Tag Archives: Two Seater

Official classification tag

Stipa-Caproni

italian flag 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.

The unique design Stripa-Caproni experimental aircraft. Source: Wiki

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.

Luigi Stipa in his younger years. Source: Wiki

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.

The Stipa-Caproni prototype was used for testing during 1932 and 1933. Source: en.topwar.ru

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.

A close-up view of the Stipa-Caproni internal fuselage construction. The two larger wooden rings serve as a base to which wings and the cockpit would be attached. Source: www.thevintagenews.com

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.

A front view of the unusual engine installation. The engine itself was held in place by several metal bars. Source: Wiki
It was provided with a small and fixed three-wheel landing gear. Source: en.topwar.ru

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.

The Stipa-Caproni during one of many test flights. Source: www.historynet.com

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 design of the rear tail assembly proved somewhat problematic. Specifically, the elevator control was overly sensitive while the rudder was quite the opposite. Source: en.topwar.ru

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.

Stipa hoped that with more resources he would be able to test his principle on a much larger scale, but ultimately nothing came of it. Source: L. Stipa, Stipa Monoplane with Venturi Fuselage

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.

A smaller-scale replica was built and flight-tested in 2001. Source: www.uasvison.com

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:

 

 

 

Junkers J.I

German Empire (1917)

Reconnaissance and Infantry Liaison aircraft: 227 Built

Intro

The Junkers J.I represented a massive leap in aircraft design philosophy, while also being a truly exceptional combat airplane in its own right. Designed to fly close along the frontlines and support infantry operations, the J.I was uniquely capable thanks to its armor plated fuselage and duralumin construction. It was exceptionally durable, able to resist both machine gun fire and weather that kept its wood and canvas contemporaries grounded. As a reconnaissance, supply delivery, and ground harassment aircraft, the Junkers J.I was both the best of its day, and a sign of things to come.

Professor Junkers

Hugo Junkers holds a position of immense importance in aviation, being the creator of the all-metal airplane and the founder of one of history’s most famed airplane firms. Junkers himself was born in February of 1859 in the Rhineland Town of Rheydt, the third of eight children. He would not stay and work at the family textile company after leaving school, instead going on to study at the Universities of Berlin-Charlottenburg, Karlsruhe, and Aachen. He completed his studies in 1888, obtaining a degree as a Baumeister, or factory official, and entered the field of gas engine design in Wilhelm von Oechelhauser’s firm, the Deutsche Continental Gasgesellesschaft. In time, the two of them would go on to found a new joint venture, the Versuchsstation fur Gasmotoren von Oechelhaeuser und Junkers, a laboratory for gas engine development. His work at this laboratory would go on to see him develop the first opposed piston, two stroke engine, calorimeters for testing gasoline, and many smaller domestic appliances from gas stoves to water heaters. It was in 1895 that he founded Junkers and Co. in Dessau to manufacture these appliances, this venture also being the foundation for his later efforts in aviation.

Hugo Junkers circa 1920, following the end of the great war his firm built the first modern airliners. (wikimedia)

In 1897, he would both be made a Professor of Thermodynamics by the University of Aachen, and he would marry his wife Therese Bennhold. At the university, he was made head of the engineering laboratories, and founded his own workshop there to secure a place to continue his experiments. His work there would progress quickly from both his personal drive, and considerable funds from the patent revenue from the products he developed. This combination of experience with metalworking, a secure lab, and his considerable engineering talents, would see Prof. Junkers enter the field of aviation well equipped.

It was in 1910 that his colleague Prof. Hans Reissner would suggest he venture into the field of aviation, and the two would work together at the University of Aachen, building an experimental wind tunnel, and a very early all-metal airplane prototype. As these projects continued, he would go on to move all of his work to his own laboratory in Dessau. At this new lab, Dr. Junkers combined the experimental wind tunnel work from Aachen with his theories on aircraft design, notably, that of all-metal construction.

The Tin Donkey

Prior to the 1920’s the conventional materials and layout for airplane construction was a biplane made from wood, and skinned in fabric, with struts and bracing wires providing the structural support for the wings. Prof. Junkers felt that the inherently high parasite drag of biplanes, combined with the external supports, was a major handicap in aircraft design, and he believed that metal construction would completely revolutionize airplane development. Using a thick, rigid wing that was internally supported, the resultant aircraft would be aerodynamically cleaner, and the internal space within the wing could be used to store fuel or cargo.

His first major effort to build such an aircraft began near the end of 1914, as a privately funded venture with the assistance of the engineers Otto Reuter and Otto Mader. Initially, the project was funded by a large influx of cash from Junkers and Co., but they received Military support by June of 1915, and they were contracted by the Army to produce the new aircraft. Supplied with tooling and material’s from Dr. Junker’s own enterprise, they proceeded, and in four months they had built their plane.

 

The J.1 during its Army test flight. Despite their extremely similar designations the J.1 and J.I are completely different aircraft. (SDASM)

The Junkers J.1 was as revolutionary a design in airplane development as had been seen since the invention of the plane itself. It was a steel mono winged plane, and the first to feature cantilevered wings, which were spar-less and consisted of a steel framework welded to an inner, corrugated skin, over which it was skinned in smooth sheet steel. Aluminum alloys were sought after, but in the end, steel was all that was available. It proved to be an extremely sturdy, but also very heavy aircraft, weighing in at 1010 kg when set for takeoff. Beyond the original benefits Prof. Junkers envisioned for his new planes, the war, and the subsequent mass production of airplanes had shown there were more practical challenges in operating wood and fabric aircraft. As the number of airplanes increased, storage space became a premium, and canvas biplanes cannot be allowed to sit in poor weather lest their wooden frames and canvas skin become warped. Pilots in combat also soon discovered their greatest fear beyond the enemy’s guns, fire, which no matter how minor at first, often became a death sentence to anyone who’s plane began to burn. However, a metal aircraft with a canvas cover can sit in nearly any weather without issue, and a fire aboard such a plane isn’t liable to spread rapidly. A pilot could ditch his plane in most circumstances, saving him from a very grisly end.

The J.1 was taken to Doberitz where it would be tested by the Army, as Dessau lacked a proper airfield. Lt. Theodore von Mallinckrodt of the German Army would be the first to fly it, finding some novelty in a metal aircraft. Much of the test team was critical of the new plane, nicknamed the ‘tin donkey’, feeling that it would be too heavy to fly, and that it was suicide to fly a plane without bracing wires. Unbothered, the lieutenant began with short hops along the ground before the first full flight test in December. It flew well at first, but with harsh vibration being noted once the plane was brought to high speed. The Army team found the flight characteristics acceptable, but found that the wings had compressed the fuselage of the plane. They were also critical of its extremely low climb rate and lackluster turning performance, but all were impressed when the aircraft achieved a speed of 170 km/h in level flight, making it the fastest plane yet built. Even with its modest 120hp straight 6 Mercedes engine, its speed managed to impress ace pilot Oswald Bolcke who had a chance to inspect the aircraft the next year.

As an experimental aircraft, it was an undeniable success, having proven both that an all metal aircraft was well within the material restrictions of the time, and that massive reductions in drag were possible using this construction. The experimental plane was thus followed by a fighter aircraft, the Junkers J.2. Similar to, but far more refined than the ‘tin donkey’, the J.2 was the first all-metal fighter aircraft ever designed, but it was never accepted for service and the Idlfieg lost interest when it was clear certain performance metrics could not be met. As with the J.1, the fighter still used a 120hp engine, and with its smaller wings, it possessed even higher wing loading, as well as the sluggish climb rate of the experimental J.1. A new 160hp Mercedes engine also failed to bring the aircraft up to the necessary performance requirements.

 

The J2 featured some very modern design choices, including an underslung mid fuselage radiator. (Wikimedia)

However, the J.2 was not the only project of that year, as another design featuring new construction methods was also in the workshop through 1916. The Junkers J.3 would never be completed, but it was the first Junkers project to feature the famous corrugated duralumin skin. Given that it was still a fairly soft material, the bends in the skin would give it the necessary strength to not only act as lifting surfaces, but also structurally reinforce the entire structure by taking shear forces. It would also use a new tubular framework for the wings, built up around a set of stronger tubular spars. While this aircraft would never be finished, these new features would be carried over into the firm’s next design, which would prove to be its first major success.

