Following the massive expansion of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) in the early 1930s, new aircraft models were needed to fulfill various roles left vacant due to the restrictions of the Versailles treaty. One of these roles was short-range reconnaissance. Initially, this need was met by the Hs 126, but it was eventually intended to be replaced by the more advanced and modern Fw 189. However, the production of the Fw 189 faced unnecessary delays due to skepticism from Luftwaffe officials, who were initially reluctant to invest in its unconventional design. In the interim, officials requested the development of a training aircraft, which Focke-Wulf provided with the Fw 189B variant. Despite its promising performance, only a small number of these trainers were constructed in 1940.
The Fw 189B variant. Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw189-gallery.html
A Modern Reconnaissance Aircraft
The rise of the Nazis in Germany during the 1930s led to a massive military buildup, defying the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which by then was little more than a formality. Among the most rapidly expanding branches of the Wehrmacht was the Luftwaffe, which received substantial investment and development under Reichsmarshall Herman Göring, leading to the introduction of a series of modern aircraft for varying roles.
One of these roles, short-range reconnaissance, was initially assigned to the Henschel Hs 126. Despite its somewhat outdated appearance, this high-wing aircraft proved reasonably effective for its intended purpose, although it had several shortcomings. Its relatively low speed and the absence of a third crew member limited its effectiveness in reconnaissance missions.
Even as the Hs 126 entered service, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or German Air Ministry, took steps to develop a more advanced replacement. In 1937, they initiated a program to explore new designs. Although multiple projects were tested, the Focke-Wulf Fw 189 ultimately emerged as the most promising. The Fw 189 was developed by a team of engineers led by Kurt Tank, and while RLM officials were initially uncertain about the aircraft, they eventually placed an order for three prototypes. Construction on the first prototype, designated the Fw 189V1, began in April 1937 and was completed in 1938. It was soon followed by two additional prototypes.
As preparations for production were underway, the RLM initially decided to rely solely on the Hs 126 for the time being. However, after the successful conclusion of the Western campaign against the Allies in France in June 1940, Luftwaffe officials reconsidered their stance on the Hs 126. It became evident that this aircraft would soon be obsolete in its intended role, necessitating an urgent search for a replacement. The only aircraft that could potentially fulfill this role within a short timeframe was the Fw 189. Production thus began in the summer of 1940, and by 1944, fewer than 900 units of this aircraft had been built. Despite its limited production, the Fw 189 saw extensive service, and proved to be both popular and highly effective throughout the war.
The first Fw 189V1 prototype. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_189_Uhu
Need for a new Trainer
The Luftwaffe initially passed over the Fw 189A variant, which was intended for reconnaissance operations, but expressed interest in a new five-seat, multipurpose version of the aircraft. They envisioned this variant as a training platform for night-fighter operations and wireless communication tasks. Kurt and his team set out to design this new version, essentially retaining most of the Fw 189’s original design, its engines, wings, and tail assembly, to keep development time and cost low. The defensive weaponry was also removed to accommodate its new non-combat role.
The primary change involved replacing the original glazed cockpit with a more conventional fuselage better suited to training purposes. Additionally, dual controls were installed to facilitate instruction for both the pilot and trainee. For initial testing, Focke-Wulf modified the Fw 189V5 prototype to fit the new configuration. It was completed in early 1939 and allocated for testing and evaluation. After successful trials, an order was placed for three pre-production aircraft, designated Fw 189B-0. All were produced and delivered by the end of 1939.
Despite the promising design, Focke-Wulf received an order for only ten additional fw 189B-1 units of this variant, completed and delivered in 1940. The limited production run was likely influenced by Focke-Wulf’s focus on developing the new Fw 190 fighter, which required most of the company’s production resources and personnel, leaving little room for a trainer aircraft program.
In Service
Although only ten production aircraft of this type were built during the war, they were not simply discarded, considering the low interest in mass-producing the aircraft. Germany faced ongoing resource shortages, preventing them from producing even prototypes or limited production models. As a result, these planes were put into service. Despite the small number produced, finding spare parts was not a major issue, as the Fw 189A model had entered full production and shared many components with these aircraft.
