Type: High endurance experimental, reconnaissance aircraft
Number built: Three prototypes
Before the outbreak of the Second World War, the Luftwaffe (Eng. German Air Force) was undergoing a massive expansion. Numerous new aircraft designs were either being introduced into service or undergoing testing, with many being integrated into the military for various roles. A number of newly developed aircraft were also primarily used for evaluation and experimentation, and, there were also several designs created specifically to set records. One such aircraft, the Me 261, was built specifically at the request of Adolf Hitler to set long-range records. Due to its specialized role, and the fact that it was not initially ordered by the Luftwaffe, only three prototypes of the Me 261 were built.
History
With the rise of Nazis in Germany, substantial financial resources were allocated to military projects. The Luftwaffe was founded, and saw massive expansion and the introduction of new aircraft designs. However, not all these designs were intended for pure military service. Some projects were mainly aimed at experimentation, and among these were aircraft designed solely to showcase technological advancements and break world records. This trend was quite common in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe. For example, the Messerschmitt Me 209 was created to set a world speed record, with little to no concerns made over a possible military application.
Speed was not the only record to be pursued, there were others, such as long-range flight. This particular challenge fascinated Hitler, who in 1937, initiated the development of a long-range monoplane. Aside from the many things that might be learned from the experiment, Hitler envisioned this aircraft undertaking the long-range flight from Berlin to Tokyo for the 1940 Olympic Games, carrying the Olympic Torch from Germany over Asia. To meet this requirement, the initial requirements specified that the aircraft needed to have an operational range of over 13,000 km.
The Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or German Air Ministry, selected the Messerschmitt company for this task. Despite being a relatively small enterprise at the time, Messerschmitt had achieved great success with the Bf 109, one of the best fighters of its era. The official contract was signed on the 18th March, 1938. Under the designation P.1064, Messerschmitt presented a proposal to Hitler for a new aircraft. This aircraft was to be operated by a crew of five within a rather cramped, and elongated fuselage. Due to the aircraft’s specific role, the fuel load was prioritized over crew comfort. Hitler approved the proposal and ordered the construction of three prototypes. The project was subsequently renamed Me 261. Due to Hitler’s keen interest, the aircraft was nicknamed Adolfine by its crew.
In 1939, work began on the three Me 261 prototypes. Despite Hitler’s ambitions, the Me 261 was given low priority, and construction proceeded slowly, and anticipating a war with Poland, work on these aircraft was halted. However, recognizing its potential for long-range reconnaissance and the valuable information it could provide, work resumed in 1940.
The first prototype, Me 261 V1 (BJ-CP or BC-CP, depending on the sources), was flight-tested by Karl Baur in December 1940. The following year, the second prototype, Me 261 V2 (BJ-CQ), was tested. The V2 featured a glazed observation dome on the dorsal fuselage, replacing the rear dome used on the V1. The construction of the third prototype, Me 261 V3 (BJ-CR), faced delays and only completed its test flight in 1943. This version was distinct from the earlier prototypes, featuring a larger crew capacity of seven and being powered by two 2,950 hp DB 610 engines. On the 16th April, 1943, Karl Baur conducted a ten-hour test flight with the V3.
Technical characteristics
Unfortunately, since the Me 161 did not progress beyond the prototype stage. It was designed as an all-metal, long-range transport and later as a reconnaissance aircraft. The fuselage was slim but cramped, made of metal, and covered in duralumin.
The wings of the Me 261 were constructed using a metal frame with a single spar. They were then covered with flush-riveted, stressed-skin metal panels. Notably, the section of the wing closest to the fuselage had a thick profile, which tapered to the wingtips. This design was intentional, as it allowed for a large fuel storage area. The aircraft also featured a twin-rudder tail at the rear.
For its long-range flight operations, the Me 261 had a crew of five: a pilot, co-pilot, radio operator, navigator, and flight engineer. The pilot and copilot sat side-by-side in the cockpit with the radio operator in a central compartment, and the flight engineer and navigator seated in the rearmost compartment, where the aircraft’s bunks were also located.
The first two prototypes were powered by twin 2,700 hp DB 606A/B twenty-four-cylinder engines. These engines were essentially two twelve-cylinder DB 601 engines coupled together to drive a single shaft, requiring two separate radiators and oil coolers. Each DB 606A/B engine was housed within a large nacelle and used four-blade propellers with a diameter of 4.6 meters.
Despite frequent mentions of the aircraft being overburdened, sources do not specify a consistent maximum takeoff weight. Additionally, the total fuel capacity is also unspecified. Depending on the sources, the operational range varies from 11,000 to 13,200 km.
To accommodate the aircraft’s weight, it required large-diameter landing wheels that could retract up to 90 degrees into the wings. In addition to these, it had a fully retractable tail wheel retracted towards the front of the aircraft.
Fate
Despite demonstrating some potential for long-range reconnaissance, the Me 261 was ultimately rejected from service due to the additional equipment requirements that would have further strained its already overburdened airframe, thereby compromising its flight performance. Despite its cancellation, the V3 prototype (and possibly the other two prototypes) saw operational use as reconnaissance aircraft during the war. In July or April of 1943, the V3 suffered an accident during landing that heavily damaged its landing gear. Although repaired and returned to service, the V3 was eventually scrapped by order of the RLM.
The V1 aircraft was lost during an Allied bombing raid on the Rechlin test center in September 1944, while the V2 was captured by the Allies at the same location in April 1945. Neither prototype survived the war; the captured V2 was scrapped a few weeks after its capture.
Conclusion
The Me 261 was an aircraft that was not ordered by the Luftwaffe as a military aircraft and thus received low priority. Despite its initial potential for use as a reconnaissance aircraft, it quickly became evident that it would not be feasible for adoption in this role due to its considerable weight. Ultimately, only three were built, and none of them survived the war.
Me 261 V3 Specifications
Wingspans
26.9 m / 88 ft 1 in
Length
16.7 m / 54 ft 9 in
Height
4.72 m / 15 ft 5 in
Wing Area
76 m² / 817.8 ft²
Engine
Two 2,950 hp DB 610 engines
Endurance
24 hours and 36 minutes
Maximum Speed
620 km/h / 385mph
Cruising speed
400 km/h / 248 mph
Range
11,000 km / 6,831 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
8,250 m / 27,060 ft
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Illustration
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustration by Oussama Mohamed “Godzilla”
Source:
D. Herwig and H. Rode (2000) Luftwaffe Secret Projects Strategic Bombers 1935 to 1945, Midland Publishing
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putnam
B. C.Wheeler, German Fighters of WWII, Aeroplane Special
R. Jackson (2005) Infamous Aircraft, Pen and Sword
M. Griehl () X-planes German Luftwaffe prototypes 1930-1940, Frontline Book
W. Green (1970) Warplanes of the Third Reich, Doubleday & Company
USSR (1923)
All-metal passenger aircraft – five Built
Following his successful first attempt to develop an aircraft, Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev felt confident in his ability to attempt the design an all-metal aircraft. Although some European nations had already tested or built such aircraft during the First World War, this concept was still novel in the burgeoning Soviet Union of the early 1920s. With the advent of duralumin production in the Soviet Union, and the experimentation with various construction methods, Tupolev began work on the aircraft known as the ANT-2 in 1922. After a period of testing and evaluation, five aircraft of this type were constructed.
History
The success of the ANT-1 (standing for the initials of Andrei Nikolayevich Tupovlev) test aircraft prompted Tupolev to advocate for the development of fully metal-constructed aircraft. The harsh weather conditions in many parts of the Soviet Union caused wooden materials to decay quickly. Metal alloys, on the other hand, offered numerous advantages over wood: they were stronger, more durable, and allowed for overall more resilient aircraft designs. Tupolev saw the use of wood in modern aviation as an obsolete construction material.
His view was shared by others in the burgeoning Soviet aviation industry. In 1922, a commission at the Central Aero/Hydrodynamics Institute (TsAGI) was formed under the leadership of Andrei Nikolaevich. Its purpose was to spearhead the development of factories and facilities capable of producing duralumin. One such production center was already operating in Kolchuginsk, near Moscow, where the production of duralumin, nicknamed “Kolchugaluminium”, began in September 1922. This development enabled Tupolev to start working on an all-metal aircraft.
Tupolev established his design bureau with 15 supporting members. However, the initial phase was challenging, as the new technology required skilled workers who needed training in this new field. Additionally, many components used in all-metal aircraft construction had to undergo extensive testing. Tupolev, being a cautious man, did not want to risk any pilot’s life before he was certain that the new all-metal aircraft would perform as intended. Consequently, he spent considerable time refining various designs, mostly using speedboats and gliders. In 1921, Tupolev spent some time testing his ideas and designs using speedboats from his base of operations in Crimea. The experience he gained there greatly helped him in his further work.
Work On the ANT-2
As soon as Tupolev was sure that all crucial components were sufficiently tested, the work on the new all-metal aircraft, designated ANT-2, began in 1923. The design was largely driven by the requirements of the Soviet UVVS-RKKA (Directorate of the Air Fleet of the Workers and Peasants). This was the first official request for a new military aircraft, one capable of transporting two passengers, armed with two machine guns, and would most importantly, be inexpensive to build. Tupolev and his team established a small workshop in Kolchuginsk.
Initially, there were problems as the Kolchuginsk factory was only known for producing duralumin, not for shaping it into the various forms needed for aircraft construction. Time was needed to train the workers to effectively shape duralumin into the necessary parts.
During this period, while working on various proposed designs, Tupolev had the opportunity to inspect a Junkers K16 transport aircraft. The German company Junkers, wanting to avoid the sanctions on arms and aviation development imposed by the Allies, sought cooperation with the Soviets. They even managed to set up a small production plant in the Soviet Union. The Soviets, in turn, were eager to acquire new technologies. The Junkers K16 featured a high wing and an open cockpit, design characteristics that Tupolev incorporated into his ANT-2 project.
The prototype was completed in 1924 and underwent its first flight test in late May of that year, piloted by Nikolai Petrov. To simulate the weight of two passengers, two sandbags were used, as Tupolev did not want to risk any lives at the prototype stage. Further flight tests were conducted on May 28 by a Soviet military delegation. Starting from June 11, the ANT-2 was tested with two, and occasionally three, passengers inside its fuselage. Overall, the performance was deemed sufficient, though a significant modification was required for the rear tail assembly. The rudder and stabilizer size had to be increased, subsequently improving the aircraft’s performance. To conduct further tests, four more aircraft were built. By 1930, at least one of these aircraft was equipped with a more powerful 200 hp Wright Whirlwind engine.
Fate
A total of five ANT-2 aircraft were produced. While these were used for various tests, their specific operational roles are not well documented. The anticipated military variant, which was to feature a new cockpit positioned behind the wings and be armed with one or two machine guns, was never built. The first aircraft has been preserved and can be seen at the Aviation Museum in Monino, near Moscow. The fate of the remaining aircraft is unclear, but they were likely scrapped at some point.