Reconnaissance under fire

By the end of 1916, not only had the war on the Western front grown into a vicious battle for trench lines between an unsurvivable no man’s land, but aircraft had been proven to be an essential means of understanding the depth of this new and horrible form of warfare. Enemy trenches could only be surveyed from high ground, vulnerable to enemy fire, and the build up of forces were completely hidden from their traditional opponent, cavalry. Aerial reconnaissance thus became invaluable in mapping out labyrinthine trenchworks, finding the positions of enemy guns, and observing the movements of the enemy away from the front lines. Two-seater recon planes were adopted, and fighters were later developed to shoot them down and seize control of vital airspace, but through 1916 the offensive use of aircraft began in earnest. While a canvas biplane had no hope of attacking reinforced trench lines, unable to resist machine gun fire, they could attack enemy infantry at the foremost positions or as they moved through no-man’s land.

While Germany had employed ground attack squadrons in early 1916, it was the use of British infantry contact patrols using fighters and two-seaters through the battle of the Somme that spurred them to develop these tactics further. Moreover, they wanted specialized infantry harassment aircraft beyond their unmodified two-seater biplanes. Losses among these units were high, and the Idflieg, or the Inspector of Aviation forces, produced specifications for a specialized Infantry aircraft. This new plane was to be equipped with armor plate which would enclose the pilot, gunner, engine, and fuel stores with a minimum thickness of 5mm. They were also given a low minimum ceiling of 1500 meters, given they were designed for ground attack and low level reconnaissance. To make a note, this series was designated the I-type, but given the older German writing of I, it appeared as a J, and this series has subsequently been noted as the J type ever since.

The Halberstadt CL.II was built for reconnaissance and ground attack, though its wooden construction left it vulnerable to ground fire. (The Great War Channel)

Albatros and AEG both promised armored versions of their successful C.XII and C.IV models respectively, but Junkers approached the specification with a new concept entirely. While he was forced to build a biplane according to the Idflieg’s specifications, he was still granted considerable leeway with the design. Junkers himself would not be as hands on with this project as he had been the J.1 .2 and .3, over its necessity of being a biplane, so instead he elected to put the project in the hands of a team of engineers. The design of the Junkers J 4, would be managed by Dr-Ing Otto Mader, along with teams headed by the engineers Otto Reuter, Hans Steudel, and Franz Brandenburg.

While it was a biplane, the new aircraft still drew from the experiences and design philosophy of previous projects. Its wings featured corrugated duralumin skin over the multi-sparred, tubular duralumin framework and were in a sesquiplane arrangement, with the lower wing being significantly smaller in length and chord than top. They were connected by an inner set of struts, but being self supporting, they needed no bracing wires. Its armor protection was comprehensive, half of the fuselage consisted of an octagonal steel compartment which contained the engine, pilot, gunner, and fuel. Rear of this armored section was a tubular frame which ended with a conventional tail section. Unlike Junkers’ earlier underpowered efforts, this new plane was equipped with a significantly more powerful 200hp Benz B.IVa straight six engine. This model was among the more powerful aviation engines in German service, excluding those built for airships.

The massive Junkers J.I featured heavy armor protection and structurally redundant wings, it was exceptionally resistant to small arms fire. (SDASM)

Three prototypes were ordered on November 3rd 1916, and delivered the following January as J.425/17, 426/17, and 427/17. On the 28th, one prototype with the 200hp Benz IVa was flown by German officer Arved von Schmidt without armor plate for testing. Taking off from snow 20 cm deep, Schmitt took the plane up to 250 meters and reached a speed of 155 km/h, finding that the aircraft was stable, if tail heavy. The demonstration was impressive enough to get an order for 100 planes on February 19, 1917. The Junkers J 4 was thus accepted into service as the Junkers J.I, under the German Air Service’s designation system. Some minor changes before mass production included a redesigned vertical stabilizer, overhung balanced ailerons, and a balanced rudder.

Given that the workshops at Dessau had yet to receive an order for a mass produced aircraft, building the new planes at a fast enough rate proved difficult. There were two major challenges, first was that while Prof. Junkers was a brilliant inventor, he and his firm were fairly inexperienced when it came to aircraft production, and second, given that this was the first mass produced-all metal aircraft, the methods of mass producing an all metal plane would be learned with it. The Army foresaw this becoming an issue and brought in Anthony Fokker, a master in aircraft production, in order to set up an aircraft factory alongside Junker and Co. in Dessau. The new Junkers Fokker Werke AG. was thus established to build a completely new production line for planes, as subcontractors could not be used to build components, as was the case for wooden planes. The arrangement worked well, with Junkers and Co. engaged in the experimental work and providing designs, while JFA handled the job of meeting the production orders, which in total amounted to 350 planes. In spite of the new facilities, bottlenecking, and the loss of one of the armor plate manufacturers to flooding, would restrict the number of planes built to far below this number.

The Flying Tank

The first J.I to see service was the first off the production line, no. 100/17, which was sent to the front in August of 1917 where it served with the Flieger-Abteilug 19. On one of its first missions, the unit commander flew the plane on a low altitude recon mission near Ypres, Belgium, and found that the plane was not only faster and better handling than the Albatros and AEG J types, but that he had received 11 hits to his aircraft, without issue. FA-19 continued to fly the aircraft, and on one occasion on September 23, 100/17 was hit 85 times, without suffering serious damage.

 

By October, the unit had accumulated enough experience to give an account on using the aircraft. In addition to its excellent protection from bullets and shrapnel, the plane could be flown confidently in weather that kept all others grounded, and it had an excellent glide ratio, which meant that in the event of engine failure, a pilot could still glide his plane back over to friendly lines and evade capture. However, it also required a long take off run and it had a higher landing speed than most aircraft. Luckily, these were issues that could be solved by instruction from more experienced pilots, and practice. Overall, the Junkers J.I proved to be an excellent aircraft from the appraisal of FA 19.

After its front line trials with FA 19, the Junkers J.I would begin to be distributed to the Schutzenstaffel, or protection flight units, whose job was to patrol the area between the opposing trench lines. This entailed a variety of missions from escorting two-seater recon aircraft to ground attack missions, with each unit consisting of some sixty seven men and six planes. Up until 1918, this role was filled by more versatile two seater aircraft like the Halberstadt CL.II, but come the winter of 1917, a small number of armored J type planes were entering service with them. This included four Junkers J.Is issued to the Schusta in December of 1917, a number which would grow to sixty by August of the following year, alongside 186 armored planes of other manufacturers. The nature of this change was revealed more fully when the Schusta were redesigned Schlachtstaffel, or attack flights, during the March offensive, as their escort role was dropped.

The Junkers J.I was used as a support aircraft whose role was primarily reconnaissance and infantry liaison work. The rear seat was equipped with a 7.62mm machine gun, and occasionally a 20mm Becker auto cannon in service, but ground attack was a secondary use of the aircraft. Its most important job was to survey areas of the battlefield that were in contention, to take photographs of bottlenecks in the terrain, or send reports of urgent developments directly to divisional HQ’s via wireless telegraph. First and foremost, the mission of J.I crews was to assist in communicating the state of the changing battlefield, an important task as in the spring of 1918 the war was again entering a mobile phase. Likewise, messages were also delivered from the HQ to the frontlines, as the telegraph wires were easily knocked out by artillery fire. Aircraft were directed by signalers, attached to infantry brigades, by the use of flares, lamps, and fabric strips to mark the position of friendly forces and enemy positions. Working with the signallers, the J.I’s crews could deliver messages to forward commanders from their headquarters, as well as supplies, like food and ammunition, to difficult to reach frontline positions.

A J.I crew prepares to drop canned food, water, and bread to a forward unit, an often overlooked task. While supply runners may not have been able to reach certain positions in daylight, crews like these could drop supplies from behind their aircraft’s armor plate. (SDASM)

In an offensive role, the most powerful tool accorded to the plane was its radio, which could be used to direct artillery, and could also be used to direct the plane to tenuous areas of the frontline to render support directly. While it was typically the job of the Schlachtstaffel to render support near friendly forces, and harass traffic behind the enemy lines, the lack of a bomb load and a standardized forward gun arrangement meant the offensive capabilities of the Junkers J.I were quite limited. The observer/gunner could engage using the mounted machine gun, but they were totally overshadowed by the lighter, unarmored two-seaters, which carried nose mounted guns and could be fitted with bomb racks.

In service, crews rendered excellent service with these aircraft, and many swore by them. One Lieutenant Wagner of Flieger Abteilung 268 flew a mission on March 28th, at an altitude of 80m over the front. During the mission, his observer was wounded, and his own helmet was shot through, but his plane, No. 128 received over 100 hits which did nothing to impede it. The Leutenant was amazed by this, as he’d overflown the enemy trenches, something that would have been suicidal in nearly any other aircraft. These encounters were fairly frequent, as one of the main tasks of the Junkers J.I units was to overfly the enemy trenches and locate the position and size of enemy reserves.