The Fw 189B models were primarily used in their intended role as trainers during the war. Occasionally, they were repurposed for other roles, such as transporting high-ranking Luftwaffe personnel or serving as courier aircraft. These likely remained in use up to the end of the war, by which point they were either scrapped, lost in combat, destroyed during one of many Allied bombing runs, or were simply abandoned and left to the elements.
The Fw 189A production variant was, for its time, a rather unique design, featuring a glazed fuselage flanked by twin tail booms with engines mounted on each boom. This unusual configuration required new pilots to undergo specialized training. This is where the Fw 189B would have fulfilled the role of a training aircraft. However, as only a few of the B model were built and no similar aircraft existed in their inventory, the Germans were forced to reuse prototypes and pre-production Fw 189A aircraft for this purpose instead. These training variants were designated as Fw 189A-3 and were produced in only small numbers.
Technical Characteristics
The Fw 189B’s design remained largely the same as the production variant. The production model of the Fw 189A featured a distinctive, fully glazed fuselage, which housed the pilot’s position at the front, behind which was a small crew compartment, and a gunner’s position at the rear. However, in the trainer variant, this configuration was modified. The fully glazed compartment was replaced with a mostly enclosed one, as extensive glazing was unnecessary for training purposes.
In the new design, the canopy area was glazed, and a small rear canopy, glazed on the sides and top, provided visibility for the crew. Access to the aircraft’s interior was granted through a sliding canopy over the pilot’s seat, and additional hatches. Its overall construction consisted of round metal frames covered with duralumin-stressed skin.
Front view of the Fw 189 pilot cockpit. Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw189-gallery.htmlSide view of the glazed nacelle. Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw189-gallery.htmlIn contrast, the Fw 189B featured a significantly different nacelle design, with a front section that was only partially glazed. Source: https://www.luftwaffephotos.com/lfw1895.htmThe rear section of the Fw 189B nacelle was also notably different. Source: G. Punka Focke-Wulf Fw 189 in Action
The wings of the aircraft are composed of two main sections. The central, square-shaped panel connects the nacelle booms to the fuselage, while the outer section extends outward from the booms. The wing structure had a conventional duralumin, while the ailerons and split flaps were fabric-covered. At the rear, the twin-tail assembly featured two large rudders linked by a single, extended horizontal stabilizer. Both tail control surfaces are also covered in fabric.
The aircraft is powered by two 465-horsepower Argus As 410 A-1, 12-cylinder air-cooled engines. Each engine was paired with a two-blade propeller equipped with automatic pitch control. Fuel was stored in two 110-liter tanks located within the tail booms. The Fw 189A variant could reach a maximum speed of 335 km/h; however, sources provide limited details on the overall flight performance of the Fw 189B model. Given that its weight likely remained similar and the fuselage only received minor modifications, it can be reasonably assumed that its flight performance was similar to that of the Fw 189A. The landing gear included larger wheels positioned under each engine nacelle, with smaller wheels extending from the horizontal stabilizer. Later in the war, the Fw 189B models received strengthened landing gear to improve durability.
The early prototypes employed a single-leg landing gear unit. Source: https://www.luftwaffephotos.com/#fightermenu
The aircraft crew consisted of five members: the pilot, two trainee pilots, and two additional crew members in support roles. The pilot and trainees were positioned in the front part of the fuselage. Toward the rear was an instructor and two additional operators who alternated between radio and navigation roles, depending on the specific training exercise. The FW 189 was equipped with both radio and navigational equipment; however, sources do not provide details on the exact types or quantities of the equipment on board. The radio was most commonly installed on top of the central nacelle.