Specification
The ANT-2 was designed as a high-wing, all-metal monoplane. Tupolev chose a triangular shape for the fuselage, with the sides sloping inward from top to bottom. This triangular design provided excellent structural integrity, reducing the need for additional fuselage struts. The fuselage was divided into three sections: the front section housed the engine, the open cockpit, followed by a small passenger compartment. The compartment could accommodate two passengers seated opposite each other. Although the aircraft was intended for three occupants, this was generally avoided due to weight limitations. Passengers entered the aircraft through a door on the left side of the fuselage.
The wing was located just behind the cockpit. It was constructed with two spars connected by 13 ribs on each side and covered with duralumin. Tupolev designed the wing with a curved, concave underside. The entire wing assembly was then attached to the top of the fuselage using four bolts. To accommodate the cockpit, part of the central section of the wing was cut off. Additionally, two handles were added to the ends of the wings on both sides, allowing the ground crew to maneuver the aircraft on the ground. The rear tail assembly consisted of a metal frame covered with duralumin.
The landing gear featured two fixed road wheels mounted on vertical struts, equipped with shock absorbers to ensure smoother landings. At least one aircraft was instead fitted with skis. A pivoting tail skid was used at the rear.
It was powered by a Bristol Lucifer three-cylinder engine producing 100 horsepower. With it a maximum speed of 170 km/h could be achieved. This engine, however, had some difficulties due to its significant torque, which could occasionally damage the engine mounts. Topolev, aware of this issue, designed a strong mount to counteract this problem. To allow access for repairs, the engine cover was secured with a few bolts. The engine drove a wooden two-blade propeller with a diameter of 2.2 meters. Fuel was stored in two 36 kg tanks located in the wings.
The cockpit was open, and to enter, the pilot used a small footrest on the left side of the fuselage. The cockpit was equipped with the basic and necessary controls and indicators, such as fuel level, RPM counter, and oil pressure gauge.
Conclusion
While the ANT-2 did not enter mass production, this was less important as it showed that the concept of using metal for the construction of a fully functional aircraft was feasible. It was the first stepping stone of the new, and slowly rising, Soviet aviation industry. It was the first such aircraft to be successfully tested by the Soviets, and paved the way for further Tupolev’s research and work, which enabled him to develop, in time, more advanced designs. In addition, it was the first aircraft that was officially ordered by the Soviets for limited production.
ANT-2 Specifications
Wingspans
10.45 m / 34 ft 3 in
Length
7.6 m / 24 ft 11 in
Height
2.12 m / 6 ft 11 in
Wing Area
17.9 m² / 193 ft²
Engine
One
Empty Weight
523 kg / 1,153 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight
837 kg / 1,846 lb
Maximum Speed
170 km/h / 106 mph
Range
750 km/ 466 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
3,300 m / 10,926 ft
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Illustration
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustrations by Oussama Mohamed “Godzilla”
Sources:
Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR. Beograd.
Y. Gordon and V. Rigmant (2005) OKB Tupolev, Midland
P. Duffy and A. Kandalov (1996) Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft, SAE International
B. Gunston () Tupolev Aircraft Since 1922, Naval Institute press
During the war, Messerschmitt endeavored to find potential successors to their existing aircraft models. This quest yielded several aircraft proposals, one of which was the Me 309, which they sought to replace their older Me 109 fighter with. Despite Messerschmitt’s hopes for its success, the Me 309 proved to be unreliable and mechanically flawed, leading to its rejection for adoption. Undeterred by this setback, Messerschmitt persisted with the project, eventually turning their attention to a new twin-fuselage fighter, often referred to in various sources as the Me 609.
A Brief History of Germany Twin-Fighter Program History
In the early stages of the war, the Messerschmitt Me 109 emerged as an exceptional fighter, arguably one of the world’s best at the time. However, despite its prowess, there remained ample room for improvement in its design. By the early 1940s, engineers at Messerschmitt began exploring avenues to enhance its overall flight performance. Among the considerations was the idea that while one engine delivered outstanding results, pairing two engines might yield even greater capabilities, bringing an increase in operational range and top speed. This notion laid the groundwork for a bold project: combining two Me 109s into a single aircraft, designated as the Me 109Z, with the ‘Z’ representing the German word “Zwilling”, meaning twin. The concept aimed to harness the power of dual fuselages and engines to significantly enhance both performance and firepower, envisioning the aircraft as either a formidable destroyer or a fighter bomber.
In theory, the design was relatively straightforward: merging two fuselages along with a central wing. The cockpit would be positioned within one of the fuselages, along with modifications to the landing gear. Despite the unconventional approach, a functional prototype utilizing two Me 109Fs was successfully constructed in 1942. However, the evaluation and test flight process extended until 1943, during which the prototype was either lost or severely damaged in one of the numerous Allied bombing raids.
Amidst the pressing demands of concurrent projects, such as the development of the Me 262, the Me 109Z initiative was ultimately abandoned, reflecting the shifting priorities and challenges faced by German engineers during the Second World War .
A Second Option
Another Messerschmitt project aimed at enhancing the performance of the Me 109 was the Me 309. This new endeavor sought substantial improvements, integrating several new features such as enhanced armament, a pressurized cockpit, a tricycle undercarriage, and retractable radiators. Initiated by Messerschmitt in 1940, the project faced reluctance from the German Aviation Ministry (RLM), leading to significant delays. It wasn’t until the end of 1941 that actual work on the project began. Despite these challenges, the first Me 309 V-1 prototype was completed in June 1942, followed by a few more test models. However, the project encountered various mechanical issues that remained unresolved, including engine overheating, the problematic landing gear which caused the aircraft to crash onto its nose should the nose gear fail, and flight instability, among other issues. As a result, the RLM showed little enthusiasm for the Me 309, prioritizing increased production of the Me 109 instead. Introducing another fighter design would also inevitably lead to production delays. Moreover, refining the Me 309 design would likely necessitate additional time, possibly extending into months or even years. Consequently, a decision was made to abandon the development of the Me 309 entirely.
However, Messerschmitt hoped that proposing a new variant of the twin-fuselage fighter based on the Me 309 might renew interest from the RLM. Unfortunately, this strategy didn’t yield the desired results. Despite some initial drawings, the aircraft designated as the Me 609 was abandoned at the beginning of 1944 in favor of the Me 262.
Technical characteristics
Given that it was a paper proposal, and no working prototype was built, its overall technical specifications are rather obscure. In essence, the Me 609 consisted of paired Me 309 fuselages which were joined together by a central wing section. Given this fact, in theory, most of the components for this aircraft would be available and reused from the Me 309. The Me 309 was conceived as a single-seat fighter, featuring an all-metal construction with a low-wing design. So we can assume that the new Me 609 would also follow a similar construction.
The two fuselages were connected with the new inner wing section. Besides this, it also served to house the two main landing gear units. The nose wheel was located under the engine, and retracted to the rear. The pilot’s pressurized cockpit was located on the left fuselage, while; the right-sided fuselage had its cockpit covered.
Depending on the source it was either powered by a Daimler Benz 603 or 605 or a 2,000hp Jumo 213E june engine. In the case of the latter, the estimated maximum speed was to be 760 km/h. All of which were inverted V-12 engines.
The main armament was to consist of two 3 cm MK 108 and Two MK 103 cannons. Including either two 250 kg or one 500 kg bomb. Two more cannons could be mounted under the center wing section.
The Truth of it
The information as previously mentioned, however, may not be entirely accurate. According to various sources such as D. Herwing and H. Rode (Luftwaffe: Secret Projects Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft), as well as several internet sources, it is asserted that the twin-fuselage Me 309 variant was designated as the Me 609. Contrary to this, D. Sharp (Luftwaffe: Secret Designs of the Third Reich) argues that this designation was incorrectly assigned to the project. The actual designation for it was Me 309 Zw (Zw standing for Zwilling, meaning twins). Claiming, the Me 609 was unrelated to this project. Sharp supports this assertion by citing surviving Messerschmitt documentation salvaged after the war, in which the projects are referred to as 309 Zw. Thus, the twin-fuselage fast bomber/destroyer based on the Me 309 existed only as a proposal, albeit under a different name.
Now, what about the aircraft bearing the Me 609 designation? Simply put, it did not exist. In reality, it was a designation that Messerschmitt applied to describe the Me 262 twin-engine fighter. Why this designation was used remains unknown, but it may have been employed to deceive the intelligence offices of the Western Allies
Conclusion
The Me 309Zw project was an intriguing endeavor aimed at enhancing the overall performance of German fighters by integrating two fuselages. However, it failed to progress beyond the prototype stage, leaving us unable to determine its feasibility.
Me 309Zw Estimated Specifications
Wingspans
16 m / 52 ft 6 in
Length
9.52 m / 31 ft 2 in
Height
3.24 m / 10 ft 7 in
Wing Area
26.755 m² / 288 ft²
Engine
Two 2,000hp Jumo 213E
Empty Weight
5,247 5kg / 11,660 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
6,534kg / 14,520 lbs
Maximum Speed
760 km/h / 472mph
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Two MK 108 and Two MK 103
Bomb load two 250 kg or one 500 kg
Illustration
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustrations by Oussama Mohamed “Godzilla”
Source:
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putnam
D. Myhra (2000) Messerschmitt Me 209V1, Schiffer Military History
M. Griehl () X-planes German Luftwaffe prototypes 1930-1940, Frontline Book
D.Herwing and H. Rode (2002) Luftwaffe: Secret Projects Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft, Midland
D.Sharp (2018) Luftwaffe: Secret Designs of the Third Reich, Mortons
The Messerschmitt Me 109, although an outstanding aircraft, still had room for improvement. Its most noticeable shortcomings included a rather small operational radius, significantly reducing its combat potential in prolonged engagements. To address this, Messerschmitt initiated the development of a successor model designated as the Me 309. However, from the outset, this new fighter was plagued with numerous mechanical faults that could not be resolved in the foreseeable future. Consequently, only four prototypes were built before the project was ultimately canceled.
History
At the onset of the Second World War, Germany relied heavily on the Me 109 as its primary fighter aircraft. Renowned for its exceptional performance and cost-effectiveness, the Me 109 outmatched most of the enemy fighters it encountered over Europe. Following the fall of France in June 1940, Germany launched a significant bombing campaign against the UK. This prolonged engagement highlighted a critical issue: the Me 109’s limited operational range prevented it from carrying out long-range fighter sweeps, or being usable as a bomber escort.
Recognizing the urgent need for enhancements, Messerschmitt began experiments on improving the performance, and range, of the Me 109. Initial assessments underscored the necessity for substantial improvements, including an 85% increase in operational range and a minimum 25% boost in maximum speed. Additionally, there were aspirations to augment its firepower, introduce a pressurized cockpit, implement a tricycle undercarriage, and incorporate retractable radiators. Before commencing work on a completely new fighter, Messerschmitt opted to experiment with these features by modifying an existing Me 109F
The new fighter project was initiated by Messerschmitt in 1940. However, the German Aviation Ministry (RLM) was not enthusiastic about it, after significant delays. Actual work on the project didn’t commence until the end of 1941. The project, designated Me 309, was led by Woldemar Voigt and Richard Bauer. It’s worth noting that Messerschmitt’s previous attempt to develop a fighter, based on the record-breaking Me 209, failed because its airframe wasn’t suitable for military purposes. Despite the RLM’s initial skepticism towards the Me 309, they eventually ordered nine prototypes.
