Piercing Core Tracer (APCT). The HE-I, which travels at 1050 m/s, is effective up to 2 km. The APCT rounds travel at 1300 m/s and are considered effective up to 1 km and can penetrate 15 mm of RHA at 2 km. The auto-feed mechanism of the 20 mm gun allows to immediately change between the two different ammunition belts (350 rounds each) feeding into the cannon with the flip of a switch. This weapon was selected for ease of logistics. However, problems were encountered with the weapon, as the shockwave from firing would disturb the sight mirrors. This problem was fixed in the Mk1 upgrade.
The M159 rocket launcher pod carries 19×70 mm Forges Zeebrugge (FZ) unguided FFAR. The rocket is powered by a 31 kg rocket motor which gives a maximum velocity of 1250 m/s, and slant range is 9.1 km. The rocket can be fired individually, in pairs or sets of four and the articulated pylons raised or lowered for optimum trajectory. The FZ90 can carry a variety of warheads, which include High Explosive General Purpose (HEGP), Inert Practice, Flash Signature, High Explosive Armor Piercing (HEAP), Multidart and Flechette. Recently, the Rooivalk Mk1 also test-fired the FZ laser-guided rocket variant which enhances the accuracy to less than 1 m for a target at 4-5 km. Given the high cost of laser-guided ATGMs, these FZ laser-guided rockets can be a suitable compromise for a defence force on a budget not facing MBTs.
Originally designed for use on the Ratel ZT3 ICV and successfully incorporated into the Rooivalk ADM, the ZT-35 missile is too slow to be used on an aircraft. Taking 25 sec to reach 4 km exposes the Rooivalk to enemy air defence. Studies showed that exposure over 10 sec dramatically decreases a helicopter’s survivability. The ZT-35 missile has been replaced by the state-of-the-art, long-range, precision-guided 178 mm ZT-6 Mokopa (Black Mamba).
Designed and developed by Denel Dynamics in 1996, the Mokopa was initially designed as the primary anti-armor weapon for the Rooivalk. It has, however, evolved into a multi-purpose missile applicable to both conventional and asymmetrical scenarios. The missile can be fired in the traditional direct lock-on before launch (LOBL), or lock-on after launch (LOAL). With LOAL, the missile flies in the general direction of the target until it detects a designated laser beam illuminating a target within the last eight seconds of flight. The Rooivalk can also launch several Mokopa missiles in rapid-fire mode (eight seconds apart) and designate several targets using different laser codes. A remote laser targeting by another Rooivalk or ground-based designator can also be used to illuminate targets which the Mokopa will then guide towards. Rapid-fire can also be synchronised with remote lasers, each illuminating individual targets, which each Mokopa will then be allocated to and guide towards.
Mokopa and Ingwe size comparison. Source unknown
Making use of semi-active laser guidance, the Mokopa is of a modular design and can carry a penetration, fragmentation, or anti-armor warhead. Unlike the ZT3 Ingwe, the Mokopa is designed to approach a target, such as MBTs, at an angle from above, to hit where it is least armored. The tandem HEAT warhead, which can defeat ERA, is capable of penetrating 1350 mm of RHA armor at zero degrees. A High Explosives (HE) fragmentation warhead has also been developed, allowing the Mokopa to engage soft\lightly armored targets with devastating effect. Making use of a solid-fuel composite rocket motor with a slow-burning rate, it can engage targets up to 10 km away with a circular error probable of 30 cm. The first air-launched test occurred in 1999, followed by the first guided test in 2000. The Mokopa’s firing trials were completed on 21 January 2011 at the DENEL OTB test range. As a side note, the Mokopa can also is configured to make use of mmW or IIR guidance and carry multi-purpose warheads. The mmW is a true fire and forget missile which can be preprogrammed with a target’s location, to which it will guide itself after launch.
Two Mistrals in their launcher. They are carried in protective launch tubes with hinged doors which open when fired. Courtesy of: Rooivalk – a Legend in the Making
For air to air engagements, the Rooivalk Mk1 can be armed with four all aspect, fully digital Matra Mistral heat-seeking missiles. The missiles are carried on ATAM launcher pods on the outermost pylon of the stub-wings. The Mistral can be fired at targets from either the helmet-mounted sight or the main sight. The missiles have a maximum speed of 2,600 km/h, 12 g tolerance, range of 6.5 km, and carry a 3 kg HE tungsten filled warhead with detonation via laser proximity fuse.
Protection
In line with the Rooivalk design philosophy, its foremost protection lies in its agility and stealthy design. The former is achieved by a 52 per cent excess hover power for quick reaction and ability to move sideways at 93 km/h, allowing the Rooivalk to engage targets and disappear behind cover quickly. With regards to stealthy design, particular attention was paid during its development to reduce its radar, IR and noise signature. The radar signature is reduced by making use of carbon fibre and metalised fairings to shield the rotor mast and controls. The canopy surface makes use of an RF reflective material. The IR signature of the engine is reduced passively by angling the exhaust upwards into the rotor blade downwash for quicker heat dispersal. The visual signature of the fuselage only offers a 1.28 m target from the front and 4 m from the top to bottom of the rotor head. Glint is minimised by using flat and single curvature surfaces where possible. The main rotor acoustic noise is reduced by keeping the rotor tip speed low and passive measures to reduce the engine noise at the intake and exhaust. A combination of the aforementioned makes it difficult for enemies to acquire and engage the Rooivalk.