For this training role, the Fw 189B cockpit was equipped with dual controls. Source: https://www.luftwaffephotos.com/#fightermenuA side view of the Fw 189B variant, where the radio mast can be clearly seen. Source: https://www.luftwaffephotos.com/lfw1895.htm
Conclusion
Despite being labeled with the suffix “B,” this variant actually entered production before the Fw 189A. Although it appeared capable of fulfilling its intended role, limited production capacity and competing priorities placed it lower on the list of manufacturing priorities. After the initial order of ten aircraft, production was halted. Despite their limited numbers, these aircraft would until the end of the war, fulfilling their intended role.
USSR (1927-1945)
Passenger aircraft – Approximately 130
In the late 1920s, one of the rising stars among Soviet aviation designers and advocates, Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev, set his sights on solving a major problem: the country’s lack of a domestically built, modern airliner. Such an aircraft was needed not only for foreign routes but also for transporting important Soviet officials and passengers across the vast expanse of the Soviet Union.
Tupolev spearheaded a team of engineers that, in short order, designed an aircraft designated the ANT-9. It quickly proved to be a well-built machine, free of major issues, robust, and quite modern for its time. Entering service in the early 1930s, it saw extensive use by the Soviets until 1945, when the last remaining aircraft were finally retired.
The ANT-9 was the first modern Soviet passenger transport aircraft. Source: www.globalsecurity.org
History
Following the conclusion of the Russian Civil War, the Soviet Union began a slow process of rebuilding in the early 1920s. The industry it had was devastated and required extensive reconstruction. The fledgling aviation sector shared the same fate, as while it had made notable progress before the First World War, the loss of skilled factory workers, designers, and experienced engineers left it hollowed out. It is therefore not surprising that, in the early 1920s, the Soviet Union lacked a modern air fleet, both in the military and civilian sectors.
The situation was particularly dire in the civilian sector, where the country had no modern passenger planes. The only aircraft available for this role were transport variants of the Ilya Muromets bombers, originally developed just before the outbreak of the First World War. By the 1920s, these machines were worn out and clearly obsolete, both in terms of performance and cargo capacity, making a modern replacement desperately needed.
In the early 1920s, the only way to transport groups of passengers by air was to refurbish older Ilya Muromets bombers. Unsurprisingly, this solution was far from ideal, but given the lack of alternatives, the Soviets had little choice. Source: Wikipedia
One attempt to fill this role was the KOMTA project. However, due to poor performance, it never advanced beyond the prototype stage. Lacking any viable heavy transport aircraft, the Soviet Union was forced to rely on smaller single-engine planes for most passenger transportation throughout the 1920s.
Early experiments to resolve this, such as the KOMTA project. Failed. Source: hr.rbth.com
Andrei Tupolev, already well established in the Soviet aviation industry, was summoned to the Kremlin in October 1927. During the 1920s, the Soviet aviation industry received a boost by signing a cooperation agreement with German firms, notably Junkers, which allowed the production of Junkers aircraft designs. While these first steps were met with some disappointment, they provided equipment and experience to engineers, notably Andrei Tupolev.
Tupolev assured the Soviet aviation authorities that developing a new modern passenger plane was entirely feasible. To accelerate development and reduce costs, he even proposed reusing elements from his projects that were already in development or production. Encouraged by his earlier successes in developing all-metal aircraft, and motivated by the urgent need for a new airliner, the Soviet authorities gave him the green light
By the end of 1927, the Soviet civil air fleet, initially known as Dobroflot (renamed Aeroflot in the early 1930s) issued a more detailed request for such a transport aircraft. The new plane was to be powered by up to three engines, each producing between 250 and 300 hp. It had to feature a fully enclosed cabin for its passengers and crew, a transport capacity of at least eight passengers, and a designated baggage compartment.
To speed up development, Tupolev decided to reuse certain components from one of his earlier projects. Specifically, parts of the wings and tail section, making slight adjustments so they would fit the new design. Progress was steady, and by May 1929, a prototype was ready to be presented. It was unveiled during a military parade in Moscow, where the aircraft received the nickname Krylia Sovetov (Eng. Wings of the Soviets).