The first Me 309 V-1 (GE-CU) prototype was completed in June 1942, and immediately underwent ground trials at the end of that month. However, almost from the outset, a major issue became apparent, the new landing wheel configuration proved difficult to control on the ground. Subsequent flight tests revealed additional challenges, including strong vibrations at high speeds. In July 1942, after a series of modifications, the prototype underwent flight testing once more, only to encounter new problems with the landing gear. The hydraulic retraction system was found to be inadequate, and issues with engine overheating and aerodynamic instability persisted. On one occasion, test pilot Karl Baur was forced to abort the flight after just seven minutes in the air.
Addressing these issues required further modifications, including redesigning the tailplane and improving the hydraulic system for the landing gear. Despite these efforts, subsequent test flights did not yield significant improvements in the overall flight performance of the Me 309. Messerschmitt’s test pilot, Fritz Wendel, expressed dissatisfaction with the aircraft, noting that its flight characteristics were not markedly superior to those of the Me 109. He criticized the high landing speed and the poor design of the control surfaces.
Not ready to abandon the Me 309 prematurely, the first prototype underwent evaluation at the Rechlin test center for further assessment. On the 20th of November 1942, a report was issued deeming the overall performance of the Me 309 unpromising, even inferior to the new Me 109G. Consequently, the RLM reduced the initial production order from nine prototypes to just four. Initially, the RLM had little enthusiasm for the Me 309, and still preferred instead to prioritize increased production of the Me 109. Introducing another fighter design would inevitably cause production delays. Compounding the industrial challenges, perfecting the Me 309 design would likely require additional time, months if not years of work.
Despite these setbacks, the development of the Me 309 continued at a sluggish pace. The first prototype was initially equipped with a 1,750 hp DB603A-1 engine. It would later be replaced by a 1,450 hp DB 605B engine instead during the testing phase. During one landing, the front landing gear collapsed, causing the aircraft to nose down. Fortunately, the damage sustained was minor. However, the same couldn’t be said for the second prototype (GE-CV), which underwent flight testing on November 28, 1942. Upon landing during its maiden flight, the front landing gear failed, resulting in a hard impact on the ground. The force of the impact nearly split the aircraft into two parts, rendering it extensively damaged and subsequently written off. Despite this setback, two more prototypes were constructed during 1943.
Technical characteristics
The Me 309 was conceived as a single-seat fighter, featuring an all-metal construction with a low-wing design. There is limited information available regarding its overall construction. The fuselage was of an oval shape, while the wings were characterized by a dihedral angle with rounded tips, accompanied by automatic leading-edge slots for better maneuverability at low speed. Notably, the wings also incorporated large flaps extending from the wing roots to the ailerons’ end. The canopy was fully glazed, affording excellent visibility of the surroundings.
There is some disagreement among available sources regarding the precise engine used in this aircraft. According to J.R. Smith and A.L. Kay in (German Aircraft of WWII) it was initially powered by a 1,750 hp DB 603A-1 engine, which enabled the Me 309 to achieve a maximum speed of 733 km/h at an altitude of 8,500 meters. This claim is supported by B.C. Wheeler in (Aviation Archive: German Fighters of WWII) although Wheeler does not specify which DB 603 engine was used. On the other hand, Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage, in (Aircraft of the Luftwaffe) mentions that the Daimler-Benz DB 603G engine model was used, with the same maximum speed being achieved. The DB 603G is the likely most correct engine used on the Me 309, considering it was an experimental high-altitude model that never entered mass use.
The later prototypes were powered by a smaller 1,450 hp DB 605B engine. Even the first prototype was eventually reequipped with this engine. As a result, the overall performance dropped significantly to 575 km/h, according to D. Nesić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka).
With a fuel capacity of 880 liters, its operational range extended to 1,400 km. Equipped with a retractable ventral radiator positioned under the fuselage, the aircraft’s landing gear retracted inward into the wings. A notable departure from convention was the absence of the standard tailwheel; instead, it featured a nosewheel, retracting rearward into the fuselage’s front section.
Fate
Despite the considerable investment of time and resources into the Me 309 project, its overall flight performance fell short, ultimately leading to the project’s demise. By the beginning of 1943, the RLM had lost interest in the aircraft, prompting the cancellation of the project after the completion of four prototypes. Despite the cancellation, Messerschmitt proceeded to develop two additional prototypes.
One of these, the Me 309V-3 (CA-NK or CA-CW), was intended as a replacement for the lost V-2 prototype. Its maiden flight took place in March or April of 1943. The fourth prototype marked a significant milestone as it was the first to be equipped with offensive armament, including four 13 mm MG 131 (300 rounds), two 20 mm MG 151 (150 rounds), and two 30 mm MK 108 (65 rounds) cannons. Alternatively, it could be outfitted with two 15 mm MG 151 cannons and three 13 mm MG 131s. Although these armaments were primarily experimental and not used operationally, they were essential for various testing purposes.
Unfortunately, the fate of the last two prototypes remains unclear, with records suggesting they were lost during Allied bombing raids in 1944.
Even before the official cancellation, Messerschmitt officials were hopeful for a larger production order. To this end, they presented several variant proposals for the Me 309. The Me 309A was designed as a fighter variant, equipped with one MG 151 cannon and two MG 131 machine guns. The Me 309B was intended to serve as a fighter-bomber variant, armed with two 250 kg (550 lbs) bombs. As for the Me 309C, it was designed as a destroyer, featuring three MG 151 cannons and up to four MG 131s. An intriguing proposal was the Me 309 Zwilling (Eng. Twins), which involved two aircraft joined together in a configuration reminiscent of the post-war US F-82, but ultimately, this concept did not materialize.
Interestingly in 1944 Japan expressed interest in its design and asked for plans and drawings of the Me309V-3 aircraft. But nothing came of this in the end.
Prototypes
Me 309V-1 – First prototype powered by a 1,750 hp DB 603A-1 engine
Me 309V-2 – Second prototype lost during the first test flight
Me 309V-3 – This prototype was built in early 1943 as a replacement for the second prototype
Me 309V-4 – First prototype to be armed.
Proposed Variants
Me 309A – Proposed fighter variant
Me 309B – Proposed fighter-bomber variant
Me 309C –Proposed destroyer variant
Me 309zw- Proposed twi-aircraft configuration
Conclusion
The Me 309, despite the investment and the hope that it would be an adequate successor to the Me 109, proved to be a troubled design and pulled down by wartime pragmatism. From the start, it was plagued by various mechanical problems that were never resolved. The fact that RLM was never interested that much in such a project did not help either. As it would take considerable time to fully remediate all the noted issues, the project was abandoned in favor of the latter Me 262.
Me 309V-1 Specifications
Wingspans
11.04 m / 36 ft 2 in
Length
9.46 m / 31 ft 1 in
Height
3.4 m / ft
Wing Area
16.55 m² / 178.08 ft²
Engine
One 1,750 hp DB 603A-1
Empty Weight
3,530 5kg / 7,784 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
4,250 kg / 9,371 lbs
Maximum Speed
733 km/h / 455 mph
Cruising speed
665 km/h / 413 mph
Range
1,400 km / 870 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
12,000 m / 39,360 ft
Climb to 8 km
In 10 minutes
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Illustration
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustrations by Oussama Mohamed “Godzilla”
Source:
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putnam
D. Myhra (2000) Messerschmitt Me 209V1, Schiffer Military History
M. Griehl () X-planes German Luftwaffe prototypes 1930-1940, Frontline Book
D.Sharp (2018) Luftwaffe: Secret Designs of the Third Reich, Mortons
Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009) Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe, McFarland & Company, Inc
B. C. Wheeler (2014) Aviation Archive German Fighters of WWII, Kelsey Publishing Group
Upon its introduction before the outbreak of the Second World War, the German Me 109 emerged as one of the premier fighter designs globally. While it proved formidable during the conflict, rival aircraft gradually matched and even exceeded its performance in several key areas. In a bid to secure a successor for the Me 109 late in the war, Messerschmitt endeavored to develop the Me 209A, a highly modified design based on its predecessor. Despite demonstrating promising flight attributes, logistical constraints hindered its adoption for active service.
History
While the Germans acknowledged the effectiveness of the Me 109, it became evident that a new fighter design, or serious enhancements to the existing model, would be necessary. In early 1941, Messerschmitt began developing a successor to the Me 109. This exploration resulted in the creation of the Me 309. It was a brand-new fighter aircraft that incorporated a new fuselage design, larger wings, and a tricycle undercarriage. It was powered by a 1,750 hp DB 603A-1. A few different armament systems were to be tested including four 13 mm MG 131 (300 rounds), two 2 cm MG 151 (150 rounds), and two 30 mm MK 108 (65 rounds) cannons. Alternatively, it could be outfitted with two 15 mm MG 151 cannons and three 13 mm MG 131s.
By June 1942, the prototype underwent flight testing. Despite an initially promising design, testing revealed that the Me 309 did not offer significant improvements over the Me 109G, which was already in mass production. Consequently, recognizing the impracticality of further investment, the Me 309 project was ultimately terminated.
As the development of the Me 309 proved fruitless, Messerschmitt continued to strive towards a suitable replacement for the Me 109. Fortunately for the company, the German Air Ministry (RLM) initiated the development of a new high-altitude fighter on April 23, 1943. In response, Messerschmitt introduced the Me 209. Interestingly, this name was recycled from an earlier project, the original Me 209, which had been crafted specifically to set world-breaking speed records. However, it was ill-suited for military purposes and the project was ultimately shelved having fulfilled its original purpose. Despite this, Messerschmitt endeavored to develop a viable fighter based on the Me 209 but met with little success. To avoid potential confusion, the new project, which bore no resemblance to the record-breaking aircraft, was designated as the Me 209A (also occasionally referred to as the Me 209-II).
In order to expedite development and minimize costs, the design of this new fighter used many components from the Me 109. A powerful engine was essential for achieving optimal flight performance. Thus, the prototype, powered by a 1,750 PS DB 603A-1 engine, underwent completion and testing in early November 1943, with Fritz Wendel as the pilot. To avoid confusion, it was designated as the Me 209V-5 (SP-LJ), distinguishing it from the original Me 209 prototypes, V-1 to V-4.
The success of the first prototype led to the completion and testing of a second prototype by the end of 1943, both exhibiting impressive flight characteristics. Encouraged by this achievement, construction of another prototype commenced. However, due to shortages of the DB 603A-1 engine, the decision was made to utilize the 1,750 hp Jumo 213E instead. This third prototype underwent flight testing in May 1944, prompting a designation change to Me 209A. The prototypes, with their alternate engine configurations, were then distinguished with the suffixes A-0, A-1, and A-2 for the first, second, and third, respectively.
Technical characteristics
Unfortunately given the obscurity of this project, its overall technical specifications are somewhat ambiguous. What is known is that it incorporated some 65% of its construction from the Me 109G. The original Me 109 fuselage was a monocoque design that was divided into two halves. These halves would be placed together and connected using simple flush rivets, thus creating a simple base on which remaining components, like the engine, wings, and instruments would be installed.