Rooivalk armoured crew seat – Sourced online
Provision was made during its design for dual redundancy of major systems, damage tolerance, and multiple load path use by avionic systems, flight and structural damage. The Rooivalk’s structure and dynamic systems have been designed to tolerate 23 mm high explosive rounds and survive direct hits from a 12.7 mm AP round and keep on working for at least 30 minutes. This allows the Rooivalk a greater chance to remain airborne and flying should it sustain damage. The self-sealing fuel tanks can also survive a direct hit from a 12.7 mm AP round without exploding. The aircrew stations are armoured against 12.7 mm AP rounds, and the seats are crashworthy, which minimizes the likelihood of injury to the crew if a crash occurs within its design performance. The Rooivalk’s crashworthy airframe is designed to withstand a sink rate of 11 m/s. and the tailwheel and landing gears designed to absorb the energy of a sink rate up to 6 m/s.
It is equipped with a Helicopter Electronic Warfare Self-Protection Suite (HEWSPS), which uses the Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (IDAS) from SAAB. The suite provides laser-warning, missile-approach-warning, as well as full multi-spectral detection capability for radar. Additionally, the suite allows for in-flight configuration against known threats.
The laser-warning system covers broadband laser frequency to detect, plot bearing and range for the display of the laser threats.
The radar warning system makes use of low Effective Radiated Power (ERP) pulse-Doppler radar detection from beyond radar detection range. Additionally, it provides ultra-broadband frequency coverage with high pulse density handling and instantaneous internal frequency measurement.
Once a threat is detected, the countermeasure system deploys chaff and flares from dispensers on either side of the rear fuselage to confuse incoming missile IR or radar lock. The system can also be operated manually or semi-automatically.
Rooivalk in Action
As a member of the UN and AU, South Africa is committed to peacekeeping missions in the DRC, Sudan and South Sudan. The eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is characterized by mountainous terrain, which is plagued by rebel factions known for raping, pillaging and murdering civilians and aid workers alike. The UN Security Council resolution 2098 of 2013 and subsequent resolutions authorised the formation of a UN Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) in the DRC, with a peace enforcement mandate. The FIB consists of three infantry battalions, one artillery, one Special Forces and Reconnaissance Company, as well three Rooivalk MK1 and several Oryx helicopters. The countries that made up the UN FIB were South Africa, Tanzania, and Malawi.
Shortly after deploying to the DRC, the white-painted Rooivalks engaged in their first combat mission against M23 rebels at 17:00 on 4 November 2013. Making devastating use of their 70 mm rockets, the Rooivalks engaged rebel positions near Chanzu (close to the Rwandan border), while the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) conducted a ground assault against M23 positions with the assistance of artillery. The operation ended at 18:20, with the Rooivalks firing 38 and 17 rockets, respectively. Such was their physical and psychological impact and ground assault that the M23 rebels called an end to their 20-month long rebellion the very next day.
On 1 December 2015, several Rooivalks based in Goma (eastern DRC) were tasked with supporting a FIB attack on Islamist Allied Democratic Forces (IADF) guerrillas. The Rooivalk attack was preceded by Ukrainian Mi-25 Hind attack helicopters, but due to bad weather, this was somewhat ineffective against IADF ground positions. The Rooivalk, on the other hand, was unhampered and delivered accurate 70 mm rocket and 20 mm cannon fire.
The Rooivalk received high praise by various international defence analysts for its combat performance in the DRC, as it could operate in any weather condition which the Ukrainian Mi-25 Hind could not.
Typically, a Rooivalk flight mission in the DRC lasts two hours and involves intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) in addition to convoy and aircraft escort. While on a mission, it is armed with 550 x 20 mm rounds and 20 x 70 mm rockets. When engaging a target, the Rooivalk climbs rapidly and dives at its target firing rocket salvos and, if necessary, its 20 mm cannon. This method works best to breach the tree canopy foliage in the DRC.
While deployed to the DRC between 2013 and 2015, the three Rooivalks fired 199 70 mm rockets and 610 20 mm cannon rounds in anger. The following year saw a steep rise in rebel activity, with the Rooivalks firing 1200 70 mm rockets and 11,000 20 mm round. The majority of these combat engagements were against Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) during the last two weeks of December 2016.
Two SAAF Rooivalk Attack Helicopters serving as part of the United Nations Force Intervention Brigade, escorting a UN delegation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2014. Source MONUSCO/Clara Padovan
Future Prospects
The Rooivalk must be considered in the context of the role for which it was developed, supporting deep raids by heliborne and parachute forces. Fighters would lack the time on station to give effective close support, whereas the ‘combat support helicopter’ could operate from a ‘helicopter administrative area’ closer to the objective, supplied by transport helicopters or aircraft. That set the requirement for good range, endurance and weapons load, as well as ruggedness and ease of support in an austere location. Also, logistics argued for maximum commonality with the Oryx medium helicopter.
The resulting Rooivalk has performed extremely well in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it has flown armed reconnaissance, escort and close support for the Force Intervention Brigade. It has proved effective, including in poor weather conditions, and reliable, eliciting very positive comments from officers serving with the UN force in the DRC.
The Rooivalk is due for an upgrade, which would require the following changes to the aircraft: A new main sight, upgraded avionics, new computers and replacing some wiring with fiber. They are all practical and affordable. One Hensoldt Optronics Argos variant, for instance, can add a beam generator to the laser designator, allowing the use of both laser-guided and beam riding missiles, greatly expanding tactical capability. An air-to-air missile could be integrated, as could an advanced self-protection suite.