 

Ground crew maneuver a J.I in a photo for publication. (Wingnut Wings)

The Junkers J.I was considered totally unsuitable in aerial combat, given its low speed and ponderous maneuverability. Though, there is one known encounter between an American fighter and a Junkers J.I, which might very well be the only air engagement with the rare armored scout. Major Charles Biddle of the USAS 103rd Squadron, was flying his Spad XIII on May 15, 1918. While returning towards his side of the lines, after a weapon malfunction ruined an interception of a German recon plane, he encountered a ‘peculiar two seater’. Coming down to take a look, it lacked the hallmarks of most German planes of its type, but its unmistakable crosses marked it as an enemy plane. He also noted its extremely low speed, calling it ‘the slowest bus you ever saw’ and remarked he made two miles for its one. The Major dove on the plane and took up position fifty yards below its tail, then he made a mistake. He pulled up to take a shot at the Junkers, but he had misjudged the distance and ended up in the propeller wash of the German two-seater, shaking his aircraft and throwing off his aim. He dove to escape the view of the enemy gunner, but now was underneath his target. The German pilot then began to turn to bring the Spad into view of his gunner, and after several swerves to try to shake the American from beneath his plane, he succeeded. Now out of the Junker’s blind spot, Major Biddle was now the target of the gunner who, and in the words of the Major himself found himself in the crosshairs of “some of the quickest and most accurate bit of shooting that I had come up against”. The shot put a hole through the Spad’s radial engine and into Biddle’s left leg above the knee. He dove, to escape the gunner and head for friendly lines, wounded and with his engine failing. He landed in a field of shell craters, his plane turning over, in a fortunately escapable wreck. Major Biddle was likely the opponent of pilot Feldwebel Ernst Schafer, and Lieutenant Wilhelm Paul Schriber of Flieger Abteilung (A) 221, who subsequently overflew the plane and took photographs of their victory.

Construction

The all metal Junkers J.I used duralumin and steel for nearly everything but the engine braces and rear fuselage skin. (Peter M. Bowers via Fredrick Johnson)

The Junkers J.I was an all metal aircraft built from nickel-steel and duralumin. The forward fuselage was an octagonal compartment built from steel with an armor thickness of 5mm, though late production aircraft used a thickness of 3.5mm for their sides, and 6mm for the rear. The armor was impervious to small arms fire, and enabled the aircraft to overfly enemy trench lines at low altitude. The entire forward fuselage was built up around four large duralumin longerons, and joined to the rearward section, which had a tubular construction. The rear section was skinned with fabric, though the tail section was of duralumin construction with the rudder initially being fabric skinned, before it too was changed to corrugated duralumin later in production. Some very late examples of this aircraft had a corrugated aluminum skin over the rear fuselage, though these do not seem to have been delivered to the Army. The fuselage was joined to the wings by a series of steel tubes covered with protective aluminum fairings, and sat atop the lower wing. The undercarriage of the aircraft featured a conventional construction of two vees, connected to the axle through a shock absorber. The axel was a steel tube 9ft long, with it and the other structural elements being covered by aluminum fairings. The tail skid was of a simple wood construction.

 

The armored fuselage was manufactured at the Dillinger Panzerwerk from high tempered steel. (Flight)

The aircraft had a sesquiplane wing configuration with the upper wing having a span approximately 38% longer than the lower. The fine details are disputed, but the upper wing had a span of some 16m and a chord of 2.50/2.25m, the lower a span of some 6m and a chord of 1.50/1.08. The upper wing had a set of balanced, hanging ailerons. Both the upper and lower wings were built in three sections, consisting of an inner panel which was attached via steel tube struts to the fuselage, and two outer panels. The wings were built around multiple tubular spars made from 40mm tubular duralumin, with the upper wing possessing ten, the lower only five. These spars ran the length of the wing and were connected to a number of steel brackets which connected them to a framework of smaller tubes, which joined the spars and stiffened the wing. This design gave the wing both incredible strength, which needed no structural struts or bracing wires, and was extremely resilient to gun fire, as only when many of the brackets or spars were damaged would the wing become compromised. The wings were skinned in .3mm duralumin sheets which were corrugated to strengthen them, as the duralumin alloy was very soft, and was used as a structural element of the wing which bore shear forces. One aircraft, no. 749/18, was equipped with long span upper wings to lower the take off run of the aircraft, the modification did not make it into production.

 

The upper wing had ten tubular spars, not counting the aileron rod, and damage to any one of them was mitigated by others and the web of brackets through the wing. (Flight)

The control system of the aircraft also represented another departure from the conventional methods, eschewing the traditional wire control system for a more resilient push-rod system. The control systems were a duralumin stick and foot pedals for the rudders. The ailerons spanned the entirety of the outer wing panels and were connected to an aileron tube which ran parallel with the structural spars, which was articulated by linkages to the central control stick. The elevators had exterior stranded wires, which were articulated by the push rod system within the fuselage of the aircraft. The rudder operated much the same way. The cockpit furnishings were basic and the instrumentation consisted of a tachometer and fuel gauge, with a compass mounted on the wing.

The Junkers J.I was equipped with a 200 hp straight 6, Benz IVa engine. The similar 230 hp model had a dry weight of 370kg, a bore of 145mm, a stroke of 190mm, and a compression ratio of 4.91:1. It measured 1,990mm long, had a width of 530mm, and was 1150mm tall. It was water cooled, with the radiator mounted above the engine along the upper wing, its slats controlled by means of a lever above the cockpit. The fuel tank was a 98 liter seat-tank which took the place of the pilot’s typically wicker chair. It was made of sheet brass and had a channel through the back for the control rods for the tail section of the aircraft. It was divided into two sections so that a single bullet hole wouldn’t drain the entire tank. A pump drew fuel from this tank and delivered it to the gravity feed tank in the upper wing, if the pump broke the system could be driven by hand. A 38 liter oil tank was located behind the instrument panel. The engine was fitted with a 2.9m wooden propeller with a pitch of 1.9m. They were manufactured by Axial-Propeller Werke of Berlin and were issued with prop-spinners. The engine bay had two articulated panels which swung rearward to allow easy access to the Benz IVa engine, which was mounted atop two wooden engine bearers made from solid ash.

 

A Telefunken radio set, amplifier, and assorted gear. (stone vintage radio)

The plane could carry a variety of equipment for its missions, though these were mostly commonly a camera, and a wireless telegraph set. The observer, who was also the commander of the aircraft, operated both of these. The camera was a separate piece of equipment carried into and out of the aircraft by the observer and set within a built-in mount. This was set in the fuselage behind the armored section and accessible through a sliding sheet metal panel. The telegraph set was installed within the armored fuselage. Built by Telefunken, the W.T. was standardized across the service. It consisted of a sturdy, protected case and a 37 m aerial, with the alternative Huth made transmitter having a 38 m length.

In regular service, the aircraft carried no forward mounting weapons and carried only a rear mounted gun within a swivel mount, which was set within a turning wheel around the observer’s seat. This allowed him to traverse the gun 180 degrees and take aim at targets above and below the aircraft. This was a largely defensive weapon, but could also be used in a limited anti-infantry role. The gun was either a parabellum MG 14 or, more rarely, a Becker 20 mm autocannon.

 

An observer with an MG 14. Like the British Vickers gun, it was a redesigned Maxim variant that reduced the size of the weapon significantly. (airwar.ru)

The MG 14 was a 7.62mm machine gun derived from the common MG 08 in service with the German army. However, it was much more compact as the toggle-lock mechanism was reversed to a downwards action, it used an internal spring, and the ejection system was made to drop casings out the bottom of the receiver rather than the front. The result was that the receiver was narrower and slimmer compared to the more cumbersome infantry machine gun. They were also equipped with a buttsock and pistol grip, with some examples being equipped with an Oigee magnified reflector gunsight. The water cooling system was not used, and the jacket was perforated to reduce weight. The gun was fed from a cloth ammunition belt which was spooled within a metal drum, with one carried on the weapon and two in reserve. It had an adjustable rate of fire between 600-700 rounds per minute. An experimental armament of two fixed, downward facing machine guns for trench strafing was installed on one aircraft, but was not used in service.

A very advanced weapon for its day, the Becker autocannon would go on to influence the development of the 20mm Oerlikon gun. (mnemonic-shapeways)

The 2cm Becker autocannon was a powerful, if cumbersome weapon. It operated on API blowback and was loaded with ten and fifteen round box magazines. Ammunition loads could consist of solid shot or high explosive shells, which could prove absolutely devastating against canvas biplanes and effective at harassing infantry. It did however have a relatively low muzzle velocity of 490m/s and a slow rate of fire, between 250 and 300 rpm, depending on the manufacturer. These were installed aboard a few Junkers J.Is, but the machine gun armament was far more common.