In order to accommodate the retracting landing gear, Messerschmitt deliberately opted for a single wing spar positioned towards the rear of the wing. This spar needed to be robust enough to withstand the flight’s load forces. The wings were attached to the fuselage by four sturdy bolts, simplifying the overall wing construction and reducing production costs. The Me209A boasted a larger wingspan and area, consequently increasing wing loading by 25% compared to the original Me 109. Furthermore, alterations were made to the wings and tail to address the Me 109’s strong yaw forces on takeoff. Whether these adjustments successfully rectified the issue in the Me 209A remains unclear according to available sources.
Initially, it was powered by a 1,750 hp DB 603A-1 engine which was provided with an annular radiator and a three-blade propeller. With this engine, a maximum record speed achieved was 724 km/h 450 mph at an altitude of nearly 7 km (22,960 ft). The third prototype (A-2) received a new 1,750 hp Jumo 213E engine. It too was provided with an annular radiator. With it, a maximum speed of 660 km/h (410 mph) was achieved at an altitude of 6 km (19/680 ft)
The canopy was placed in the center of the fuselage. It was a fully enclosed compartment that was riveted to the fuselage.
The Me 109 boasted an unconventional landing gear arrangement, at least for German standards, with the landing gear primarily affixed to the lower center base of the fuselage. This configuration centralized the aircraft’s weight at this pivotal point, while the two landing gear struts extended outward toward the wings. In contrast, the Me 209 utilized a wide-track undercarriage unit, with the pivot points being out on the wings.
Various sources have proposed different armament configurations for the Me 209. One suggestion was the installation of two 3 cm MK 108 cannons, each equipped with 70 rounds of ammunition, alongside two 2 cm MG 151 cannons with 250 rounds per cannon, all to be housed within the aircraft’s wings. Alternatively, another proposal suggested the placement of four MK 108 cannons within the wings and two MG 151 cannons positioned above the engine compartment. However, it remains unclear whether any of these proposed armament configurations were ever implemented on the Me 209A.
Fate
In 1944, further testing ensued, yet for Messerschmitt, the advent of the new Fw 190D posed a challenge. The Fw 109D, slowly making its way into production, boasted better performance, being faster in both high and low altitudes. What ultimately sealed the fate of the Me 209A project was the swiftness and cost-effectiveness with which the Fw 190D could be put into production. While the Me 209 incorporated many components from the Me 109, setting up its production would demand considerable time. A luxury in short supply for the Germans in 1944. Additionally, Messerschmitt’s focus at that time was squarely on the new Me 262 production, leaving scant resources to spare for yet another piston-powered fighter.
Despite these challenges, Messerschmitt made a final push to advance the Me 209 project with the construction and testing of the fourth prototype, designated Me 209H V-1, in June 1944. This iteration underwent several modifications, including enlarged wings and propulsion by a DB 603G engine. Unfortunately, the first prototype fell victim to an air raid on August 14, 1944, casting uncertainty over the fate of the remaining aircraft. Although there were intentions to export the Me 209A to Japan, these plans never materialized. It was also competing with the Ta 152H, which was easier to put into production while also having better performance, at least on paper.
Prototypes
Me 209A-0- First prototype powered by a 1,750 hp DB 603A-1 engine
Me 209A-1- Secon aircraft is essentially a copy of the first prototype
Me 209A-2- Third tested with a new 1,750 Jumo 213E engine
Me 209H V-1 – The fourth prototype powered by a DB 603G engine and received larger wings
Conclusion
The Me 209A project ultimately reached a dead end, not because it was a poorly designed aircraft, but simply because it didn’t offer significant enough improvements to justify production. The new Fw 109D, boasting similar flight performance, was already in the production phase. Introducing yet another new design without any notable advancements in this fighter category would have been illogical and a waste of already meager resources.
Me 209A-2 Specifications
Wingspans
10.95 m / 35 ft 11 in
Length
9.62 m / 31 ft 6 in
Height
3.65 m / 12 ft 2 in
Wing Area
17.15 m² / 184.53 ft²
Engine
1,750 hp Jumo 213E
Empty Weight
3,475kg / 7,662 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
4,200 kg / 9,261 lbs
Maximum Speed
660 km/h / 410 mph
Cruising speed
490 km/h / 305 mph
Range
690 km / 430 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
13,000 m / 42,650 ft
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Illustration
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustrations by Oussama Mohamed “Godzilla”
Source:
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putnam
D. Myhra (2000) Messerschmitt Me 209V1, Schiffer Military History
B. C.Wheeler, German Fighters of WWII, Aeroplane Special
R. Jackson (2005) Infamous Aircraft, Pen and Sword
M. Griehl () X-planes German Luftwaffe prototypes 1930-1940, Frontline Book
Italy (1932)
Experimental Aircraft – One Prototype Built
In the history of aviation, there have been many projects that on paper promised outstanding flight capabilities, or offered other technical advantages. The time before the Second World War saw aviation advance at a breakneck pace, and is well known for such experiments. The so-called Stipa-Caproni was one such project, being an intriguing, and somewhat bizarre, experimental aircraft designed by Italian aeronautical engineer Luigi Stipa, and built by Caproni during the interwar period. It was characterized by its tubular fuselage, hence earning it the nickname Flying Barrel.
History
In 1927 a young Italian aircraft engineer Luigi Stipa began working on an unusual tube-shaped aircraft. Like many other aviation enthusiasts, Stipa was very interested in how aircraft could achieve better performance through exploring unorthodox construction methods. Thanks to his studies in thermodynamics, he was aware of the so-called Venturi effect, named after Italian physicist Giovanni Battista Venturi. In essence, this effect describes the reduction of fluid pressure and increasing velocity when it’s moving through a cylinder of decreased diameter. In theory, using this principle, a special type of aircraft could be created that could achieve significantly higher speeds than the conventional models of the time. Stipa theorized that for this purpose, such an aircraft would have to have a tube-shaped fuselage with the engine being positioned near the front. After finding it theoretically possible, he moved forward to test if the Venturi effect could be implemented in his airplane concept. For this purpose, he began a series of different tests inside a wing tunnel, carried out at the Aerodynamic Laboratory in Rome, from 1928 to 1931. The main focus of this testing period was to find the adequate shape, and leading edges, of the tube-shaped fuselage. This also included finding the right position of the engine, its position inside that tube, and the ideal propeller rotation speed. Following a series of wind tunnel tests, Stipa concluded that it was possible to build a full-scale prototype by using a single tube-shaped fuselage.
At the end of his research, he concluded that such a project was viable and set the task of building a working prototype. To gain interest in his project, he wrote about his work in the Rivista Aeronautica journal in 1931, and even built a small working replica. The next logical step was to write to the Italian Minister of Aviation, in the hope of getting approval for the realization of his project. Luckily for Stipa, his work came to the attention of General Luigi Crocco, the Air Ministry’s director. Stipa’s work was well received and the project received a green light. To test the concept, a working prototype had to be constructed. It is important to note, that both Stipa and the Italian Air Ministry were aware that this project was merely to test his theories, and would not entail any further development of the prototype. In addition, both were aware that Stipa’s proposed principle was only practical on larger aircraft types.
For this purpose, the prototype was to be powered by a small 120-hp engine. The reason behind this decision lay in the fact that this aircraft was primarily built for evaluation and academic purposes. The Italian Air Ministry was not quite willing to invest huge monetary resources in it, beyond those necessary for the construction of the working prototype.
To help build the test aircraft, the Caproni aircraft manufacturer from Milan Taliedo was chosen. It was designated as Stipa-Caproni (sometimes referred to as Caproni-Stipa) referring to its designer and constructor. The prototype was built quickly and was ready for testing in October 1932.
It is perhaps a little surprising that such an unusual design would receive the necessary support for its realization. However, the exploration of new and unorthodox ideas in aviation was very popular in pre-war Europe. During the 1930s, Italy led the way in this aspect, perhaps even more than other countries, testing many unorthodox designs. What’s more, the Italian Fascist regime even encouraged different and unusual projects like this one, although many of them did not produce any meaningful results.
Technical specification
The Stipa-Caproni was a two-seater, mixed-construction aircraft, designed to have the simplest and thus cheapest fuselage. Its fuselage consisted of a tube which internally consisted of two large wooden round-shaped rings at the nose, followed by a series of similar but smaller rings. All of them were then connected with horizontal ribs which in turn were covered in fabric. The outer wooden rings served as the foundation, on which the wing and the cockpit would be connected. The fuselage design was, in effect, a large tube shaped airfoil.
The wings were mounted centrally on each side of the fuselage. These had a simple wooden construction, and were covered in fabric. They were also connected to the fuselage through metal bracing wires, which as a consequence increased the aircraft’s drag.
To the rear, a fairly large tail assembly was placed. During the design work of this aircraft, Stipa intentionally placed the rear control surfaces as close to the slipstream as possible. He hoped that this arrangement would greatly improve the aircraft’s handling and maneuverability.
On top of the fuselage, an elevated two-seat cockpit was placed. These were top-open with a small windshield placed in front of each position. There were also a pair of small doors that opened on the left side to give access to the seats.
The 120-hp de Havilland Gypsy III engine was placed inside this fuselage. It was centrally positioned and suspended using several steel bars that held it strongly in place. This was necessary to do so, as a weaker mounting could potentially endanger the aircraft during flight. The engine propeller was the almost the same diameter as the tube-shaped fuselage.
Given its overall design, and the position of the propellers inside the fuselage, the landing wheels were small and quite close to the ground. It consisted of three fixed road wheels. Two larger on the front and one smaller on the rear. Initially, wheel fairings were used but at some point, and for unclear reasons, these were removed.
Testing and Final Fate
With this project approved, a prototype was constructed and air tested in October 1932 at the experimental field at Monte Celio near Rome. Despite its odd design, the prototype was able to take to the sky without any major problems. Furthermore, it made several successful flights around Taliedo and Guidnia. It was even presented to the Italian Air Force for future test flights. During this period the aircraft was jokingly nicknamed Flying Barrel or Aereo Botte (Eng. Wooden wine barrel aircraft) or Aereo Barile (Eng. Fuel-Barrel aircraft).
The weight of the aircraft during these flights was 800 kg (1,874 lb), while the calculated wing loading was 44,73 kg/m² (9,16 lb sq.ft.). The maximum speed achieved was 133 km/h (83 mph), and it needed 40 minutes to climb at a height of 3, 000 m. It needed an 800 m long airfield to be able to take to the sky.
Despite Stipa’s hopes that the position and shape of the tail control surfaces would improve its mobility, several problems were noted by the test pilots. Firstly the elevator worked very well, which ironically proved to be a major problem. Even with a slight movement of the command control stick by the pilots, the aircraft could prove very sensitive to elevator inputs. On the other hand, the rudder controls were quite stiff, as a consequence the pilot had to use considerable force in order to use it effectively. Analyzing this problem showed that the rudder’s large surface area was to blame for its stiff control. But besides the two problems, the aircraft was reported to be easy to fly when being used in a gliding flight. These defects were of a more or less technical nature, which were not necessarily irremediable through further development of the overall design.