Its performance in the DRC has also brought interest by some other forces in a possible Mk2 variant, so the story of the Rooivalk may not end with the present fleet.
Helmoed-Römer Heitman – South African author, journalist, historian, military analyst and citizen-soldier.
Conclusion
Rooivalk is a highly sophisticated digital aircraft. The investment in digital-based systems provides a weapon system that is capable of achieving ultra-high assurance levels of mission accomplishment in a most demanding operational environment. Furthermore, the hazards of this environment, such as adverse weather, terrain and darkness; as well as the threats posed by the enemy, are significantly reduced because of very effective electronic enhancement. There need be no doubt that the percentage of the purchase price of Rooivalk that is attributable to avionics and electronics is money seriously well spent.
Robert Paul Jonkers – Programme Manager for the Rooivalk (1999-2004)
AH-2A – No. 678 AFB-Langebaanweg Dec 2017 – By Ed Jackson – artbyedo.comAH-2A – No. 676 AFB-Durban Feb 2017 – By Ed Jackson – artbyedo.com
Special Thanks
The author would like to acknowledge and thank several individuals. Rob Jonkers, former Programme Manager for the Rooivalk (1999-2004), for doing quality control of the article content and providing permission to source from his book Rooivalk – a legend in the making. Also Justin Cronjé from defenceWeb, which is Africa’s leading defense news portal, for making some of their resources available. Helmoed-Römer Heitman for his contribution on the Rooivalk’s possible future.
Sources
Air Report 1994. South Africa’s aviation yearbook. Creda Press.
The Saab B 17 is the product of Sweden’s need to procure assets to defend its sovereignty and neutrality in the light of a gradually complicated international and regional context, to the point that it was prioritized over the equally capable and versatile Saab B 18. This aircraft was a milestone for the main company in the Swedish aerospace industry, as it was the very first airplane produced and delivered by this company following its acquisition and merge with ASJA, the aircraft branch of the Swedish Railroad Workshops company. It was also the application of the lessons and experience provided by the licensed-manufacturing of the Northrop 8-A1 bomber by AJSA/Saab. AJSA was already commissioned by the Defence Material Administration to develop and build a single-engine and light fighter-bomber, so Saab took over the design and development process in 1939 after both companies merged, evolving into the final light bomber, dive bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. Designated as the L 10 by ASJA, the design became the Saab 17, incorporating a good number of innovations and becoming a very versatile and adaptable airframe. Yet its time of service with the Flygvapnet was rather brief, as it was de-commissioned by the late 40’s. This was due to new and more powerful powerplant technologies such as jet propulsion. Instead, it served for a long period of time in Ethiopia until 1968.
The Saab B 17 is a light bomber/dive bomber and reconnaissance plane with two seats, a single engine and a single tail, whose design bears a close resemblance with the Mitsubishi Ki-30 “Ann”, the Mitsubishi Ki-15, the Vought OS2U, and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, especially with the elongated shape of the main airframe and equally elongated windscreen of the cabin (as well as the same cockpit), which occupies most of the superior area of the airframe and it is fully incorporated in the fuselage. The wing is a mid-wing (cantilever) of trapezoid shape with a remarkable characteristic: where the retractable landing gear, which was covered with streamlined fairings, was placed, the rear part of the wing was divided. From the fuselage to the place of the landing gears, it was straight; from the landing gears area to the wingtip, it was angled. The forward area of the wing was straight, and the wingtips were rounded. The wing, from a frontal perspective, was slightly angled upwards from the landing gear area to the wingtip. It was also a reinforced wing to allow it to deal with the high stress by dive bombing missions.
The Saab B 17 was powered by different powerplants during its career, as many versions had their own powerplants. The two prototypes (L 10) were powered by a licensed-built Bristol Mercury XII of 880hp by NOHAB (Nydqvist & Holm AB) and by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp of 1065hp each. The first production version (B 17A) was powered by the same Pratt & Whitney R-1830 (S1G3C) of 1050hp, while the B 17B (and also the B 17BL and B 17BS) was powered by a licensed-built Bristol Mercury XXIV of 980hp, with the B 17C powered by a Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D of 1040hp. Consequently, speed tended to vary from version to version as well. For instance, the B 17A could reach speeds of up to 435 Km/h (270 mph); the B 17B could reach speeds of up to 395 Km/h (245 mph), the B 17BL and B 17BS could reach speed of up to 330 Km/h (205 mph); and the B 17C could reach speed of up to 435 Km/h (270 mph). The landing gear was also varied from version to version, as it could have the classic set of two wheels at the wings and a small tailwheel, skies as replacement for the wheels, and even special twin floats permanently attached. This gave the B 17 considerable versatility, as it could take off and land in normal runways to snow-covered terrain, and also in water surfaces.
The armament had no modifications, comprising of two 8mm Ksp m/22F machineguns placed at the forward section of the wings and after the landing gear area, a single and moveable 8 mm Ksp m/22R machine gun firing backwards for the observer/navigator/radio operator, and a payload of up to a 500-kg (1,102 lb) bomb or 700-kg (1,500 lb) bomb. Interestingly, the dive bomber version had an under-fuselage trapeze to accommodate a 500 Kg bomb, along the wing weapons stations. And it had state-of the art avionics for bombers by the time, like the bomb-sight BT2 (also known as m/42) that increased precision, mostly the late versions. In addition, it had two radios, an FR-2 and FRP-2. The reconnaissance version had a camera placed at the bottom of the fuselage.