The prototype was originally intended to be equipped with more powerful engines, but since none were available at the time, three 230 hp Gnome-Rhône Titan engines were installed as a temporary solution. Interestingly, the aircraft had not yet undergone flight testing when it was displayed in the parade. After the demonstration in Moscow, it was transported to Moscow Central Airfield to begin trials. On the 7th May, 1929, test pilot Mikhail Gromov took the ANT-9 into the air for its maiden flight. The test was a success. Gromov reported that the ANT-9 was pleasant to handle and easy to fly.
The ANT-9 prototype was presented in Moscow in May 1929. Source: P. Duffy and A. Kandalov Tupolev The Man and His Aircraft
Shortly afterward, more flight tests were conducted. These initial flights proved highly successful, with no major difficulties reported. To demonstrate his confidence in the aircraft, Tupolev even flew aboard the ANT-9 with his family.
By June 1929, the prototype underwent further trials, flying to major Soviet cities such as Moscow, Odessa, Sevastopol, and Kyiv. Between 6th and 12th June, the ANT-9 managed to fly a distance of 4,000 km (2,468 miles).Additional testing was conducted by the Soviet Air Force Research Institute (NII-VVS). Although the aircraft was generally well-received, some pilots noted issues with lateral stability. Fortunately, this was an easy flaw to correct, and testing proceeded without major further complications.
Following these trials, the next step was to present the new ANT-9 to the general public in Europe. A major demonstration flight over several European capitals was planned. However, before embarking on such a journey, it was necessary to ensure there were no unforeseen issues. As a final test, a long-distance proving flight was organized from Moscow to Kyiv, then to Odessa, back to Kyiv, and finally returning to Moscow.
The pilot chosen for this mission was Gromov, who had already participated in numerous test flights of the aircraft. He took off from Moscow in July 1929, though the exact date is not specified. From the very beginning, the flight was troubled by poor weather. Heavy rain forced Gromov to fly at an altitude of around 90 m (167 ft). After refueling in Kyiv and continuing the journey, he once again encountered severe weather conditions that forced him to fly at a very low altitude.
During this leg of the trip, Gromov noticed the aircraft was rapidly losing speed, even though the engine showed no signs of malfunction. Puzzled, he was forced to make an emergency landing. Upon inspection, it became clear that the issue lay in the three-bladed propellers. The blades were wooden, and covered in fabric. The heavy rainfall had shredded most of the covering, creating massive drag. This explained the sudden loss of speed.
After examining the damage, Tupolev, who was also on board with several other passengers, attempted a field repair by stripping away the remaining fabric from the propellers. Following discussions between the crew and passengers, it was agreed that some passengers would stay behind, and the aircraft would depart with a reduced fuel load. With these adjustments, Gromov successfully completed the planned return flight from Kiev to Moscow without further difficulties.
European Tour
On July 10th, the ANT-9, began a series of demonstration flights across various European capitals. The first destination was Berlin, which the aircraft reached after a 10-hour flight without major problems.
The ANT-9, began a series of demonstration flights across various European capitals. Source: Wikipedia
In the following days, the ANT-9 and its crew visited Paris, Rome, and Marseille. However, while flying toward London, an unexpected accident occurred. The aircraft suddenly went into a sharp dive, surprising pilot Gromov, as such a problem had never been encountered on this aircraft before. After a brief struggle, the crew managed to regain control and land safely.
An inspection revealed that one of the wing inspection hatches had opened mid-flight, causing severe turbulence and forcing the aircraft into a rapid descent. After a quick repair, the ANT-9 was airborne again, but a similar problem occurred once more as it climbed to cruising altitude. Fortunately, Gromov was prepared this time and safely landed the aircraft again.
A more detailed inspection was then ordered. Gromov discovered that a relay tube in the engine compartment had burst. The next day, with the help of equipment found in a nearby village, the crew was able to make a more permanent repair: the tube was welded and the hatch secured in place.