The final results of evaluation flights showed that the Stipa-Caproni does not have any particularly great advantages compared to other more standard aircraft designs. In addition, Stipa-Caproni’s overall aircraft shape offered limited space within the fuselage for passengers or payload.
As Stipa predicted from the start, his principles would not offer any major advantage over a standard smaller-dimension aircraft. The real application of the Stipa-Caproni design was only feasible on larger aircraft. Stipa hoped that his further research would enable him to construct large aircraft powered by two to three tube-shaped engine mounts. Unfortunately for him, after a series of test flights during 1932 and 1933 the interest in his work died out. It was briefly used in various Italian aviation propaganda publications before being scrapped in 1939.
Despite being in general an unimpressive design, the French showed interest in it. Particularly the company ANF Lex Maureaux, which went so far as to acquire a license for the design in 1935. According to initial plans, a two-engine variant was to be built for testing and evaluation. The project did not go beyond basic work was later canceled.
Lastly, an interesting fact is that many people considered Stipa-Caproni to design some sort of proto-jet engine. Whether this was the case or not, Stipa felt his work was overlooked, and according to some sources, he remained bitter throughout his life until he died in the early 1990s.
Replica
In 1996, aviation enthusiast Guido Zuccoli began working on a smaller replica of this aircraft. However, the death of Zuccoli in a landing accident caused a delay in the replica’s final delivery. It was finally completed in 2001 when numerous small flights were achieved. The aircraft, powered by a 72 hp Simonini racing engine, managed to achieve a flight distance of 600 m (1,968 ft). After that, the aircraft replica was stored as an exhibit at the Zuccoli Collection at Toowoomba, in Australia.
Conclusion
The Stipa-Caproni represented an intended for the purpose of testing his new concepts in practice. While surely an interesting and unusual concept, Stipa-Caproni’s overall design was not that practical in reality, offering little improvement over a standard aircraft design of similar dimensions.
Stipa-Caproni Specifications
Wingspans
14.3 m / 46 ft 10 in
Length
6.04 m / 19 ft 10 in
Height
3.2 m / 10 ft 7 in
Wing Area
19 m² / 204 ft²
Engine
One 120 hp (89.5 kW) De Havilland Gipsy III
Empty Weight
595 kg / lbs
Maximum Take-off Weight
850 kg / 1,874 lbs
Maximum Speed
133 km/h / 83 mph
Landing Speed
68 km/h / 42 mph
Climbing speed to 3,000 m
40 min
Maximum Service Ceiling
3,700 m / ft
Crew
1 to 2 pilots
Armament
None
Illustration
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
Illustration by Godzilla
Source:
J. Thompson (1963) Italian Civil and Military Aircraft 1930-1945, Aero Publisher
R. Giacomelli, (1933) The Stipa-Caproni Monoplane, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 5
D. Nesic (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija
L. Salari, Caproni Storia della nascitadell’ industria aeronautica
M Taylor, The Wolrd Strangest Aircraft, Metro Books
O. E. Lancaster (1959) Jet Propulsion Engines, Princeton University Press
L. Stipa (1933) Stipa Monoplane with Venturi Fuselage, Technical Memorandums Nation Advisory Committee For Aeronautics No.753
USSR (1921)
Experimental Single-seat light aircraft – 1 Prototype Built
While the Russian Civil War was raging on, there were early attempts to rebuild its shattered aviation industry. Aviation engineers and enthusiasts attempted, despite the chaos around them, to build small experimental aircraft to test their ideas and concepts. One such young individual was Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev. His ANT-1 was a specialized design to test the concept of using metal alloys in aircraft construction.
History
Tupolev began his career as an aircraft engineer in 1909, when he was admitted to the Moscow Higher Technical School. There he met Professor Nikolai Yagorovich who greatly influenced Tupolev’s interest in aviation. In the following years, he spent time developing and testing various glider designs. When the First World War broke out Tupolev managed to get a job at the Russian Dux Automotive factory in Moscow, which produced a variety of goods, including aircraft. There he gained valuable experience of aircraft manufacturing.
In 1917, the October Revolution plunged the disintegrating Russian Empire into total chaos. The few aircraft manufacturing centers were either abandoned or destroyed. All work on the design and construction of new aircraft was essentially stopped. The Dux was one exception and continued to work at a limited capacity. It was renamed to Gosudarstvennyi aviatsionnyi zavod (Eng. State aircraft factory) or simply GAZ No.1. Given that he was one of few aviation engineers left, with most skilled either being killed or fled the country, Tupolev remained working for the GAZ No.1. He spent a few years working on various projects such as designs improving weapon mounts for older aircraft that were still in service.
In 1921, Tupolev was elected as the deputy of the Aviatsii i Gidrodinamiki AGO (Eng. Aviation and Hydrodynamics Department). This department was tasked with developing various aircraft designs but also including torpedo boats. In 1921 he and his team from AGO began working on a new aircraft design that was to test new concepts. Two new innovative features were that it should be a monoplane, and be built using mainly metal alloy. Its primary purpose was not to gain any production orders, but instead to serve as a test bed for new ideas and concepts. The aircraft was named ANT-1, where ANT stands for the initials of Andrei Nikolayevich Tupovlev. This designation should not be confused with a snowmobile developed by Tupolev, which shared its name.
During this period, Soviet aviation officials and the German Junkers company spent years negotiating the possibility of producing a Duralumin alloy that could be used for aviation construction. Junkers proved the validity of this concept on the J.I saw service during the First World War. The German company wanted to avoid sanctions on arms and aviation development imposed by the Allies, while the Soviets wanted the technology for themselves, not wanting to depend on the Germans entirely. The Soviet Union in 1922, managed to produce their own copy of Duralumin known as Kol’schugaluminiyem alloy. The name was related to a small village Kol’chugino where this factory was located. Limited production of this alloy began in 1923.
Due to problems with the production of the new alloy, Tupolev was forced to postpone the development of his new aircraft until 1922. At that time the alloy was not yet available, so Tupovlev decided to go on with a mix-construction design, but mostly using wood. The benefit of using wood was that it was an easily available material, with almost unlimited supply in Russia. It was cheap and there were plenty of skilled woodworkers. However, there were also numerous flaws in using wooden materials. The greatest issue was a generally short service life in harsh climates as in Russia, in addition, standardization of spare parts is almost impossible to do.
Tupolev himself preferred the new metal technology believing that it would offer many benefits to the aircraft industry, giving new aircraft a lighter and stronger overall construction. Tupolev eventually decided to go for a mixed-construction solution. His decision was based on a few factors, such as the general lack of this new material, and he wanted to be on the safe side as using metal in aircraft construction was still a new and not yet fully proven concept. In addition, he wanted to be sure about the Aluminum alloy material’s quality before proceeding to design a fully metal aircraft.
Once the choice for the construction material was solved the next step was to decide whether it was to be a single or two-seat configuration. The wing design was also greatly considered. After some time spent in calculations and small wind testing, the choice was made to proceed with a single engine and low-wing monoplane.
For the engine, three different types were proposed including 14hp and 18 hp Harley-Davidson and a 20 hp Blackburn Tomtit. Despite Tupovlev’s attempts, he failed to acquire any one of these three. It was not until early 1923 that he managed to get his hands on an old 35hp Anzani engine which was over 10 years old by that point. Despite its poor mechanical state, Tupovlev knowing that nothing else was available decided to try salvage it.
Testing and the Final Fate
The construction of this aircraft took over a year to complete. Given the general chaos at that time, this should not be surprising. It was finally completed in October 1923, and the first test flight was carried out on the 21st of October of the same year. Despite using the older engine, the flight proved successful. It was piloted by Yevgeni Pogosski.
Following this, the ANT-1 was used mainly for various testing and evaluation. It would see service in this manner for the next two years. In 1925 the aging engine finally gave up, and this made the aircraft unflyable. Tupovlev tried to find a factory that could potentially refurbish it. He ultimately failed, as the engine was simply beyond repair by that point.
The aircraft was for some time stored at Factory No.156. The fate of this aircraft is not clear in the sources, however, there are few theories about what happened to it. After Tupovlev’s imprisonment by Josef Stalin, his plans and documentation were confiscated. The aircraft was believed to be also confiscated and scrapped in the late 1930s. Another possibility is that it was moved to another storage facility where it was eventually lost during the Axis Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
Specification
The ANT-1 was designed as a cantilever low-wing monoplane aircraft of mixed construction. The fuselage consisted of four spruce longerons. The lower two were connected to the wing spars and were held in place with four bolts. The parts of the fuselage starting with the pilot cockpit to the engine were covered in the metal alloy. This alloy was also used to provide additional strength of some internal wooden components of the aircraft fuselage. The pilot Pilot cockpit was provided with a small windscreen. Inboard equipment was spartan consisting only of an rpm counter, oil pressure indicator, and ignition switch.
The cantilever wings were made of single pieces. At the end of the two tips (on each side of the wings) large wooden spars were installed. Some parts of the wing were built using metal parts such as the wing ribs, The rest of the wing was mainly covered in fabric. The tail unit was made of wood, its surfaces were covered with a metal-fabric cover.
The fixed landing gear consisted of two large wheels. These were connected to a metal frame which itself was connected to the aircraft fuselage. Small rubber bungees acted as primitive shock absorbers.
Given that nothing else was available, the ANT-1 was powered by an old, refurbished 35-hp strong Bristol Anzani engine.
Conclusion
The ANT-1 despite its simplicity, and being built a single, cobbled-together prototype, could be considered a great success for Tupolev. Through this experimental aircraft, Tupovlev gained valuable experience in designing an aircraft by using metal alloy. This success emboldened Tupovlev to go even further and design and build the Soviet first all-metal construction aircraft known as ANT-2. The ANT-1 was Tupovlev’s first stepping stone in a long and successful career as an aircraft designer in the following decades.
ANT-1 Specifications
Wingspans
7.2 m / 23ft 7 in
Length
5.4 m / 17 ft 8 in
Height
1.7 m / 5 ft 7 in
Wing Area
10 m² / 108 ft²
Engine
One 35 hp Bristol Anzani engine
Empty Weight
230 kg / 5,070 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight
360 kg / 7,940 lb
Maximum Speed
125 km/h / 78 mp/h
Range
400 km / 250 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
600 m / 1,970 ft
Maximum Theoretical Service Ceiling
4,000 m / 13,120 ft
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Gallery
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustration by Godzilla
Sources:
Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-SSSR. Beograd.