The initial roles of the airplane were reconnaissance and artillery spotting, roles that were, however, already filled by other air assets such as the Fieseler Storch and the Hawker Hart. As a result, the new airplane was required to be a light dive-bomber as well. Nevertheless, the final model retained all of the two missions through its variants, as well as receiving a level light-bomber and dive-bomber role. It would also be used for target towing later in its career. The Saab B 17, like the B 18, had an American ‘soul’ as well, thanks to the 40-50 American engineers that were part of ASJA and contributed with the design and construction of the airplane, hence the abovementioned similarity with the American airplanes. And it needed to receive some structural modifications, especially for the dive-bombing missions, such as the reinforcing of the wings and the landing gear folding system. This could be retracted backwards and used as an airbrake, taking advantage of the fairing.
Development of the B 17 began in 1937 when ASJA began works on its L 10; as Saab merged with ASJA that same year, it continued with the development of the given aircraft, which would be an all metal airframe – something that was a novelty as airplanes back then used to have wood and other materials part of the fuselage. Two prototypes were built, each one having a different powerplant and flying for the first time in May 1940. The test pilot, Claes Smith, assessed the design as a good one, despite the fact the cockpit wheel came loose and fell prior landing. During development, it was realized that some modifications were needed, like changing the carburetor air intake from the top of the engine cowling to the starboard side of the cowling. This was done to prevent the engine from stopping. A spin fin was also added. By the end of 1940, the first 8 B 17s were produced, entering in service with the Flygvapnet in 1942. Some issues delayed the production programme, however. Nonetheless, 324 airframes were produced between 1942 and 1944, with three main versions: the B 17A light bomber and later target towing aircraft, the B 18B – and its sub-variants B 17B I, B 17B II, B 17BL and B 17BS – light bomber and reconnaissance versions (this version was the one that received most of structural the modifications), and the B 17C bomber version.
The B 17 had one of the shortest service period with the Flygvapnet, as it was retired 7 years after it was introduced; yet it remained in service in Austria, Finland, and Ethiopia until 1968. In Sweden, they remained in service with civilian operators and in very small numbers until 1959, where they received new avionics.
5 airframes remain, one of them airworthy and still operating today in airshows. Two are museum pieces in Linköping and one in Helsingør, Denmark. Two airframes are reportedly located in Lithuania.
Design
The design of the B 17 is similar to other aircraft used in WWII by other countries, meaning it has the typical ‘WWII style’. But instead of being the average WWII design, the B 17 has some remarkable and particular characteristics. The airplane is an all-metal airframe, with the bow having a cylinder shape thanks to the radial engine and the stern is topped off with the tail, and the overall airframe being elongated with a sort of conical shape. The airplane is also a semi-straight leading-edge wing airplane, but the wings also have a particular characteristic. In fact, the wings have a ‘divided’ shape, with the area of the landing gear being the dividing point. First, from the fuselage to the landing gear, the leading-edge is straight while the rear-edge is also straight, having two ‘dog-teeth’ that mark where the rear area of the fairings are located. Second, from the landing gears to the tip of the wings, the leading-edge of the wings are straight as well, but the rear-edges are angled, making this area of trapezoid shape. The tips are rounded. The wings also have a divided shape from a frontal perspective, with the landing gear being also the dividing area. From the fuselage to the landing gear area, the wing is straight. However, from the landing gear to the tip of the wings, it is angled upwards, similar to the Ju-87 Stuka or the Douglas SBD ‘Dauntless’, only that the angle is not as wide. The wing, furthermore, is installed in the middle of the fuselage (cantilever), also being reinforced. Such reinforcement can be seen through its thickness. The horizontal stabilizers are also of trapezoid shape, with the control surfaces per se having an inwards angle at the tip of the surface. The tail has a similar shape with the rudder occupying most of the surface and having also an inwards angle near the tip. Both horizontal and vertical stabilizers have an equally rounded shape.
The canopy is another remarkable characteristic of the B 17, as it is very elongated, occupying almost 40% of the superior area of the fuselage and making an impression that the B 17 has a crew of three, rather than the actual crew of 2: the pilot and the radio operator/navigator/observer. As a result, the cockpit had a lot of space, which allowed the second crewman to slide the seat back and forwards between the two different workstations. Beneath the forward area of the cockpit was where the bombs bay was located. A long antenna was placed above the canopy, right after the pilot’s seat, with a long cable connecting it with the tail. The landing gear was of classic configuration, with two (extended) wheels placed beneath the wings and a third wheel placed beneath the tail. The two forward wheels have a particular trait that gave the B 17 another distinctive characteristic either in land or when in flight: the forward landing gears were covered with an aerodynamic fairing as it folded backwards, into the wing. The purpose was to use such fairing as an airbrake, yet it was not entirely functional as the hydraulic system wasn’t powerful. The fairings were met by a ‘hood’ of sorts at the wing; when the landing gear folded, it gave the landing gears cover a cylinder shape, making the B 17 to have two cylindrical structures at the wings while in flight, making easy its recognition while in flight. The B 17 went through a series of modifications, especially the reconnaissance versions, as they received floats – with the purpose of operating from water – along with small endplates (placed right before the wing tips) and aerodynamic struts. The landing gear, in turn, could be replaced with skis instead of wheels, an ideal device for winter or Arctic operations.