Each plane came with a repair kit for surface damage and the following spare parts: 1 undercarriage axle, 2 spare wheels without tires, 1 tail skid with spring, 1 complete set of structural struts and associated connecting parts, 2 trestles, 1 lifting jack, 1 set of tools, and riveting materials.

Flying and Servicing

The Junkers J.I was a ponderous, but steady aircraft to fly. Its top speed was decent for a two-seater, at 145 km/h, but its climb rate was extremely low. It took 77 minutes to reach 3km, though in service it typically operated below 1km, which only took 12 minutes to reach. Coupled with its wide turning circle, the plane earned itself nicknames like the flying ‘Tank’ or ‘Mobelwagen’, or translated, moving van. Given its low speed, it was typically given escorts. Its controls were responsive, though were different enough from its contemporaries to need some practice getting used to. The stick for instance could become shaky and uncomfortable to use if inputs were harsh and jerky. Its landing speed was also notably high, and it required a longer run for take off and landing, preferably made on compacted ground. These issues aside, most pilots were fairly confident in the aircraft, and when flown it was a very stable, especially in the wind and rain, which kept everything else grounded.

 

The Junkers J.I was often a difficult adjustment for pilots, though its stable handling characteristics and robust construction made for a safe re-learning period. (Wingnut Wings)

Crewmen were also very appreciative of the incredible amount of protection the aircraft afforded, allowing missions that would have otherwise been considered suicidal to be completed with a high level of confidence. Not only were all of the critical components of the aircraft all located within a nearly impervious armored compartment, but the wings were extremely durable and unlikely to fail even when struck continuously by machine gun fire. Perhaps best of all, the risk of fire damage was extremely low, and the fire resistant construction would give the pilot time to set the plane down. When all else did fail, and the engine gave out, the aircraft had a good glide ratio, and despite its weight, it could travel some distance without power, allowing the crew to cross back to friendly lines, or look for a safe place to ditch. Overall, the Junkers J.I was in all likelihood, the most durable aircraft to see action during the Great War, and certainly the best of the armored J type aircraft in service with the German Luftstreitkrafte. In the end, only one confirmed combat loss was noted in over its one year of service, performing one of the most dangerous missions.

 

A high landing speed and a need for compact ground meant that numerous J.I’s that  were taken out of action in accidents like these. Few were serious and the planes were typically sent back to depots for repair. (Wingnut Wings)

Its metal construction also gave a number of advantages in the field. Most convenient of all was the fact that it could be stored outside in bad weather. While wood and canvas could not be allowed to stay wet and needed shelter from the rain, a Junkers J.I only needed to have its engine and crew compartments covered. The plane was also designed from the outset to be easily transportable, the wings, tail section, and struts could be easily decoupled and placed alongside the fuselage, allowing it to easily fit in a railcar or trailer. The lack of bracing wires made this easy, and also removed a great deal of the maintenance work. Basic repair tasks were fairly simple, and every plane came with a patching kit that made combat repairs easy, but specialized training was needed for larger components. Extensive repairs usually required the planes to be sent to depots where specialists could work on them, and was usually done in the case of extensive damage to the wings or fuselage. Larger single-piece components, like the struts, were simply replaced with spares if damaged.

Conclusion

The Junkers J.I proved to be a pivotal design in airplane development, as it not only introduced to the world a mass produced all-metal plane, but it also incorporated so many other innovations, such as its cantilevered wings and use of corrugated duralumin. They would provide a practically indestructible plane to what would have been very vulnerable crews, and in the years to come, these features would put Junkers well ahead in the civil air industry.

Junkers J.I
Engine Benz BIVa
Engine Maximum Output 200hp
Empty Weight 1766kg
Combat Load 410kg
Maximum Speed 155 m/h
Combat Ceiling 3km (operational)
Armament 1xMG 14 or 1 x 2 cm Becker Autocannon
Crew 1x observer 1x pilot
Length 9.20m
Height 3.45m
Wingspan 16m
Wing Area 50.84m

Illustrations

J.100/17 was the first to enter service with the Army testing it in frontline use in the Autumn of 1917.
As the Junkers armored planes began to enter more widespread service, crews began to fashion their own camouflage schemes. Mauve stripes became a fairly common pattern among these aircraft. Flieger-Abteilung 17, 1918.
Late production aircraft had their fabric skinned vertical stabilizers and tail sections replaced with duralumin sheeting. The fabric sections of the aircraft often went unpainted, and left in the dyed lozenge camo patterns it was delivered with. Unknown unit, based at Villiers de Chevres, 1918.

Credits

Written and edited by Henry H.

Illustrated by Arte Belico

Sources

Primary:

Instruction Manual for Junk. J. I Armored Biplane. Junkers-Fokker-Werke A.G. Dessau. Translated and reproduced in Flight The Aircraft Engineer & Airships Vol. 12. 1920.

Report on the Junker (sic) Armoured Two Seater Biplane, Type J.1*. Ministry of Munitions. Reproduced in Flight The Aircraft Engineer & Airships Vol. 12. 1920.

Secondary:

Junkers Aircraft of WWI Vol 1 Junkers J.1-J.4. Owens, Colin A. Aeronaut Books. 2018.

Junkers J.I. Grosz PM. Albatros Productions. 1993.

Junkers 52 A History 1930-1945. Forsyth, Robert & Creek, Eddie J. Crecy Publishing 2014.

German Observer’s Guns. Woodman, Harry. Albatros Productions 2001.

German Air Forces 1914-1918. Sumner, Ian. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2005.

AGO S.I

German Empire (1918)

Armored Ground Attack Aircraft [2 Built]

One of the two AGO S.I, this would be one of the first dedicated “tank busting” aircraft built. (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

The AGO S.I was an armored, heavily armed ground attack aircraft designed to fill the requirement for the German Luftstreitkräfte  their S type plane; a dedicated anti-tank ground attack aircraft. Before the end of the war, two of the type were produced, but the war would end before production could begin, nor did the prototypes see service. The aircraft featured a downward facing 20mm Becker cannon which it would use against the thinly armored roofs of tanks.

Tank Troubles and the Search for a Solution

The introduction of the tank in 1916 was a turning point for all modern warfare. The use of the machines to break through barbed wire and enemy trench lines proved itself effective, and as the war dragged on, the number of tanks increased year over year. Germany would use infantry based special weapons such as armor piercing K-bullets in rifles and machine guns, the heavy Tankgewehr m1918 rifle, or artillery bombardment to stop the metal monsters. The Germans would show hesitation in producing their own tanks due to resistance from the German High Command and a lack of industry to produce them in large numbers, but would eventually do so with the Sturmpanzerwagen A7V. The type however, would prove to be riddled with flaws that rendered it able to do little to counter the allied tank numbers. In addition, the A7V would only arrive in 1918, the last year of the war.

A 20mm Becker cannon mounted to the side of an Albatros J.I armored aircraft. This weapon would begin being carried by aircraft late in the war, and was required to be mounted on the S type aircraft. The Becker is known for being the basis of the famous 20mm Oerlikon cannon. (Albatros Aircraft of WWI Volume 3)

Aircraft were never used in a major role to destroy tanks during the war, but the two would encounter each other nonetheless, with German aircraft able to score several victories against them. There seemed to be little interest by the Idflieg in developing aircraft or aerial weapons to be deployed specifically against tanks for the majority of the war, until around the start of 1918. The Idflieg would designate a new type of aircraft, the S type, for a dedicated aircraft meant for ground attack and destroying tanks. The S type anti-tank aircraft was meant to be an armored aircraft with a requirement to mount the 20mm Becker automatic cannon. Armored aircraft themselves weren’t something new within the German Empire, as they were categorized under the J type. These were dedicated armored aircraft and were in use operationally by this point of the war. Some examples included the AEG J.I and Junkers J.I. The Becker Cannon was also in production and had been mounted on various aircraft by this time, mostly by twin engined G types but there were ongoing developments to put the weapon onto a single engine aircraft. The Albatros J.I was one such aircraft and a number would have the cannon mounted on a pintle on the side of the craft, but crews found the weapon placement and pintle mount made the weapon hard to operate and aim. Eventually it was found that this weapon could be most effectively mounted on a single engine aircraft by being placed at an angle inside the hull to fire downward towards the ground. The cannon would be placed this way on the new S types, where it could fire at the thin roofs of tanks. One would think that manufacturers familiar with designing armored aircraft would rise to the occasion, such as Junkers who were at the forefront of developing metal skinned aircraft, or AEG who were producing operational armored aircraft, but surprisingly, it was the the smaller company of AGO that proceeded with developing the only an S type aircraft, and complete it.