Y. Gordon and V. Rigmant (2005) OKB Tupolev, Midland
P. Duffy and A. Kandalov (1996) Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft, SAE International
B. Gunston () Tupolev Aircraft Since 1922, Naval Institute press
In the later stages of the Second World War, it was becoming apparent to both the Luftwaffe (English German Air Force) and the German Government that the Allied air forces were gaining air superiority. This realization saw them turn to new and fantastical ideas in a desperate attempt to turn the tide of the war. Some of these represented new improvements to existing designs, the introduction of the newly developed turbojet engine, and even more esoteric and experimental methods. In many cases, these were pure fantasies, unrealistic or desperate designs with no hope of success. Few of them reached any significant development, and among them were the works of Alexander Martin Lippisch. While Lippisch helped develop the Me 163, the first rocket-powered interceptor, his other work remained mostly theoretical. One such project was the unusual P 13a, ramjet-powered aircraft that was to use coal as its main fuel source. While some work was carried out late in the war and soon faced insurmountable technical problems, thus nothing came of the project.
History
Before the start of the Second World War, aviation enthusiast and engineer Alexander Martin Lippisch, was fascinated with tailless delta wing designs. Lippisch’s early work primarily involved the development of experimental gliders. Eventually, he made a breakthrough at the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut, where he worked as an engineer. His work at DFS would lead to the creation of the rocket-powered glider known as the DFS 194. As this design was a promising experiment in a new field, it was moved to Messerschmitt’s facility at Augsburg. After some time spent refining this design, it eventually led to the development of the Me 163 rocket-powered interceptor. While it was a relatively cheap aircraft, it could never be mass-produced, mostly due to difficulties associated with its highly volatile fuel. In 1942, Lippisch left Messerschmitt and ceased work on the Me 163 project. Instead, he joined the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Wien (English: Aeronautic Research Institute in Vienna) where he continued working on his delta-wing aircraft designs. In May 1943 he became director of this institution, and at that time the work on a supersonic aircraft was initiated.
In the later war years, among the many issues facing the Luftwaffe, was a chronic fuel shortage. Lippisch and his team wanted to overcome this problem by introducing alternative fuels for their aircraft. Luckily for his team, DFS was testing a new ramjet engine. They were designed to compress air which would be mixed with fuel to create thrust but without a mechanical compressor. While this is, at least in theory, much simpler to build than a standard jet engine, it can not function during take-off as it requires a high airflow through it to function. Thus, an auxiliary power plant was needed. It should, however, be noted that this was not new technology and had existed since 1913, when a French engineer by the name of Rene Lorin patented such an engine. Due to a lack of necessary materials, it was not possible to build a fully operational prototype at that time, and it would take decades before a proper ramjet could be completed. In Germany, work on such engines was mostly carried out by Hellmuth Walter during the 1930s. While his initial work was promising, he eventually gave up on its development and switched to a rocket engine instead. The first working prototype was built and tested by the German Research Center for Gliding in 1942. It was later tested by mounting the engine on a Dornier Do 17 and, later, a Dornier Do 217.
In October 1943, Lippisch won a contract to develop the experimental P 11 delta-wing aircraft. While developing this aircraft, Lippisch became interested in merging his new work with a ramjet engine. This would lead to the creation of a new project named the P 12. In the early stage of the project, Lippisch and his team were not completely sure what to use as fuel for their aircraft, but ramjets could be adapted to use other types of fuel beyond aviation gasoline.
Unfortunately for them, LFW’s facilities were heavily damaged in the Allied bombing raids in June 1944. In addition to the damage to the project itself, over 45 team members died during this raid. To further complicate matters, the scarcity of gasoline meant that Lippisch’s team was forced to seek other available resources, such as different forms of coal. This led to the creation of the slightly modified project named P 13. In contrast to the P 12, the cockpit was relocated from the fuselage into a large fin. This design provided better stability but also increased the aircraft’s aerodynamic properties. The overall designs of the P 12 and P 13 would change several times and were never fully finalized.
The P 12 and 13 small-scale models, in both configurations, were successfully tested at Spitzerberg Airfield near Vienna in May 1944. The project even received a green light from the Ministry of Armaments. In the early stages of the project, there were some concerns that the radical new design would require extensive retraining of pilots. However, the wind tunnel test showed that the design was aerodynamically feasible and that the aircraft controls had no major issues. Based on these tests, work on an experimental aircraft was ordered to begin as soon as possible.
The DM-1 Life Saver
While working on the P 12 and P 13, Lippish was approached with a request from a group of students from Darmstadt and Munich universities. They asked Lippisch to be somehow involved in the P 12 and 13 projects. Lippisch agreed to this and dispatched one of his assistants under the excuse that for his own project, a wooden glider was to be built and tested. The previously mentioned student’s and Lippisch’s assistant moved to a small warehouse in Prier and began working on the Darmstadt 33 (D 33) project. The name would be changed to DM 1 which stands for Darmstadt and Munich.
At this point of the war, all available manpower was recruited to serve the German war effort. For young people, this often meant mobilization into the Army. One way to avoid this was to be involved in some miracle project that offered the Army a potentially war-winning weapon. It is from this, that numerous aircraft designs with futuristic, and in most cases unrealistic, features were proposed. Many young engineers would go on to avoid military service by proposing projects that on paper offered extraordinary performance in combat.
While it was under construction, preparations were made to prepare for its first test flight. As it was a glider it needed a towing aircraft that was to take it to the sky. A Sibel Si 204 twin-engine aircraft was chosen for the job. However, this was not to be done like any other glider, being towed behind the larger aircraft. Instead, the DM-1 was to be placed above the Si 201 in a frame, in a similar combination as the Mistel project. The estimated theoretical speeds that were to be reached were 560 km/h (350 mph).
Allegedly, there were four different proposals for the DM’s that were to be fully operational. The DM 2 version was estimated to be able to reach a speed of 800-1,200 km/h (500 – 745 mph). The DM 3’s theoretical maximum speed was to be 2,000 km/h (1,240 mph) while the fate of the DM 4 is unknown. Here it is important to note that these figures were purely theoretical, as there were no supersonic testing facilities to trial such a design. It is unclear in the sources if these additional DM projects even existed, even if in only written form. We must remember that the whole DM 1 glider idea was made to help the students avoid military conscription and that Lippisch himself never saw the DM 1 as any vital part of the P 13.
In any case, the glider was almost completed by the time the war ended and was later captured by the Western Allies. Under the US Army’s supervision, the glider was fully completed and sent to America for future evaluation. It would then be given to the Smithsonian Institution.
Work on the P 13
As the work on the P 13 went on, the name was slightly changed. This was necessary as different variations of the P 13 were proposed. The original P 13 received the prefix ‘a’ while the later project’s designation continued alphabetically for example P 13b. After a brief period of examination of the best options, the P 12 project was discarded in favor of P 13. The decision was based on the fuel that the aircraft should use. What followed was a period of testing and evaluation of the most suitable forms of coal that could be used as fuel. Initial laboratory test runs were made using solid brown Bohemian coal in combination with oxygen to increase the burn rate. The fuel coal was tube-shaped, with an estimated weight of 1 kg, and encased in a mesh container through which the granulated coal could be ejected. The testing showed serious problems with this concept. While a fuel tube could provide a thrust that on average lasted 4 to 5 minutes, its output was totally unpredictable. During the testing, it was noted that due to the mineral inconsistency of the coal fuel, it was impossible to achieve even burning. Additionally, larger pieces of the coal fuel would be torn off and ejected into the jet stream. The final results of these tests are unknown but seem to have led nowhere, with the concept being abandoned. Given that Germany in the last few months of the war was in complete chaos, not much could be done regarding the Lippish projects including the P 13a.
In May 1945, Lippish and his team had to flee toward the West to avoid being captured by the advancing Soviets. They went to Strobl in Western Austria, where they encountered the Western Allies. Lippisch was later transported to Paris in late May 1945 to be questioned about his delta wing designs. He was then moved to England, and then to America in 1946. The following year, American engineers tested the DM 1 glider at the wind tunnel facility of the Langley Field Aeronautical Laboratory. The test seems promising and it was suggested to begin preparation for a real flight. A redesign of the large rudder was requested. It was to be replaced with a much smaller one, where the cockpit would be separated from the fin and placed in the fuselage. Ironically Lippish was not mentioned in this report, as technically speaking he was not involved in the DM 1 project. Nevertheless, he was invited for further testing and evaluation of this glider. If this glider and the Lippish work had any real impact on the US designs is not quite clear.
Despite no aircraft being ever completed, one full-size replica of this unusual aircraft was built after the war. It was built by Holger Bull who is known for building other such aircraft. The replica can now be seen at the American Military Aviation Museum located in Virginia Beach.
Technical characteristics
DM 1
The DM 1 glider was built using wooden materials. Given that it was constructed by a group of young students, its overall design was quite simple. It did not have a traditional fuselage, instead, its base consisted of a delta wing. On top, a large fin was placed. The cockpit was positioned in front of the aircraft within the large vertical stabilizer. To provide a better view of the lower parts of the nose, it was glazed. The landing gear consisted of three small landing wheels which retracted up into the wing fuselage. Given that it was to be used as a test glider, no operational engine was ever to be used on it.
A good example of DM 1 (to the right) and P 13a models that showed the difference between these two. The P 13a could be easily distinguished by its engine intake and the different position of the pilot cockpit. Source: Wiki https://imgur.com/a/QW7XuO5
P 13a
The P 13 is visually similar but with some differences. The most obvious was the use of a ramjet. This means that the front, with its glazed nose, was replaced with an engine intake. Here, it is important to note, that much of the P 13a’s design is generally unknown, and much of the available information is sometimes wrongly portrayed in the sources. The P 13a never reached the prototype stage where an aircraft was fully completed. Even as the war ended, much of the aircraft’s design was still theoretical. Thus all the mentioned information and photographs may not fully represent how the P 13 may have looked or its precise characteristics, should it have been finished and built.
The exact ram engine type was never specified. It was positioned in the central fuselage with the air intake to the front and the exhaust to the back. As the main fuel, it was chosen to use small pieces of brown coal which were carried inside a cylindrical wire mesh container. The total fuel load was to be around 800 kg (1,760 lbs). Combustion was to be initiated by using small quintiles of liquid fuel or gas flames. The overall engine design was changed several times during the work on the P 13 without any real solution to the issues of output consistency. Given that the ramjets could not work without an air thrust, an auxiliary engine had to be used during take-off, though a more practical use would be to tow the P 13 until it could start its engine. A rocket takeoff ran the risk of the engine failing to ignite, leaving the pilot little time to search for a landing spot for his unpowered aircraft.
The wing construction was to be quite robust and provided with deflectors that would prevent any potential damage to the rudders. The wing design also incorporated a sharp metal plate similar to those used for cutting enemy balloons cables. These proposed properties of the wings are another indicator that the P 13 was to be used as an aircraft rammer. Another plausible reason for this design was the fact that given it had no landing gear the aircraft design had to be robust enough as not to be torn apart during landing. The wings were swept back at an angle of 60 degrees. The precise construction method of the wings (and the whole P 13 a on that matter) are not much specified in the sources. Given the scarcity of resources in late 1944 it is likely that it would use a combination of metal and wood.
The fin had to be enlarged to provide good flight command characteristics. In addition, given that the position of the cockpit was in the fin, it had to be large. The fin was more or less a direct copy of one of the wings. So it is assumed that it too would share the overall design. The fin was connected to the aircraft by using four fittings.