The B 17 received three different type of powerplants. The first two prototypes were powered by a NOHAB-built Bristol Mercury XII and a Swedish-made Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines. The production versions had the following powerplants: a Swedish-made Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp (B 17A); a Swedish-made (by SFA) Bristol Mercury XXIV (B 17B and the different sub-variants); and the Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D (B 17C). All the engines were radial and air-cooled, with 9 or 14 cylinders. The propeller was a three-bladed Piaggio P.1001 variable pitch propeller. The engines yielded different speeds. The B 17A could reach speeds of up to 435 Km/h (270 mph), the B 17B could reach speed of up to 395 Km/h (205 mph), and the B 17C could reach also speeds of up to 435 Km/h (270 mph).
The B 17 had a standard armament with no variation from model to model, except for those with reconnaissance tasks. It consisted of two 8mm Ksp m/22F mounted at the wings and firing forwards, and one 8mm Ksp m/22R mounted at the stern of the cockpit, which was moveable and could fire backwards. A 500 Kg (1,102 lb) (B 17A) or a 700 kg (1,500 lb) (B 17B andC) could also be carried. Some units of the B 17A were modified to carry air-to-ground rockets. The reconnaissance versions were fitted with a camera type N2. An advanced bomb sight named the ‘m/42’ was introduced to enhance bombing efficiency, especially at dive-bombing, reducing the angle of bombing.
The B 17 was the very first plane produced by Saab, and incorporated many of the lessons and experiences acquired with the licensed-manufacturing of the Northrop 8-A1 bomber by ASJA and then Saab itself, being also the first then modern all-metal light bomber produced by Sweden during WWII. As the m/42 bomb-sight was developed and introduced for this aircraft, it was reportedly exported to the US.
An ‘all-terrain’ airplane
If there is something that makes the B 17 a remarkable design, it is the fact that modifications to its landing gear allows the plane to operate from any type of terrain… literally. The main landing gear configuration is that with wheels for normal operations in normal airstrips. But when winter comes, the wheels could be replaced with skis, allowing the airplane to operate even in harsh cold weather conditions with snow-covered airstrips. This might indicate that Sweden needed an all-time available air asset to defend its sovereignty and neutrality, or maybe that it absorbed the operational lessons the Swedish Volunteer squadron that took part during the Winter War, or the lessons provided by that same conflict. But the B 17 received another modification that allowed it to operate from the surface of any water body, as it could be fitted with two floats replacing the wheeled-landing gears, becoming the B 17BS. This variant was mainly used for water-borne aerial reconnaissance.
Close to War and the architect of an air force
Despite being a rather obscured airplane in history, the B 17 would have been one of the few neutral airplanes to take actual part in a conflict, besides those belonging to the Flygvapnet that took part during the Winter War. For instance, the Danish Brigade, a unit comprised of refugee Danish airmen supported and equipped by Sweden, would have been close to assist in the liberation of their country, if it weren’t for the fact that the Swedish government did not allow it to take off with the supplied B 17 units to Denmark. The B 17s were then offered to the Danish Air Force, but were rejected as the German surrender took place some days before the offering was made, being returned to the Flygvapnet.
But the adventures of the B 17 would not finish there, Ethiopian country was looking for assistance in building a more advanced air force of its own after WWII. Sweden became the main supporter of this small air force, supplying Saab Safir trainers and B 17 light bombers, as they later were being phased out in 1947. It also employed some former Flygvapnet personnel and under orders of Carl Gustav von Rosen, who also became the chief instructor of the rebuilt Imperial Ethiopian Air Force. It remained in service there until 1968.
Variants
L-10 – The prototype version of the B 17 under the denomination it had when ASJA was tasked with the design and development process. One unit was powered by a NOHAB-made Bristol Mercury XII 880hp engine and another was powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engine.
B 17A – Bomber version powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S1C3G Twin Wasp engine of 1050 to 1200 hp. Some units were modified to carry air-to-ground rockets. The armament of this version became standard for the bombers and its other variants: 2x8mm machine guns placed on the wings and firing forwards, and an 8mm rear machine gun placed at the second crewman’s post, along a 500 kg (1,102 lb) bomb. 132 units delivered.
B 17B – Bomber version powered with a Swedish-built Bristol Mercury XXIV (Svenska Flygmotor Aktiebolaget SFA) engine, with the same armament configuration except for a 700 kg (1,500 lb) bomb. 55 units delivered.
B 17B I – Dive-bomber version fitted with a trapeze under the fuselage, carrying a 500 Kg (1,500 lb) bomb, and underwing hardpoints for bombs. It was equipped with the m/42 bombsight.
B 17B II – A light level bombing version fitted with an internal bomb bay and underwing hardpoints.
B 17BL – Reconnaissance version fitted with a wheeled landing gear and a camera in the fuselage, replacing the HE 5 Hansa and the Fokker C.VD/C.VE. 21 units delivered.
B 17BS – Reconnaissance floatplane version fitted with twin floats, aerodynamic struts, and endplates on the horizontal stabilizers. 38 units delivered.
B 17C – Another bomber version fitted with the Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D 1040hp engine, and carrying a 700 kg (1,500 lb) bomb. 77 units produced.