The AGO S.I

An example of an AGO C.IV. While this aircraft was AGO’s most produced, it was not liked by its crews due to flight handling and issues with the fuselage. (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

AGO Flugzeugwerke was a smaller aircraft manufacturing company in Germany that had found moderate success with its two-seater C type aircraft. The company was known for its C.I, which was the only mass produced single-engine pusher aircraft deployed by Germany in the war, and later, by the C.IV, its most successful aircraft. The C.IV was their most produced aircraft during the war, and the fastest C type at the time of its introduction thanks to its tapered wings, with over 70 being used operationally. Its moderate success however, was overshadowed by a hatred of it by its crews due to issues with its handling and problems arising with the constriction of the fuselage. This disdain for the aircraft would eventually lead to it being removed from service and its production being canceled around September of 1917. Despite this, the company had continued developing their C type aircraft line until 1916. While the S type was a two seater, AGO appears to have no experience with developing an armored aircraft, as all of their previous aircraft were of simple wooden and fabric construction. Development on their own S.I likely began around the time of the creation of the S nomenclature. A patent for the aircraft’s design was filed in July of 1918, showcasing how it’s seating and armor were laid out for the pilot and gunner. Details regarding its development are extremely lacking but it is known that two S.I aircraft were completed by October of 1918. The design was a rather large single-engine aircraft with a boxy fuselage, a consequence of its armor layout. The Becker cannon is known to have never been mounted on the aircraft but accommodations in the design were made, most apparent is the lack of an axle between the wheels. This was done to allow the hull mounted cannon to fire unobstructed. Despite this being done for the cannon, the removal of the axle was almost unseen in this era of aircraft and would become a standard design aspect in the postwar years as aircraft design streamlined. Due to its completion so close to the war’s end, it rarely flew and its performance went undocumented. All development of this aircraft was abruptly brought to a halt a month after the two aircraft were completed due to the war’s end on November 11th. With the signing of the Armistice, all combat aircraft were ordered to be destroyed or transferred, and this is without a doubt the former is the fate the two S.Is met. No further development of the type was allowed after this. The S.I was the last aircraft project AGO would work on before the end of the war.

 

Direct frontal view of the AGO S.I (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

Design

The AGO S.I was a conventional biplane designed to fill the role for the S type aircraft. While its specifications aren’t known, the size of the aircraft is evident in the photos that exist that the aircraft was quite large for a single engine aircraft. The fuselage was armored, evident via the angled shape of it. This was done to protect the aircraft in its low level attack runs on the enemy, and would offer protection against small arms fire. According to the patent, the armor was focused in the nose section, surrounding the engine, pilot and gunner positions. An armored plate separated the pilot and gunner’s positions at an angle to accommodate the 20mm cannon. The rear of the fuselage tapered into the tailplane. The two bay wings of the aircraft were large and rectangular in shape. Each bay had two wires going across. Control surfaces of the aircraft were standard, with a large rudder at the back, conventional elevators, and ailerons on the upper wing. At the front was a 260hp (194kW ) Basse und Selve BuS.IV 6-cylinder inline engine that drove a wooden two-blade propeller. This type of engine was often found on larger G type aircraft but the S.I likely had them to bring the heavily armored aircraft into the air. The aircraft would have a fixed landing gear located beneath around where the pilot sat. The aircraft had the unique distinction of having no axle, a feature virtually unseen in aircraft of the era. This was done to allow the hull mounted cannon to fire without having the axle obstructing it. For the extra support, three struts connected each landing gear to the aircraft. Each landing gear had one rubber wheel. At the tail end of the aircraft was a landing skid.

The patent for the armor and gun position in the S.I (Otto, AGO and BFW Aircraft of WWI)

For its armament, the Ago S.I was to have two machine guns; one mounted in the rear for the gunner to use on a flexible mount to fire around the aircraft, and another was likely to be mounted forward for the pilot to use at the front. The centerpiece of the armament was a 20mm Becker Cannon. The cannon would be mounted in the center of the fuselage, directly underneath where the pilot would sit. To fire the gun, the gunner would sit down into the fuselage at a dedicated firing seat in the hull. From here he could operate the weapon and aim at tanks beneath the aircraft.

Conclusion

The AGO S.I was developed too late to see combat and with its performance being unknown its would-be impact on enemy tanks is likewise unknown. Despite this, it represents one of the very first instances of an aircraft built with the destruction of enemy armor in mind, a role that would continue to develop into the Second World War, with aircraft like the Henschel Hs 129, Ilyushin Il-2, and further even until today with the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Interestingly, a month before the two S.Is were completed, 20 of the aforementioned AEG J.II armored aircraft would be delivered with the Becker Cannon mounted in their hull similar to how it would be in the S.I for use against tanks. It is not known whether these aircraft saw combat or how they performed with the modifications.

Although the effectiveness of tank busting aircraft of WW2 has been debated in recent years, the AGO S.I would have several benefits going for it during the First World War. The tanks of this era were slow, and the Mark V tanks the S.I would no doubt encounter would have a top speed of 5mph, making the tanks a fairly easy target for S types. The Mark V also had considerably less armor then later tanks, with a meager 8mm of armor plate for the roofs, making these vehicles easier to damage if the aircraft’s gunner managed to hit it. However, being able to hit tanks was still quite a difficult task to accomplish, and with performance figures not currently being known for the S.I, it can only be debated as to how well it would perform its role.

After being shut down in 1919, AGO Flugzeugwerke would be brought back by the Nazi Government and would produce aircraft once more. The AGO Ao 192 seen here is one of the few original products the company would produce.

AGO Flugzeugwerke would only survive for less then a year after the First World War, its founder attempting to instead shift their production into automobiles, but they would not find success and would close the production facilities down. Despite this, two decades later the Nazi government would reconstitute AGO for aircraft production once more in 1934, and would bring the company back to life. They would mostly produce aircraft from other companies in preparation for the encroaching war, but AGO would have their own design bureau and would work on a select number of their own designs, like the AGO Ao 192 twin engine transport plane.

Variants

 

  • AGO S.I – Armored two-bay biplane design with an armored fuselage and a focus on attacking enemy armor. It was equipped with 2x machineguns and 1 20mm Becker Cannon. 2 built

 

Operators

 

  • German Empire – The AGO S.I was meant to serve the Reichsluftkreite in a ground attack & tank destroying role but arrived too late to see service in the war.

AGO S.I Specifications

Engine 1x 260 hp ( 194kW ) Basse und Selve BuS.IV 6-cylinder inline engine
Propeller 1x 2-blade wooden propeller
Crew 1 Pilot

1 Gunner

Armament
  • 1x 20mm Becker Cannon
  • 2x machine guns (1 forward, 1 rear mounted)

Gallery

Sources

Herris, Jack. Otto, AGO, and BFW Aircraft of WWI: A. 2019.

Weird Wings of WWI: Adventures in Early Combat Aircraft Development. 2023.

Herris, Jack. Development of German Warplanes in WWI: A Centennial Perspective on Great War Airplanes and Seaplanes. 2012.

B. David, Sturmpanzerwagen A7V.https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/germany/sturmpanzerwagen_a7v.php

Stiltzkin. Effectiveness of Tactical Air Strikes in World War II – “Tank busting”. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/articles/tactics/tank-busting-ww2.php

 

LWF Model G

sweden flag USA (1918)
Multirole Aircraft – 3 Built

A side view of the LWF Model G-2. The firepower of the aircraft is evident, as the two of the four forward facing aircraft are visible near the engine, the double mount for the gunner, and beneath that the ventral gun is protruding. [US National Archives]
The LWF Model G was a multi-purpose two-man aircraft designed by LWF in 1918. While it was originally designed as a reconnaissance plane, it was redesigned to be equipped as a heavy fighter or bomber. Two aircraft were built for the United States Army Air Services for evaluation, where the craft reached 138 mph in its fighter loadout whilst carrying seven 7.62mm guns. Both prototypes would unfortunately crash, and with the First World War over, the Army Air Service no longer needed the aircraft. After the war, a third Model G was built as a mailplane.

History

The L.W.F. Engineering Company was an American aircraft manufacturer founded in 1915 by Edward Lowe Jr, Charles F. Willard, and Robert G. Fowler, with the company name being an acronym of their last names. The three had worked in the aviation industry before forming the company, with each using the experience they had learned to contribute to the company’s designs. In particular, the company was well known for its laminated wood, monocoque fuselages. Their first commercial product would be the LWF Model V, a two-seat reconnaissance/trainer aircraft for the United States Army Air Service. This would be their most popular aircraft, with over 100 being built before the end of the war. LWF would further experiment with the Model V, creating an improved prototype called the Model F. The Model F would replace the 135 hp (100 kW) Thomas-Morse engine of the Model V with a powerful 350 hp (261 kW) Liberty L-12 engine. This is claimed to be the first aircraft in the world to fly with a Liberty engine. The success of the Model F would inspire a successor design also using the Liberty engine, the Model G.