With repairs complete, the ANT-9 continued its journey, flying over the French coast toward England at an altitude of only 20 meters (65 ft). After a short stay in England, the aircraft began the long return flight to the Soviet Union.
The tour concluded on August 8th, 1929, when the ANT-9 arrived home after covering nearly 9,037 km (5,616 miles) at an average speed of 170 km/h (106 mph). Despite the technical difficulties, the entire journey was regarded as a major success by the Soviets.
Name
This aircraft was initially designated as the ANT-9, named after Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev and following the sequential numbering of his designs. It is interesting to note that, given the high demand and importance of this aircraft, it was rushed through development and placed into production even before the ANT-6 to ANT-8 models were either fully developed or manufactured. Therefore, the designation “number 9” did not necessarily mean it was Tupolev’s ninth project.
PS-9
While the ANT-9 proved to have a good service record, the Soviets were eager from the start to improve it further. In particular, they wanted to see if the number of engines could be reduced from three to two without compromising performance. Another goal was to decrease reliance on foreign engine designs by developing suitable domestic alternatives.
In 1931, attempts were made to replace the ANT-9’s engines with two M-22 radial engines. These were mounted on the wings, while the nose-mounted engine was removed and its opening covered with a cone-shaped fairing. After some redesign work, however, it was decided instead to focus on the more powerful 680 hp M-17 engines.
Testing showed that the aircraft’s performance remained largely unchanged. The new variant was essentially a modified ANT-9, with only minor differences such as changes to the forward cockpit windows and a reduced fuel load. Following these tests, a production order was issued. In 1933, some examples received improved 730 hp M-17F engines.
All twin-engine ANT-9s were used primarily for civil transportation services. For this, its name changed to PS-9 (Passazhirski Samolet, meaning Passenger Aircraft). To distinguish between the M-17 and M-17F engines, they were designated as PS-9 2M-17 and PS-9 2M-17F.
In the hope of further improving the ANT-9, its three original engines were replaced by two more powerful 680 hp M-17 engines. These were mounted on the wings, and the installation required only minor modifications. Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ant-9.htm
Into Production
The main production facility for the ANT-9 was Factory No. 22 in Moscow. Initial plans included the production of 148 aircraft of this type, to be completed by 1934. Production began in 1929 (or in 1930, the sources disagree here), and by the end of 1930, the first batch of 33 aircraft had been delivered. In 1931, another 27 units were built at Factory No.22. At least five additional aircraft were completed at Factory No.31 in Taganrog. In total, 66 ANT-9 aircraft were produced, including the prototype. Slightly more than 60 of the PS-9 variants were built, bringing the total production of both variants to around 130
In Service
The ANT-9 entered service with the Soviet airline Dobrolet in 1931. At the time, it was regarded as one of the most modern transport aircraft in the Soviet Union, and possibly even in Europe. Over the following decade, the ANT-9 saw widespread use, transporting passengers mainly from Moscow across the European region of the Soviet Union, including some international routes. It served in this role until the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe. By then, most ANT-9s were relocated to the Soviet interior, where they remained in service until 1945. Between 1931 and 1945, Soviet airlines operated a total of 62 aircraft of this type. One of the longest-serving examples, serial number L183, logged an impressive 5,205 flight hours.
An unclear number, but at least two, ANT-9s powered by Wright Whirlwind engines were also delivered to Deruluft, an airline jointly operated by Germany and the Soviet Union. The name Deruluft was an abbreviation of Deutsch-Russisch Luftverkehrs A.G. (German-Russian Air Transport Company), which operated between 1922 and 1937. Despite the apocalyptic destruction brought by the war between these two nations, their relations in the 1920s and early 1930s were relatively good. During that time, Germany and the Soviet Union collaborated on several civil and military projects.
Interestingly, at least two ANT-9 aircraft were operated in 1933 as part of a unit known as Agiteskadrilya Maksima Gorkogo (Eng. Maxim Gorky Agitation/Propaganda Squadron). As the name suggests, the purpose of this unit was to organize propaganda operations, spreading information about the Soviet Union’s latest developments across its vast territories.