The cockpit design was to be simple and cheap to build. The pilot was to have plenty of room inside the large fin. The cockpit was provided with a large glazed canopy that provided a good view of the front and sides. The seat and the instrument panel were bolted to the cockpit floor and walls. These could be easily detached for repairs. The instrument panel was to include an artificial horizon indicator, altimeter, compass, and radio equipment, Given that it was to operate at a high altitude oxygen tanks were to be provided too. Despite being intended to fly at high altitudes the cockpit was not to be pressurized. Another unusual fact was that initially the P 13 was to have a crew of two, but this was quickly discarded.
Here it is important to note that the version of the P 13 with the large fin is often portrayed as the final version of this aircraft. However, Lippisch never fully decided whether he should go for this version or the second that used a smaller fin with the pilot cockpit placed above the engine intake. Depending on the proposed version they are drastically different from each other. Lippisch, for unknown reasons, presented the British intelligence officer with the version that used the smaller fin and the American with the second version.
Landing operations were a bit unusual. To save weight no standard landing gear was to be used. Instead, Lippisch reused the Me 163 landing procedure. As the P 13 was immobile on its own, a small dolly would be used to move the aircraft. Once sufficient height was reached the dolly was to be jettisoned. In theory, this was an easy process, but in practice, this operation offered a good chance of failure and was much less safe than conventional landing gear. Sometimes the dolly either failed to eject or it bounced off the ground hitting the Me 163 in the process, with often fatal consequences.
The aircraft was to land with the nose raised up from the ground. This limited the pilot’s view of the ground. In addition due to its small size and in order to save weight, nontraditional landing gear was provided, instead, it carried a landing blade skid. To help absorb the landing impact, additional torsion springs were to be used. This bar had to be activated prior to the landing, it would emerge from beneath the aircraft fuselage, with the rotation point located at the front. Once released it was to guide the aircraft toward the ground. After that, the torsion springs were to soften the landing. This whole contraption seems like a disaster just waiting to happen and it’s questionable how practical it would be.
One interesting feature of the P 13 was that it could be easily disassembled into smaller parts which would enable effortless transport. Another reason was that due to the engine’s position in order to make some repairs or replacement of the engine, the remaining parts of the wing and the large fin had to be removed.
Was it an aircraft rammer?
The precise purpose of the P 13a is not quite clear, even to this day. Despite being briefly considered for mass production, no official offensive armament is mentioned in the sources. So how would the P 13a engage the enemy? A possible solution was that it would be used as a ram aircraft that was supposed to hit enemy aircraft damaging them in the process. In an after-the-war interrogation by British officers, Lippisch was asked if the P 13 was to be used as an aerial ram aircraft. Lippisch responded the following “
“.. The possibilities of using the P.13 as a ramming aircraft had been considered but Dr Lippisch did not think that athodyd propulsion was very suitable for this purpose owing to the risk of pieces of the rammed aircraft entering the intake. This would be avoided with a rocket-propelled rammer…”
This statement contradicts the building description issued by the LFW issued in late 1944. In it was stated the following about this potential use. “…Due to tactical considerations, among other things, the speed difference of fighters and bombers, preferably when attacking from behind, though the thought was given to the installation of brakes .. and although ample room for weaponry is present, the task of ram fighter has been taken into account – so that the ramming attack will not lead to the loss of the aircraft, thanks to its shape and static structure.”
This meant that this concept may have been considered by Lippisch at some point of the project’s development. The P 13 overall shape resembles closely to aircraft that was intentionally designed for this role. That said, it does not necessarily mean that the P 13 was to ram enemy aircraft. The use of such tactics was considered but their use was discarded, as it was seen as a futile and flawed concept. The project itself never got far enough to have an armament decided for it.
Conclusion
The Lippisch P 13 is an unusual aircraft project in nearly all aspects. Starting from its shape, which proved, at least during wind tunnel tests, that the concept was feasible. On the other hand, its engine seems to have simply been abandoned after discouraging test results. It is unlikely that such a combination would have worked to the extent that the P 13 designer hoped it would. During the testing, they could not find a proper solution to providing a constant thrust with sufficient force to reach a speed that was expected of it. So the whole concept was likely to be doomed from the start.
The DM 1 however, while it was never seriously worked on by Lippisch himself, managed to save a group of young students who used the project to avoid being sent into combat.
DM-1 Specifications
Wingspans
5.92 m / 19 ft 5 in
Length
6.6 m / 21 ft 7 in
Height
3.18 m / 10 ft 5 in
Wing Area
20 m² / 215 ft²
Engine
None
Empty Weight
300 kg / 655 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
460 kg / 1,015 lbs
Maximum Speed
560 km/h / 350 mph (gliding)
Landing speed
72 km/h / 45 mph
Release altitude
8,000 m (26,240 ft)
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Theoretical Estimated Lippisch P 13 Specifications
Wingspans
5.92 m / 19 ft 5 in
Length
6.7 m / 21 ft 11 in
Height
3.18 m / 10 ft 5 in
Wing Area
20 m² / 215 ft²
Engine
Unspecified ramjet
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2,300 kg / 5,070 lbs
Maximum Speed
1,650 km/h / 1,025 mph
Flight endurance
45 minutes
Fuel load
800 kg / 1,760 lb
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None mentioned
Illustrations
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Ported by Marko P.
Illustrated By Medicman11
Source:
A. Lippisch (1981) The Delta Wing History and Development, Iowa State University Press
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putham
B. Rose (2010) Secret Projects Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft, Midland
D. Sharp (2015) Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich, Mortons
Kingdom of Hungary (1939)
Fighter Aircraft – One prototype
In their search for a new fighter, the Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierő MKHL (English: Royal Hungarian Home Defence Air Force), approached the Germans for help. Initially, a deal was made with the German Heinkel company for the delivery of new He 112 fighters and a production license. However, nothing came of this deal, which led to the Hungarians attempting to develop their own fighter, partially based on the He 112.
The He 112 In Hungary
In the late 1930s, the Hungarian Air Force was slowly in the process of rebuilding its combat strength by the acquisition of new aircraft. For a modern air force, they needed better fighter designs, which they were then seriously lacking. Luckily for them, they began to improve their relations with Germany, so it was possible to acquire new equipment from them. In June 1938, a Hungarian delegation was sent to the Heinkel company, and the pilots that accompanied this delegation had a chance to fly the He 112 fighter. This aircraft was Heinkel’s response to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium’s (English: German Ministry of Aviation) request for a new fighter. While generally a good design, it ultimately lost to Messerschmitt Bf 109. While the He 112 project was canceled by the RLM, to compensate for the huge investment in resources and time to it, Heinkel was permitted to export this aircraft to foreign buyers. Several countries such as Austria, Japan, Romania, and Finland showed interest, but only a few actually managed to procure this aircraft, and even then, only in limited numbers.
The Hungarians were impressed with the He 112 and placed an order for 36 such aircraft. For a number of logistical and political reasons, the decision to sell these aircraft to Hungary was delayed. A single He 112 was given to Hungary in February for evaluation but was lost on its first flight. Realizing that the Germans would not deliver the promised aircraft, the Hungarians instead decided to ask for a license. This was granted and Heinkel also delivered two more He 112 B-1s. When the license arrived in Hungary in May 1939, a production order for the 12 first aircraft was given to Weiss Manfréd aircraft manufacturer.
A New Fighter
Despite the best Hungarian attempts to put the He 112 in production, this was prevented by the war between Poland and Germany. At the start of the Second World War, RLM officially prohibited the export of any German aircraft engines and equipment. This meant that the vital Jumo 210 and DB 601 engines would not be available. Based on this fact, all work on the Hungarian He 112 had to be canceled.
As the Hungarians had the license for the He 112, some parts could still be domestically produced. In essence, this offered the Hungarians the chance to develop a new fighter, based on the He 112 blueprints. Not wanting to waste this opportunity, the Hungarian Ministry of War Affairs issued a directive to commence developing a new domestic fighter by reusing some components from the He 112. The whole project was undertaken by WM’s own chief designer Bela Samu, who began development in early 1939. To speed up development, the He 112 wing design was copied, but given the comparatively underdeveloped Hungarian aircraft industry, the wing was to be built of wooden materials instead of metal, as it was on the He 112. Other differences included using an oval-section fuselage, different armament, a new engine, and a cockpit redesign.
The first prototype was completed quickly by the end of 1939. In its prototype stage, the aircraft was painted in a light gray livery, earning it the nickname Ezüst Nyíl (English: Silver arrow) from the personnel that worked on it. Once it was issued to the Air Force for testing, it received the standard Hungarian camouflage scheme, and the designation V/501 was also allocated to it. The maiden test flight was undertaken close to Budapest on the 23rd of February 1940. The flight proved successful and a maximum speed of 530 km/h (330 mph) at a height of 5 km (16.400 ft) was achieved. Some issues were detected, the most problematic proved to be the strong vibration caused by the exhaust system. Despite this, the project development pressed on.
Short Service Life
Despite the time and effort put into the project, it all went for nothing as the prototype was lost in an accident in February, or April, depending on the source, 1942. During a test flight at high speeds, one of the ailerons simply broke off. The pilot lost control of the aircraft and had to bail out. The uncontrolled plane hit the ground and was utterly destroyed, and with it, the whole project was canceled.
Beyond this major setback, another reason why this project was canceled was the start of the license production of the German Bf 109G fighter. It was much easier, and faster, to commence production of this aircraft, thanks to German technical support, than to completely develop new tooling and equipment for the WM 23.
Technical Characteristics
The WM 23 was a mixed-construction single-engine fighter heavily inspired by the German He 112. Given its somewhat obscure nature, not much is mentioned in the sources about its overall construction. Given the urgency of the project, instead of the monocoque fuselage, the Hungarian engineers decided to use a simpler oval-section fuselage which consisted of welded steel tubes and then covered with plywood. The wings, as mentioned, were taken from the He 112, but had one huge difference, being made of wood, including its control surfaces.
The landing gear was another part more or less taken directly from the He 112. They consisted of two larger landing wheels that retracted into the wings, and one semi-retractable tail wheel. But based on the photographic evidence, their overall design changed during the prototype’s development. On the prototype, possibly at an early stage, a V-shaped front landing gear strut was used. This was later replaced by a large single-leg landing gear. The cockpit was equipped with a sliding canopy that slid to the rear.
The WM 23 was powered by a 1,030 hp WM K-14B (sometimes marked as 14/B) engine. This engine was developed based on the license of the French Gnome and Rhone 14K engine, a fourteen-cylinder radial engine equipped with a single-stage, single-speed supercharger. As mentioned, during the fifth test maximum achieved speed was 530 km/h (330 mph).
While the prototype was never fitted with an offensive armament, the Hungarians had plans for a potential armament In the wing, two 8 mm (0.33 in) machine guns were to be installed. In addition, two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) heavy machine guns were to be added atop the engine compartment. Lastly it was to have a payload of two 20 kg bombs (44 lbs).
Conclusion
The WM 23 was an interesting Hungarian attempt to domestically develop and build a fighter aircraft that was greatly influenced by the He 112. It showed to be a promising design, with the prospect of entering serial production. However, the loss of the single prototype put an end to this project. By 1942, the Hungarians simply did not have the time to start over again with the WM 23, so they abandoned it in favor of the license production of the German Bf 109G.