A pilot of the Model G-2 poses in front of the aircraft. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
The LWF Model G was drawn up in late 1917 as a high-speed reconnaissance/training plane using the aforementioned Liberty engine. It would bear a strong resemblance to the Model F, only differing in length and a few minor details. The first Model G aircraft was built in early January of 1918. On January 16th, the aircraft would take flight for the first time. The flight would start smoothly after takeoff but with a strong wind the aircraft was forced into a loop and entered into a tailspin, crashing into the ground and being completely destroyed. A second prototype would be constructed not long after the destruction of the first. This new prototype would be known as the Model G-1. The G-1 improved greatly upon the standard G model, but had more than its original reconnaissance and training role in mind. Instead of being solely a reconnaissance plane, the G-1 was envisioned as a capable two-seat fighter and light bomber. Each of the different configurations differed in terms of what they carried, whether it be weapons, bombs or extra armor. The G-1 was completed and flying by the summer of 1918, and its performance was superb. Test flights were done numerous times in front of both military and government officials to demonstrate the engine and its performance. By this point the Liberty engine had been upgraded to have 435hp (324.3 kW). Thanks to its more powerful Liberty engine, it was able to achieve incredible feats. In its fighter configuration, it was to carry an impressive armament of seven 7.62 machine guns. During a test flight, the aircraft was able to achieve a speed of 128mph (206 km/h) while carrying all of its weapons, fuel, and crew. In its bomber configuration, it would carry the same amount of guns, as well as additional armor and bomb racks.


The LFW Model F in flight, the predecessor to the Model G. Overall the two aircraft looked similar. [US National Archives]
Testing of the Model G-1 continued into late summer, when it was reworked into the Model G-2. The G-2 had several modifications to increase performance and handling. The control surfaces were fixed to be more balanced, and the ribs of the wings were doubled to improve structural stability. The improved design is noted as performing significantly better than the G-1. During a fully loaded flight , the improved Model G-2 went 10mph faster than the G-1, clocking in at 138mph. In comparison, the French Spad XIII fighter, one of the most highest performing production aircraft of the war, had the exact same top speed of 138mph (222 km/h) as the Model G-2, and it was a considerably lighter aircraft with only two machine guns. Testing of the G-2 continued through 1918 and showed excellent results. The aircraft was trialed in all three configurations and performance was recorded for each. On November 11th, the First World War came to an end. Despite there being no need for a fighter like the Model G, the type was still tested. A week after the end of hostilities, November 18th, the Model G-2 took off again. The aircraft however had taken off in dense fog, making visibility difficult. Due to the fog, the G-2 would crash and be totally destroyed. With the war over and both military prototypes destroyed, the pursuit of the Model G as a combat aircraft was over and LWF instead focused on the now-growing civilian market. There is mention on a photograph of the Model G-2 that an order for 600 of the aircraft was put out by the Army Air Service, but there is no mention of this in other sources. No production aircraft were built outside of the two military prototypes.

The mail-plane version of the Model G in 1919. Note the lack of armament and four bladed propeller. [US National Archives]
In 1919, a 3rd Model G was built as a mailplane. Little is known regarding this aircraft outside of a single photo. In the photo, which is dated April of 1919, long after both of the previous aircraft had crashed, an unarmed Model G is depicted. What is interesting about this version is that it had a four-bladed wooden propeller, whereas the previous models only had a two blade. Converting the Model G from a combat aircraft to a mailplane was a logical evolution. The Liberty engine would allow it to make quicker deliveries than its contemporaries, and it was able to carry up to 1,200 Ib (544.3 Kg) of cargo. Despite this advantage, only a single example was built. The fate of the mailplane is unknown, but it was likely scrapped years later once service was done, hopefully not meeting the same fate as the previous two Model Gs. No more work was done on the aircraft after the mailplane was finished.

Design


Complimentary image to the gunner showing the elevation, here the depression is shown. Note the ventral gun pointed straight down. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]

Two of the forward facing guns are visible, one above the engine and one in the removed cowling area. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
The LWF Model G, and its upgrades, were a two-seat biplane multirole aircraft. The fuselage was constructed of laminated wood monocoque in a very aerodynamic cigar shape. It bore a resemblance to the sleek monocoque fighters of Germany, like the Pfalz D.III or Albatros D.V. In the nose, a Liberty L-12 engine was connected to a 2-bladed wooden propeller. At first the engine would be 350 hp (261 kW) but it was later upgraded to 435hp (324.3 kW) on the Model G-1 and onward. On the postwar mailplane, a four bladed propeller was used. The engine itself wasn’t fully covered, with about half protruding from the fuselage. On the nose were two radiators. Behind the engine sat the pilot. A windscreen protected the pilot from the wind and elements. Flight surfaces were controlled via two control sticks. The wings were two-bay and covered in fabric, with ailerons used on both pairs of wings. Beneath the fuselage was the landing gear. Two rubber lined wheels held the aircraft up on a basic landing gear frame. At the end of the fuselage was a landing skid. Behind the pilot sat the observer, who would handle observation duties in its basic configuration, and would serve as the gunner on the fighter and bomber configurations. His position was protected by a small windscreen as well. At the end of the tail were the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. The horizontal stabilizers were supported by two struts connected to the tailfin.

Another view of the gunner/observer position demonstrating the elevation of the double 7.62mm gun mount. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
On the Model G and reconnaissance/training versions of the G-1 and G-2, no armament would be used. For armament on the fighter and bomber versions of the G-1 and G-2, a total of seven 7.62mm machine guns would be used; five Marlin and two Lewis guns. Two would be built into the fuselage, forward facing. Two more would also be forward facing but would be mounted on the engine itself. The remaining three would be operated by the gunner with two on a movable mount and the last protruding from the underside of the belly. The double mount was highly mobile and offered a great range of fire for the gunner to defend the aircraft. Four bomb racks capable of carrying up to 592 Ibs (268.5 Kg) of bombs were equipped for the bomber configuration. The bomber configuration also carried 66 Ib (30 Kg) of armor for protection of the crew/internals.

The aircraft was painted overall in two tones. From above it was painted a dark brown to blend in with the ground, while from below it was painted a sky blue. The tailfin was painted in the signature red-white-blue found on other American combat aircraft. Two Army Air Service roundels were painted on the upper and lower wings.

Conclusion

View of the pilot and gunner/observers position in the aircraft. Note the small windscreens. [San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives]
The LWF Model G was an impressive aircraft all around, being able to carry a large arsenal of weapons while maintaining a high speed for an aircraft of its stature. Unfortunately, despite being so successful, the aircraft wasn’t adopted for production and with the loss of both prototypes, the military was possibly wary of the aircraft despite its success. With the war over, a need for the type wasn’t necessary, as the aviation industry moved into a more civilian-oriented market.

In the time frame of its development, even if it had been selected for production, it was so late in the war it likely wouldn’t have seen combat. Had it however, the LWF Model G would have been a truly terrifying foe to enemy aircraft, thanks to its powerful armament and fast top speed. With its seven 7.62mm machine guns, it carried more guns than several bombers of the time period.

LWF would continue designing their own aircraft post-war, most of them mailplanes like the Model G, but they too would never catch on. LWF would also license build aircraft from other companies during the 1920s. This wouldn’t last long, however, as the company would file for bankruptcy and become defunct in 1924.

Variants

  • LWF Model G – Prototype, unarmed. Equipped with Liberty V-12 engine. Crashed on first flight. One built.
  • LWF Model G-1 – 2nd Prototype, multirole. Improved upon the Model G and could be configured to do reconnaissance, dogfighting or bombing. Carried an impressive seven 7.62mm machineguns. Increased engine performance.
  • LWF Model G-2 – Modified version of the G-1. Had changes made to the design to increase handling and performance.
  • LWF Model G Mailplane – Unarmed mailplane version of the G-2. 1 built after the war.

Operators

  • United States of America – The LWF Model G was designed for use by the Army Air Service. Despite its success, the end of the war made the aircraft no longer needed. The 3rd Model G served as a mailplane.