Operators
Sweden The Flygvapnet was the main operator of the B 17, with 132 units of the B 17A model, 55 units of the B 17B and its modified sub-variants, and 77 of the B 17C variant. The first model was fitted with an inner bomb bay with some airframes modified to carry air-to-ground rockets. The following version was used as bomber – equipped with the advanced m/42 bombsight and some with the trapeze and underwing hardpoints – up until 1945. Some airframes were modified for reconnaissance duties and subsequently equipped with cameras. These modified aricraft served until 1949. Some airframes received further modifications such as the twin floats and other structural modifications. The B 17C was used for bombing missions, having an internal bomb bay and hardpoints until 1948, when they were withdrawn due to problems with the engines. The B 17 operated in six squadrons from 1942 to 1949 as it follows: the B 17 bomber and dive-bomber versions operated in F4 Frösön, F6 Karlsborg, F7 Stenäs, and F12 Kalmar. The B 17BS sea-based planes operated with F2 Hägernäs, and the land-based reconnaissance planes operated in the F3 Malmslätt.Following the B 17 withdrawal from service with the Flygvapnet, the airplane was operated by civilian companies for various purposes, target towing included. Two B 17BS were purchased by the Osterman Aero and used to carry fish and shellfish from Bergen (Norway) to the Swedish capital. In addition, 19 B 17A were loaned to AVIA and Svensk Flygtjänsk AB and modified for target towing; 5 of them received ECM equipment in 1959. One B 17A remains airworthy in airshows, with 2 additional airframes used as museum displays.
Finland The Ilmavoimat (Finnish Air Force) received two B 17A for target towing tasks, which were lost in accidents.
Austria The Österreischische Luftstreitkräfte (Austrian Air Force) received a B 17A via Svensk Flygtjänsk AB in 1957. This was done to facilitate the deal as it was a privately-owned airplane, considering the restrictions the Swedish government sets on sales abroad on Swedish-made military equipment.
Denmark As this country was under German occupation, a Danish brigade was established in Sweden in 1943 with 15 pilots and equipped with 15 B 17C under loan, taking part in training and exercises with the Flygvapnet, being painted with Danish colors. They were not given permission to leave the Swedish territory despite being ready to enter action against the Germans; the 15 units were offered to Denmark, but this country never accepted them, with Germany surrendering some time after the offer was made. One remains as a display in a museum.
Ethiopia The Ethiopian Air Force received 46 B 17As between 1947-1953 as the airplanes were being phased out in Sweden, and mainly as Sweden agreed to support the establishment of the Ethiopian Air Force under the lead of Carl Gustav von Rosen and with some former Flygvapnet personnel. The Ethiopian B 17 remained in service until 1968.
Specifications (B17C)
Wingspan
44 ft 11 in / 13.7 m
Length
32 ft 10 in / 10 m
Height
14 ft 9 in / 4.5 m
Wing Area
307 ft² / 28.5 m²
Engine
1x Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D 9 cylinders air-cooled radial piston engine, with a 3-bladed Piaggio P.1001 variable propeller.
The FFVS (Kungliga Flygförvaltningens Flygverkstad i Stockholm/Royal Air Administration Aircraft Factory in Stockholm) J 22 was a small light fighter airplane, and an exception to the mostly Saab-built airplanes, which were the ones equipping the Flygvapnet the most. But like those made by Saab during WWII and the early Cold War, this aircraft is a product of the defence needs that the war was imposing upon the Scandinavian nation. Although not so renown as its colleagues, this fighter proved to be a feat of Swedish capacities during dire times and tight resources, compensating its comparatively small size with good firepower and good performance. Of course, and like all of Swedish-made (and imported) air assets, it was purposed with giving Sweden with tools enough to defend its territorial and airspace integrity and security, let alone its neutrality. This under a locally built armament programme while facing restrictions to foreign advanced aviation technology.
A single-seat, single-engine airplane. Its design is conventional, yet the wings are placed further bow of the airframe, with a trapezoid shape. The nose is very similar to those of the American-made fighters, with a wide and cylindrical shape due to the shape of the engine. The cockpit was also placed at the bow section of the fighter, yet slightly aft the leading edge of the wing. The canopy was a bird-canopy design. The canopy hinged to the right side.
The J 22 was powered by a SFA STWC-3G 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine of 1065 hp, which was an unlicensed version of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 engine. A three propeller-blade composed the other propulsion element of the aircraft. The engine-propeller combination allowed the J 22 to yield speeds up to 575 km/h (360 mph), being this speed aimed to make the fighter comparable to the Messerschmitt Me109 and Supermarine Spitfire. The first version of the fighter (J 22A/J 22-1) was armed with a set of 2 X 7,9mm and 2 X 13,2mm light and heavy machine guns. The second version (J 22B/J 22-2) was armed with a set of 4 X 13,2mm heavy machine guns. As it not carried bombs or rockets as secondary weapons like most fighter designs of those days, it was a 100%-designed fighter.