WM 23 prototype Specifications
Wingspans
31 ft 5 in / 9.6 m
Length
29 ft 10 in / 9.1 m
Height
10 ft 9 in / 3.3 m
Wing Area
199 ft² / 18.5 m²
Engine
One 1,030 hp strong WM K-14B
Empty Weight
4,850 lbs / 2,200 kg
Maximum Take-off Weight
5,733 lbs / 2,600 kg
Maximum Speed
330 mph / 530 km/h
Crew
1 pilot
Proposed Armament
Two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) heavy machine guns and two machine guns 8 mm (0.33 in) machine guns plus a bomb load of 20 kg (44 lbs)
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Ported by Marko P.
Illustrated By Carpaticus
Illustrations
Source:
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books
D. Bernard (1996) Heinkel He 112 in Action, Signal Publication
G. Punka, Hungarian Air Force, Signal Publication
R.S. Hirsch, U, Feist and H. J. Nowarra (1967) Heinkel 100, 112, Aero Publisher
C. Chants (2007) Aircraft of World War II, Grange Books
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
The Boulton Paul P.105 was a concept for a multi-purpose, single-engine aircraft that was designed to fill a number of carrier based roles. To do so, the P.105 would utilize a unique and innovative method that would use interchangeable fuselage sections and cockpit modules that would allow the aircraft to perform different missions. These modules could be changed quickly to fill a needed role aboard carriers or airbases. The aircraft would not be chosen for production, and The P.105 would be developed further into the P.107, a land-based escort version. The P.107 would have a rear-facing turret and a twin boom tail design to allow greater traverse of the gun. This design wouldn’t be adopted either, and the program would conclude before the war’s end.
History
Late in the Second World War, the Royal Naval Air Arm began seeking out a new aircraft design that would be able to fill both the fighter and bomber roles aboard their carriers. Having one aircraft perform multiple roles would eliminate the need for specialized carrier-borne aircraft to fill the fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber roles that were currently in operation. No official requirements were ever put out to build such an aircraft, but several companies had begun developing aircraft that would fit this role, which had become known as the “Strike Fighter”. Westland, Blackburn, Fairey and Boulton Paul would all develop designs that correspond to the strike fighter role. Boulton Paul’s aircraft design would be known as the P.105.
After the production of their Defiant turret fighter was finished, Boulton Paul began producing the Fairey Barracuda carrier bomber under license. After working extensively with a naval aircraft of this type, lead aircraft designer of Boulton Paul, John North, began to show interest in developing new aircraft to serve the Royal Navy’s carriers. The timing for this interest was beneficial too, as the Royal Air Arm began showing interest in new aircraft that were to be used in the Pacific Theater. He would first design a single engine fighter, dubbed the P.103 which would compete for the Navy’s Specification N.7/43 aircraft project. The P.103 was a heavily reworked Defiant with the turret removed and the design heavily cleaned up to make for a more effective fighter. Two designs existed for the P.103; the A and B, with the A using a Rolls Royce Griffon engine and the B using a Bristol Centaurus engine. The P.103 would utilize a number of innovative features, such as contra-rotating propellers, a low drag wing, specialized landing gear that became shorter when stowed, and elevators with automatic trim tabs. In addition, a more radical design was also submitted, the P.104, which was a twin-boom pusher. Despite both the P.103 and P.104 satisfying the specification, the Navy ultimately would find that a Hawker Tempest variant that was to be produced could easily be adapted to this role. This aircraft would become the Hawker Fury, and naval-ized into the Sea Fury.
While the P.103 wouldn’t be built, there were plans to test many of its design features on an existing aircraft. A Defiant was chosen to be extensively modified with most of the features found on the P.103, including the contra-rotating “dive-brake” propellers driven by a Centaurus engine, electric trim tabs, specialized shortening landing gear, and automatically closing landing gear doors. This aircraft, known as the Special Features Defiant, would also go unbuilt, with only a Defiant being modified with the elevator trim tabs. Boulton Paul wouldn’t yield any aircraft from this specification, but a new design would soon come from John North, who would continue working on Naval aircraft projects, looking to create an aircraft that would replace the Fairey Barracuda. Using design aspects intended for the P.103, and newer features found on the Special Features Defiant, he would design the P.105.
The P.105 was a small, high-performing aircraft that was meant to perform a number of duties aboard carriers. To achieve this the P.105 would have a unique design feature. To fill the variety of carrier-borne roles, the P.105 would have modular cockpit and bomb bay sections. Each of these modules would pertain to a particular role and would include necessary equipment to operate for the given task. The interchangeable modules included a two-seat torpedo-bomber with the necessary modifications to carry a torpedo (P.105A), a two-seat reconnaissance aircraft with an extended cockpit with changes to improve visibility (P.105B), a single-seat fighter armed with four 20mm cannons (P.105C) and a dive-bomber (P.105D). All aircraft aside from the C would be armed with four 12.7mm machine guns. With this system, it was thought more P.105 airframes could be stored inside hangars and carriers, while the unused modules could easily be stored and would take up less space, compared to having a number of different aircraft specified for specific roles, in theory, increasing the combat capacity of the carrier the P.105 would be stationed on. Boulton Paul expected the aircraft to be very high performance, and the P.105C fighter version, would be thought to serve as an excellent penetration fighter. Like its predecessors, the P.105 was originally going to utilize a Griffon 61 engine, but before performance predictions were done on the design, it would change to a Centaurus with counter-rotating propellers. The brochure on the details of the aircraft was submitted to the RNAA, but no order for production came about.While no particular reason was given for the design not being chosen, the modularity concept may have been less convenient in practice then on paper. Another reason could be that current aircraft at the time were deemed to have been performing adequately and didn’t need such an extensive replacement.
Although the P.105 wasn’t granted production, the design was further reworked into the Boulton Paul P.107. The P.107 was a return to basics for Boulton Paul, being a single-engine two-seat fighter with a turret. It can be assumed the P.107 began development during or shortly after the P.105 had been created. John North expressed many concerns with aircraft meant to operate in the Pacific War, with the biggest issue being the extreme range an aircraft would need in order to operate efficiently in this conflict. While details are sparse on its development, the P.107 extended range escort fighter appears to be his own attempt to create an aircraft meant to amend this issue. Overall, the P.107 shared many aspects of the P.105C, continuing to use the same overall design, Centaurus engine with contra-rotating propellers, and the same armament of four 20mm cannons. However, the P.107 wasn’t meant to operate from carriers, instead being designed as a land-based aircraft. Changes done to the design for this reason include the lack of folding wings and the removal of the torpedo blister. The aircraft would also benefit with the addition of a turret housing two 12.7mm machine guns. To improve the firing efficiency of the turret, the single fin of the P.105 was changed in favor of a twin fin design, which improved the firing range of the guns. The P.107 could also be configured for different roles, such as a dive bomber and for reconnaissance, but it is unknown if it used the same modular system the P.105 used. As was the case with his earlier designs, the P.107 wasn’t selected for production either.
Design
The Boulton Paul P.105 had a conventional monoplane fighter layout. In the front, it would utilize a 6-bladed contra-rotating propeller that had reversible pitch. Originally, the design would have mounted a Griffon 61 V-12 inline engine but was changed in favor of the Centaurus 18-cylinder radial CE.12.SM engine instead. The wings on the P.105 were inverted gull wings, much like those on the Vought F4U Corsair or Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, which allowed the mounting of a larger propeller. To allow for easy storage aboard carriers, the wings were able to fold inwards. The fuselage had the most interesting aspect of the design overall, and that was its interchangeable cockpit and lower fuselage modules. Each variant of the P.105 would use different modules that would pertain to the intended role it served. The P.105A was a torpedo bomber and would use the torpedo blister present under the tail, and provisions for carrying another crewmember. The P.105B was a reconnaissance aircraft, and its cockpit would be lengthened to sit a pilot and observer. It would use a glass hull beneath the observer to assist in spotting. The P.105C was an escort fighter and would be a one-man aircraft. The last was a dive-bomber version, which only has very sparse details available. The dive bomber would carry up to two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs, most likely in an internal bomb bay module. The tail of the aircraft would be a conventional single rudder and tailplane arrangement. The armament of the P.105 was a standard two to four 12.7mm machine-guns in the wings of the aircraft, with the only deviation being the P.105C, which would use four 20mm cannons instead.
The P.107 borrowed many aspects of the P.105 design, but changed some details to better fit its role. The engine and front sections would stay the same, keeping the contra-rotating propellers and Centaurus engine. Reference materials refer to the aircraft as being able to convert from an escort fighter to either a fighter-bomber, or photo reconnaissance aircraft. However, whether it was a conventional conversion, or via the module system the P.105 used is unknown, the latter being most likely. The wing design would stay the same, with the inverted gull wing style. Given its land-based nature, the wings no longer needed to be folded to conserve space, and the torpedo blister under the tail was removed. Behind the pilot, a gunner would sit and remotely control two 12.7mm machine guns. The machine-guns would be housed within the aircraft, with only the ends of the barrel protruding out. To give the gunner a better firing arc, the single tailfin was switched to a double tailfin. The turret and twin tail design are the most obvious differences between the P.107 and P.105. The aircraft’s fuel would be stored in a main tank beneath the crew members and two smaller drop tanks. The fuel amount was expected to give the aircraft a 3,000 mi (4,827 km) range, with up to 30 minutes of combat. The drop tanks could be switched for 2,000 Ib (900 Kg) of bombs. For offensive armament, the P.107 would use four 20m cannons mounted in the wings.
Conclusion
While no P.105 or P.107 would be constructed, the designs do attempt to amend issues that were present at the time. The Strike Fighter designation would eventually become a standard type of aircraft aboard carriers, and aircraft meant to fulfill multiple roles would also eventually be developed, but none would ever use such a unique system as the interchangeable fuselage of the P.105. It is interesting to note that the P.105 and P.107 appear to be the last military propeller aircraft that Boulton Paul would design before their switch to trainers and jet powered research aircraft, the aircraft themselves being distantly related to their Defiant fighter that they became known for during the war.
Variants
Boulton Paul P.105A– Two-seat torpedo bomber version of the P.105.
Boulton Paul P.105B– Two-seat reconnaissance version of the P.105. This version would have a glazed hull for the observer.
Boulton Paul P.105C– Single-seat Fighter version of the P.105.
Boulton Paul P.105 Dive bomber– Dive bomber version of the P.105. No designation was given to this design. (P.105D?)
Boulton Paul P.107– Land-based escort fighter derived from the P.105. The P.107 shared many design aspects with the P.105 but would remove features that would be needed for carrier use, such as the lack of folding wings. The P.107 would also have a turret and the tailplane would be switched to a double rudder design to accommodate the turret’s firing arc. Photo reconnaissance and fighter bomber versions of the P.107 are also mentioned.
Operators
Great Britain – Had they been built, the P.105 and P.107 would have been used by the Royal Fleet Air Arm, with a focus of being used in the Pacific Theatre aboard carriers and from land.