LWF Model G-2 Specifications

Wingspan 41 ft 7 in /12.5 m
Length 29 ft 1 in / 8.8 m
Height 9 ft 4 in / 2.7 m
Wing Area 515.54 ft² / 47.9 m²
Engine 1x 435 hp ( 324.3 kW ) Liberty V-12 inline engine
Propeller 1x 2-blade 9 ft 7 in / 2.7 m wooden propeller (1,800 RPM)
Fuel Capacity 90 US Gal / 340.6 L
Water Capacity 14 US Gal / 53 L
Oil Capacity 6 US Gal / 22.7 L
Weights
Empty 2,675 lb / 1213.3 kg
Fighter 4,023 lb / 1824.8 kg
Bomber 4,879.5 lb / 2213.3 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Standard) 7.28 minutes
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Fighter) 9.18 minutes
Time to 10,000 ft / 3048 m (Bomber) 14.15 minutes
Maximum Speed 130 mph / 209.2 km/h at 10,000 ft / 3048 m

138 mph /222 km/h at Sea Level

Landing Speed 50 mph / 80.5 km/h
Endurance 4 hours
Maximum Service Ceiling 24,000 ft / 7315.2 m (Model G)
Crew 1 Pilot

1 Observer/Gunner

Armament
  • 5x 30 Caliber (7.62mm) Marlin machineguns
  • 2x 30 Caliber (7.62mm) Lewis machineguns
  • 4 bomb racks (carrying capacity 592 Ib / 268.5 Kg)

Gallery

Illustration by Ed Jackson

Credits

  • Written by Medicman
  • Edited by Henry H. and Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • Jane, F. (1969). Jane’s all the world’s aircraft 1919. New York: Arco Pub.
  • Green, W. & Swanborough, G. (2002). The complete book of fighters : an illustrated encyclopedia of every fighter aircraft built and flown. London: Salamander.

LFG Roland C.II

German Empire Flag German Empire (1915)
Reconnaissance Aircraft – 267 Built

A Roland C.II in flight. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
The Roland C.II was a reconnaissance aircraft built by LFG Roland in 1915 as a new and innovative design. The type would see widespread use by the German Empire and, thanks to its highly advanced form, became the fastest and most maneuverable of its type when it was introduced. Overall improvements on the aircraft were done throughout the war to strengthen its performance, but by the end of the war, much more advanced aircraft had been deployed and made the Roland obsolete. The C.II was relegated to a training aircraft until the end of the war, when all were scrapped.

Development

In early 1915, the Luftfahrzeug Gesellschaft (L.F.G.), also known as Roland to avoid confusion with a similar sounding design firm, began building several Albatros aircraft under license. These aircraft were the Albatros B.I, B.II and the C.I, which were considered some of the most advanced in terms of aerodynamics for the current times. Around the same time, Dipl.-Ing. (Engineer) Tantzen would join Roland as chief designer. With Tantzen as the chief designer and their experience gained from license-building aircraft, Roland would begin designing a new and original plane, the C.II.

Work began on the C.II (C-types were two-seat armed aircraft) sometime in mid 1915. The C.II would have a very rounded, aerodynamic fuselage design, similar to the Albatros D.III fighters of the following year. The fuselage was created in a unique way, called Wickelrumpf (Wrapped body). Wickelrumpf involved using layers of veneer strips that were wrapped around a simple wodden frame. The shells created were then glued together around the wooden frame of the C.II and strengthened with fabric, making a very streamlined and sturdy fuselage. This whole process was an early attempt at monocoque construction, which involved having a shell built around a frame. However, the Wickelrumpf technique on the C.II used two stringers for the frame, a feature true monocoque aircraft don’t have. Like the fuselage, the wings were also designed to be very aerodynamic. Instead of having the wings connected with multiple spars and bracings, as was common with aircraft of the time, the wings of the C.II would be connected via a single wooden strut in a single bay wing.

The C.II prototype on October 24th, 1915, only hours before its disastrous test flight.

Before a prototype was completed, a C.II fuselage was mounted on a railcar for aerodynamic testing and other experiments. The train would swiftly go down a straight track between the cities of Schoneberg and Juterbog and data would be recorded on the aircraft. The first prototype C.II was completed in October of 1916 and its first test flight would happen between the 24th and 25th. This test flight would end in misfortune, with the D.III engine failing mid flight, resulting in a crash and subsequent damage to the aircraft. The prototype was quickly repaired and flying, with a second prototype completed soon after. In the test flights, it was found that, thanks to its aerodynamic design and powerful D.III engine, the C.II’s speed was extraordinary, surpassing all of the current C-type aircraft then in use. With such a feat, a production batch of 50 aircraft were ordered on December 23rd, 1915. Testing continued and it was found that the wing cells were slightly unstable, so an additional drag wire was added for stabilization. After this change was added to the design and prototypes, production of the type continued and, by March 7th, 1916, the first of the production aircraft were ready to be sent to the front.

Design

The last production batch of C.IIs [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
The interior frame of the C.II. This would be covered by the Wickelrumpf shells. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
The Roland C.II was a two seat observation biplane. The body of the C.II was aerodynamic in shape and had a plywood frame, with the outer shell created via Wickelrumpf and made of veneer strips glued together and supported with fabric. Wickelrumpf produced a semi-monocoque fuselage. The body would have two seats, one for the pilot and one for an observer. On the sides of the fuselage were two pairs of celluloid windows for the observer to use. On several occasions, flight crews would paint curtains onto them. The windows themselves were modified by the crews to open by sliding backwards or downwards, but this was not a standard feature. Above the pilot’s position was a roll cage designed to prevent the pilot from being crushed in the event of a roll over on the ground. The initial design of the cage was circular but, once the frontal Spandau was added, the cage had to be redesigned and became more triangular in shape. No measure was given to protect the observer. The C.II used a Mercedes D.III engine mounted in the nose and driving a wooden propeller. The first two cylinders were exposed to the elements. The area surrounding the engine was the only part of the aircraft to have metal plating. Certain plates were hinged to allow for maintenance to the engine. For exhaust, the initial models used the “ocarina” style pipes, but later models would change between the ocarina style and others. The engines would have two ear radiators on each side of the craft. These protruding radiators obstructed airflow and caused drag. The tailfins were wooden and fabric covered. The control surfaces were made of steel tubes and covered in fabric. The tailfin was enlarged after the June 1916 batch to increase stability.

A sight all too common of the C.II. Due to its poor downwards visibility,
Pilots had trouble landing the aircraft. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
The wings of the aircraft were made of wood and covered in doped fabric as was conventional at the time, with the control surfaces being made of steel tubes and also covered in doped fabric. The ailerons were originally in the lower wing but, starting with the C.IIa, these would be located in the upper wing. The wings themselves were the exact same length, shape and chord. Unique I-struts connected the wings together. The I-struts were of plywood construction and would have interior bracings in the shape of an X. The C.II would have a landing gear connected to the aircraft with v-shaped connectors. At the rear of the aircraft would be a landing skid.

Mid Production C.II [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
For armament, the C.II initially only had a single Parabellum 7.92 mm for the observer to use. After the first 50 aircraft, a forward firing synchronized Spandau 7.92 mm was added for the pilot. If needed, four bomb racks could be fixed to the underside of the wings to carry small bombs. The aircraft also carried several flares. A radio could also be carried on the aircraft and used by the observer. This was powered by an airscrew-powered dynamo located near the landing gear.

The “Walfisch” In Action

Otto Czernak’s C.II. This aircraft was modified with a rudimentary machinegun mount and an input system for the observer to request certain flight movements. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
The Roland C.II arrived on the frontline in late March of 1916 and the effort put into its aerodynamic design was noted almost immediately. The C.IIs were the fastest aircraft used by the Luftstreitkräfte (German Air Force) at their introduction, outpacing all of their operational aircraft and almost all opposing Allied aircraft, only being superseded by a handful of Allied fighters. Because of its impressive speed, the Roland C.II was flown in special groups, as other two seater C-type aircraft could not keep up with the type. The Roland C.II was initially used as a reconnaissance plane, with the second crewman acting as the observer, but its speed allowed it to be used on escort duties as well. Despite its good speed, however, the C.II was not without its flaws. In the observer role, thanks to the crewmen being seated above the body, visibility above the plane was superb, but visibility in front of the aircraft was lacking, and visibility beneath the aircraft was poor. An attempt to fix this early on, before production began, was placing cutouts in the base of the wings, but this solution still do not provide adequate visibility. This flaw became fatal later on, once enemy pilots learned of this massive weak spot, as they would now dive beneath a C.II, then fly upwards towards it, firing their guns while the Roland crew had no means of detecting threats from that angle. This visibility issue also made landings especially dangerous, as the pilot had difficulty calculating how close the ground was. Aircraft of the time were well known to have difficulty upon landing, but the Roland C.II exhibited worse than average landing performance due to the visibility issue. Maneuverability and stability of the C.II was also lackluster at times and would need improvement.