The J 22 was developed aiming at providing Sweden with an air asset enough for it to defend its airspace, by providing the Flygvapen with a rather modern fighter. But it was also aiming at producing a new aircraft through a company established solely for this purpose, as Saab was already busy producing the Saab 17 and Saab 18 bombers.in addition, it was purposed with replacing many of the outdated fighter assets the nation had by the beginning of the war. Development began in 1940, with Bo Lundberg as both head of design and head of the newly established company (FFVS). Lundberg was already having experience as head of Swedish Air Commission USA, and as chief designer of Götaverken’s aircraft division that designed the GP 8 bomber and the cancelled GP 9 fighter. He was commissioned with designing a new fighter required to use the STWC-3G (Pratt & Whitney R-1830) engine, being small and light in size and weight, and interestingly, to be made of parts manufactured by a large number of subcontractors. The J 22 development, manufacturing and testing took place at the workshop of Flygtekniska Försöksansalten (FFA) near the Bromma airport. Both prototypes crashed during testing, due to pilot’s oxygen device and engine failures.The J 22 first flight took place in 1942
The J 22 entered in with the Flygvapnet in 1943, remaining in that until 1952, year of its retirement, with 198 fighters built from 1942 to 1946. During its service, it was well received by the pilots, thanks to its good manoeuvrability and responsive controls, capable of giving a fight to the Mustangs P-51 at heights up to 5000 meters (16,000 fts). It did not have stall problems at turns or straight forward course, and the second version (J 22B/J 22-2) was considered the best in terms of firepower. Moreover, the simple systems facilitated maintenance and service. The J 22 was reportedly comparable to the early versions of the Supermarine Spitfire and of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Three J 22 are preserved as static displays in museums.
Design
FFVS J 22A at an airshow circa 1990
The design of the J 22 is a conventional one, being a small and lightweight airplane, whose shape is very similar to most US airplanes of the era. The fighter is a cantilever mid-wing design, with its structure being a mixed steel tube and wood construction (plywood) one. In fact, the tubular-steel framework and fuselage were having coverings of moulded plywood panels. The only drawback of the design was that forward visibility was poor.
The J22 wing has the average shape of most WWII-era fighters, a trapezoid shape. It was located slightly towards the bow of the airplane, containing the fighter’s guns and the fuel tanks. In addition, the air intakes were placed at the roots of the wings. The aft section of the airplane contained the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, with the rudder dominating most of the tail, while and as a result, the horizontal stabilizers were placed before the rudder. The landing gear, in turn, was also of classic configuration – two ‘legs’ with the wheel and a tailwheel – being also retractable and rotating, very similar to the Vought-Chance Corsair F4U. The only problem with the tailwheel was that, if left unlocked and able to swivel, it could result in ground-loops. Interestingly, the landing gear was designed to accept skies, that were never installed as snow-clearance service of the runways was improved.
The engine was a SFA STWC-3G 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine of 1065 hp, an unlicensed copy of the American-made Pratt & Whitney R-1830 engine, allowing speeds of up to 575 km/h (360 mph). given the shape of the engine, the nose has the characteristic cylindrical shape of the American homologues. The propelling system was comprised of a three-blade license-built Hamilton standard propeller connected to the engine. Alongside speed, the J 22 was deemed a manoeuvrable and easy to control fighter with good performance especially at low altitudes. Furthermore, it had no stalling problems but the tendency to flip over its back if pulling hard when turning. It was considered capable to outperform the P-51 Mustangs, and be equal to the early versions of the Zero and the Spitfire. The armament had different configurations on the two main versions: The J 22A (J 22-1) was armed with 2 X 7,9mm and 2 X 13,2mm machine guns. The J 22B (J 22-2) was armed with 4 X 13,2mm machine guns. In both cases, the armament was placed at the wings. No secondary weapons were carried.
The canopy was of a bird-cage type, which hinged to the right to allow the pilot to enter and exit the airplane, with the windshield made of 6mm laminated Gremax or acrylic, and the center part being thickened with 60mm for ballistic protection. The gunsight was a fixed reflex sight.
Noteworthy to point out, that 500 hundred contractors produced 12000 of the 17000 total parts of the J 22.
A war-time solution for a non-belligerent nation
The J 22 is also a product of the need to defend the airspace and the neutrality of Sweden, as modern air assets were required to meet this objective. By the beginning of WWII, Sweden was having 60 Seversky P-35 (of the 120 ordered), 60 Italian-made Reggiane 2000 and 72 Fiat CR. 42 biplanes – bought as a temporary measure – and old Gloster Gladiator fighters. As Sweden did never receive the remaining 60 P-35 and 144 Vultee P-66 Vanguard it ordered from the US, due to the embargo imposed to any arms delivered to any country but the United Kingdom after the invasion of Norway by Germany, in 1940.
As a result, Sweden bought the abovementioned Italian fighters to provide the Flygvapnet with some air assets, but it was deemed necessary to introduce up-to-date fighters. Initially, Sweden considered to buy additional fighters from abroad, such as the Finnish VL Mysky, the Soviet Polikarkov I-16 and even the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero. But these options were having problems, such as not bing enough or being impossible to transport into Sweden despite being available, s it was the case of the Zero.
As a result, the FFVS was established, as Saab was already concentrating on the fabrication and development of bombers and fighters, with the sole purpose of developing and manufacturing a new lightweight fighter that would provide the Flygvapnet the needed modern air assets to keeps its neutrality in a world at war. Consequently, it replaced the Gladiator, the Severski, and Reggiane and Fiat fighters while other air asserts were received – like the Mustang P-51 – and the Saab J 21 was ready to enter into service.
The fast and small Viking warrior of the skies
Although the J 22 was a very small and lightweight fighter, it was a very capable one, proving itself to be able to undertake its purposed task: defend the Swedish airspace and neutrality. The secret of its good performance was its engine and structure. It was among the fast fighters the Flygvapnet had back then, reaching speeds of 575 Km/h (360 mph). It was also a manoeuvrable fighter, with a fast turning rate – it was even capable of getting the Mustang in the gunsight by out-turning It – with responsive controls. The altitude where it tended to perform the best was at low altitudes, with the performance decreasing at higher altitudes. Stall problems where rather absent, and it was an airplane easy to maintain and service by land maintenance crews.