Initially, the Roland C.II only had a single Parabellum 7.92 mm machine gun for the observer to use. The first fifty of these aircraft would have this small armament. Many of the pilots found this weak armament lacking. One pilot in particular, Lt. Otto Czernak of Schusta 28, would fix this issue on his own. He would rig up a forward firing apparatus for another Parabellum machine-gun that would allow the pilot to fire. Due to the propeller and machine-gun not being synchronized, the rig placed the gun well above the rotating radius of the propeller, making the rig very tall. Czernak’s own plane was modified in other ways as well, having a unique input system for his observer that would allow the 2nd crewman to communicate to Czernak to maneuvering instructions. No other C.II would have this system. After the first fifty aircraft, all C.II’s would have a synchronized Spandau machine-gun for the pilot to use. This gave the C.II some dogfighting ability, which is how it would end up being used for escort duties, along with its excellent speed.

A Linke-Hoffman produced C.IIa(Li). This particular aircraft has bomb racks installed. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
At some point, either during its career or while it was still being developed, the C.II was given the unofficial nickname of Walfisch (Whale). The origin of this name has been told many times but there is no concise point that has been confirmed. The most common of these origins is said to have come while it was still in development, from a German official observing the type. Another reason could have been its overall round shape and how the early models were painted a silver-white color. Nonetheless, the name stuck around. The name Walfisch did not seem to have any negative connotation for its pilots, as many of them would paint fish or shark faces on their aircraft. Some would even paint scales. The previously mentioned Otto Czernak would paint a fish face onto his aircraft. This tradition was seen throughout its lifespan, even after the later two-toned camouflage models were introduced with green and brown paint.

A production of 24 aircraft, after the initial batch, with the modified machine-gun was ordered in March of 1916. Another batch of 45 aircraft was ordered in April. However, the batch of Roland C.IIs after this set would aim to fix many of the stability issues found with the aircraft in the field. The tailfin was enlarged to improve flight performance. The wings were shortened and the I struts were moved inward to compensate for the wing flexing. These made the wings much more structurally sound. This reworked design of the C.II was known as the C.IIa and testing of the type began in April and May of 1916. The type would be sent to the frontline by the summer. All C.II aircraft after this point would be of the C.IIa model. A batch of 19 C.IIa was ordered in April of 1916 and another batch of 36 C.IIa was also ordered, but with the ailerons in the upper wing. All aircraft after this would have the ailerons this configuration. A batch of 40 C.IIas was ordered in June of 1916 and would have a larger vertical fin to improve stability.

Production C.II [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
Most of the production Roland C.IIs were flying by the mid summer of 1916. The C.II was used extensively at the Battle of the Somme, where it was used in large numbers for recon and escort duties. On the second day of the Battle of the Somme, June 2nd, the soon-to-be-famous Albert Ball would go on a sortie in a Nieuport scout aircraft. While flying, his squadron would encounter 6 Roland C.IIs on patrol. The Allied squadron would begin their attack, while the Roland formation scattered. Ball was able to catch up to one and shoot it down, causing the C.II to plummet near the Mercatel-Arras road. This would be the first aircraft Ball completely destroyed in flight (There were several confirmed victories before this, but this was the first confirmed complete destruction of an aircraft). Many of Ball’s early kills were Roland C.IIs. Ball himself went on to compliment the C.II, stating it was the best aircraft the German’s had at the time, with a good defense to compliment its speed.

A C.IIa in two tone colors. This particular aircraft has been decorated by its crew, including painted on curtains over the celluloid covers and a shark mouth. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
The Roland C.II was continually used through the rest of 1916. By summer, the Linke-Hofman company would begin license building C.IIs. An initial batch of 16 aircraft was ordered. The aircraft built under license were known as C.IIa(Li). In July of 1916, a batch of 40 aircraft was ordered to be produced by Linke-Hofman. This would be the last batch of C.IIs built and would be sent to the front in the beginning of 1917. By this time, however, the C.II had lost its performance edge. The Allies had fielded newer and improved aircraft that were able to easily keep up with the C.II, and the Germans had also produced newer aircraft that performed better. The C.II was instead returned from the front lines and used as a trainer for the C-type in flight schools. The C.II would perform this duty until hostilities ended in 1918. The fate of the remaining C.IIs is unknown, but they were most likely scrapped. No aircraft survive to this day.

The Roland C.III: A Derivative Design

The Roland C.III. It is apparent its design is based off of the C.II. Very little is known about this aircraft. [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
In mid-1916, a derivative design of the C.II emerged; the Roland C.III. The C.III shared many of the same design features of the C.II, such as a two-seat aerodynamic body with two windows on each side for observation purposes. However, most of the similarities stop there. The C.III was designed to use the more powerful 200 hp (149 kW) Mercedes D.IV engine over the C.II’s D.III. Based on the few pictures available, the prototype C.III appears to still use a D.III engine, most likely to test the airframe before the larger engine was placed. To compensate for a stronger engine, the wings of the C.II were made larger. The wings themselves were also reworked. Instead of having single bay wings with flat strut connectors, like the C.II, the C.III instead had the standard two bay wings typical of aircraft of the era. This was most likely done as the single struts of the C.II happened to obscure the vision of the frontal windows. The tail design of the C.III also differed from the C.II. Very little is known of the C.III outside of these few details, including whether or not it even flew or any further testing. The single C.III prototype was lost when LFG’s facility in Adlershof was destroyed in a fire on September 6th, 1916. This incident is cited to be caused by sabotage from British Special Forces. After the loss of the prototype, no further work on this type was done.

Conclusion

A lineup of several early C.IIs [Roland Aircraft of WWI]
At the time of its introduction, the C.II was one of the most advanced aircraft Germany had. Its powerful engine and aerodynamic construction allowed it to outperform most of its opposition. As the war continued, more advanced machines eventually outpaced the Roland C.II. The aircraft did manage to influence other companies to attempt more aerodynamic designs. Roland would continue building planes, including newer C-types (C.V and C.VIII) and fighter types, both of which would use Wickelrumpf. Two other aircraft were built off of the C.II’s design, the D.I fighter and the WD floatplane. Despite continuing to make newer aircraft, none of Roland’s designs would ever garner the same fame as their “Walfisch”, and it would remain their most iconic design of the war.

Variants

  • LFG Roland C.II Prototype – The prototype model of the C.II differed from the production version in several ways. Notably, it only had one set of windows. Two of these were built.
  • LFG Roland C.II – Standard model for the Roland C.II. After the initial batch, all aircraft would use a synchronized machine-gun in the nose.
  • Otto Czernak’s LFG Roland C.II – A modified early production C.II used by Otto Czernak of Schusta 28. It had a makeshift machine-gun mount and a unique input system for the observer to request movements from the pilot.
  • LFG Roland C.IIa – Later modified model of the C.II, had improved wings and a larger tailfin.
  • LFG Roland C.IIa(Li) – Designation given to C.IIa planes license-built by Linke-Hofman.
  • LFG Roland C.III – Derivative aircraft based on the C.II. Heavily reworked the wings and was given a Benz B.IV engine.

Operators

  • German Empire – The Roland C.II served as a reconnaissance aircraft and an escort aircraft in several squadrons of the Luftstreitkräfte from 1916 to 1918

LFG Roland C.II Specifications

Wingspan 33 ft 10 in / 10.33 m
Length 25 ft 3 in / 7.7 m
Height 9 ft 6 in / 2.9 m
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 4 ft 11 in / 1.5 m
Wing Area 91.7 ft² / 27.96 m²
Engine 160 hp (119.3 kW) Mercedes D.III 6-cylinder inline engine
Propeller 2-blade Wooden Propeller 
Weights
Empty 1739.5 lb / 789 kg
Loaded 2885.9 lb / 1309 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 3280 ft / 1000 m 7 minutes
Time to 6560 ft / 2000 m 14 minutes
Time to 9840 ft / 3000 m 26 minutes
Maximum Speed 103 mph / 165 km/h 
Flight Duration 4-5 hours (Varies on fuel load)
Crew 1 pilot

1 gunner

Armament
  • 1x Forward facing Spandau 7.92mm machine-gun
  • 1x Rear mounted Parabellum 7.92mm machine-gun
  • Multiple Bomb Racks (Not Standard)

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Roland C.II Prototype
Roland C.II Schusta 28 – Lt. Otto Czermack
Note the forward firing Lewis Gun mounted high to clear the propeller arc.
Roland C.II – Black Stripes over Pre-Production Paint
Roland C.II featuring a Shark Mouth
Roland C.IIa – Note the Larger Rudder
Roland C.III Prototype

Credits

  • Article written by Medicman
  • Edited by Stan Lucian & Ed Jackson
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson
  • Herris, Jack. Roland Aircraft of WWI : a centennial perspective on Great War Airplanes. Charleston, SC: Aeronaut Books, 2014. Print.
  • Gray, Peter L., and Owen Thetford. German aircraft of the First World War. London: Putnam, 1970. Print.