Variants of the FFVS J 22
FFVS J 22A – 22185
J 22A (J 22-1) – First production series armed with 2 X ,9 mm M/39A (Browning M2) machine guns and 2 X 13,2 mm heavy machine guns. Operated until 1952. 143 delivered.
FFVS J 22B – 22280
J 22B (J 22-2) – Second production series armed with 4 X 13,2 mm M/39A (Browning M2) heavy machine guns. 55 delivered.
S 22 (J 22-3) – Reconnaissance version (the S stands for spaning, or ‘reconnaissance’ in Swedish), equipped with a vertically mounted camera. Developed from J 22A (J 22-1) airframes in 1946, refitted as fighters in 1947. Operated until 1952. 9 airframes modified and refitted.
Operators
Sweden – The Flygvapnet operated the J 22 during the last half of WWII, being also in service during the earlier days of the Cold War, as it was retired until 1952. A total of 198 airframes were in service, being 143 of the J 22A version, 55 of the J 22B version and 9 airframes of the first version modified to produce the S 22 version, which served for a very short period of time as reconnaissance airplane. In 1945 all the J 22 were re-designated as J 22-1 for the first version, J 22-2 for the second version, and J 22-3 for the third version. These last airplanes were re-conditioned a year later as fighters. Three J 22 remain today as museum exhibitions in Sweden. It served with seven squadrons throughout its career: F3 Malmen; F8 Bakarby; F9 Säve; F10 Barkråka; F13 Bråvalla; F16 Uppsala; and F18 Tullinge. The S22 (J 22-3) served only in the F3 Malmen squadron.
J 22 Specifications
Wingspan
10 m / 32 ft 10 in
Length
7,80 m / 25 ft 7 in
Height
3,60 m / 11 ft 10 in
Wing Area
16 m² / 172,16 ft²
Engine
1 SFA STWC-3G (Pratt & Whitney R-1830) 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine of 1065 hp
Maximum Take-Off Weight
2835 Kg / 6,250 lb
Empty Weight
2020 kg / 4,445 lb
Loaded Weight
2835 kg / 6,240 lb
Maximum Speed
575 km/h / 360 mph
Range
1270 Km / 790 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
9300 m /30,500 ft
Crew
1 (pilot)
Armament
2 X 7,9 mm M/39A (Browning M2) machine guns and 2 X 13,2 mm heavy machine guns located at the wings (J 22-1).
4 X 13,2 mm M/39A (Browning M2) heavy machine guns located at the wings (J 22-2).
Gallery
FFVS J 22A – 22185FFVS J 22B – 22280
FFVS J 22B at the Flygvapnet MuseumFFVS J 22A at an airshow circa 1990
Nazi Germany (1934)
Italy (1935)
Kingdom of Italy (1936
South Africa (1990)
The Saab B 17 is a light bomber/dive bomber and reconnaissance plane with two seats, a single engine and a single tail, whose design bears a close resemblance with the Mitsubishi Ki-30 “Ann”, the Mitsubishi Ki-15, the Vought OS2U, and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, especially with the elongated shape of the main airframe and equally elongated windscreen of the cabin (as well as the same cockpit), which occupies most of the superior area of the airframe and it is fully incorporated in the fuselage. The wing is a mid-wing (cantilever) of trapezoid shape with a remarkable characteristic: where the retractable landing gear, which was covered with streamlined fairings, was placed, the rear part of the wing was divided. From the fuselage to the place of the landing gears, it was straight; from the landing gears area to the wingtip, it was angled. The forward area of the wing was straight, and the wingtips were rounded. The wing, from a frontal perspective, was slightly angled upwards from the landing gear area to the wingtip. It was also a reinforced wing to allow it to deal with the high stress by dive bombing missions.
The design of the B 17 is similar to other aircraft used in WWII by other countries, meaning it has the typical ‘WWII style’. But instead of being the average WWII design, the B 17 has some remarkable and particular characteristics. The airplane is an all-metal airframe, with the bow having a cylinder shape thanks to the radial engine and the stern is topped off with the tail, and the overall airframe being elongated with a sort of conical shape. The airplane is also a semi-straight leading-edge wing airplane, but the wings also have a particular characteristic. In fact, the wings have a ‘divided’ shape, with the area of the landing gear being the dividing point. First, from the fuselage to the landing gear, the leading-edge is straight while the rear-edge is also straight, having two ‘dog-teeth’ that mark where the rear area of the fairings are located. Second, from the landing gears to the tip of the wings, the leading-edge of the wings are straight as well, but the rear-edges are angled, making this area of trapezoid shape. The tips are rounded. The wings also have a divided shape from a frontal perspective, with the landing gear being also the dividing area. From the fuselage to the landing gear area, the wing is straight. However, from the landing gear to the tip of the wings, it is angled upwards, similar to the Ju-87 Stuka or the Douglas SBD ‘Dauntless’, only that the angle is not as wide. The wing, furthermore, is installed in the middle of the fuselage (cantilever), also being reinforced. Such reinforcement can be seen through its thickness. The horizontal stabilizers are also of trapezoid shape, with the control surfaces per se having an inwards angle at the tip of the surface. The tail has a similar shape with the rudder occupying most of the surface and having also an inwards angle near the tip. Both horizontal and vertical stabilizers have an equally rounded shape. 