Unlike today, when information is shared instantly, in the early 1930s the flow of news was often slow and fragmented. Using aircraft to move from place to place over great distances significantly accelerated the process. Once they reached their intended destination, the crews organized propaganda activities such as dropping leaflets, showing films, or even offering flights to workers as a reward for exceptional service.
During their service in this role, the ANT-9s earned the nickname Krokodil (Eng. Crocodile), given by a satirical magazine. In a humorous attempt to match the name, crews decorated the two aircraft with a specially crafted crocodile-shaped nose, complete with a painted grin and teeth. In this distinctive form, both aircraft became widely recognized throughout the Soviet Union during their propaganda missions.
Two ANT-9 aircraft (PS-9 variant) were used by a special propaganda distribution unit. Because of the nickname they received, their crews often referred to their aircraft as crocodiles. Source: Reddit
In Combat
The ANT-9 was also employed during the war by the Red Army, although only in limited numbers. All of these were equipped with the 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines.
At least one aircraft was assigned to the Turkmen Aviation Group stationed at Kyzyl-Arvat (modern-day Gyzylarbat) in Turkmenistan in 1931. This lone ANT-9 had been transferred from the Ukrainian Military District, where it was employed in support of Soviet anti-insurgency operations against rebellious Turkmen tribes.
Although the single ANT-9 was used primarily for the transportation of military personnel and supplies, it was occasionally employed as an improvised bomber. The crew could carry up to eighty 8 kg AO-8 fragmentation bombs inside the fuselage. When enemy insurgent positions were located, the ANT-9’s crew would simply throw these grenades by hand.
The Soviets ultimately managed to defeat the insurgent fighters of the Turkmen tribes, although some groups continued to resist Soviet rule for many years afterward. The campaign officially ended in November 1931. Following this, the ANT-9 remained in service mainly in transport and reconnaissance roles. At the beginning of 1932, the aircraft became part of the newly formed 95th Separate Transport Squadron.
When the Germans attacked in June 1941, much of the Soviet Air Force was destroyed, leaving the Soviets desperate for any available aircraft they could put into service.
Although not designed as a combat aircraft and lacking any defensive armament, the ANT-9 still found important military roles. It was primarily deployed as a liaison aircraft, transporting vital personnel. In addition, some were allocated for airborne assault training operations. In both roles, the ANT-9 remained in service with the Red Army until the end of the war.
A small number of ANT-9 aircraft powered by 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines were supplied to and operated by the Red Army during the Second World War. Source: V. Kotelnikov Soviet Military Aviation in Central Asia 1917-1941
Failed Proposals
ANT-14
Based on the ANT-9, Tupolev attempted to develop an even larger passenger aircraft with a capacity of over 30 seats, intended for long-distance flights. However, the Soviet leadership had no plans for long-range passenger air travel at the time, which led to the cancellation of the project after only a single aircraft was built.
The ANT-14 was developed as an enlarged version of the ANT-9. However, since the Soviet Union had no real need for such an aircraft, the project never progressed beyond the prototype stage.. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-14
Bomber variant
Using civil aircraft as temporary bombers was not a new concept. This approach sped up development and made use of existing production facilities until purpose-built bombers could be designed and produced. A notable example was the German He 111, which began life as a civil passenger transport, which was secretly designed with a dual purpose military role. The Soviets tried something similar with the ANT-9. Although sources say little about that effort, at least one ANT-9 was tested with bomb racks under the wings and with defensive armament; the project was ultimately dropped around 1932.
Flying ambulance
Another project proposed converting an ANT-9 to serve as a flying ambulance capable of carrying patients and medical personnel. That effort did not progress beyond the prototype stage.
Specification
The ANT-9 was an all-metal passenger aircraft with three engines, providing seating for nine passengers, plus two additional seats for the pilot and mechanic.
The fuselage design featured a square base with rounded top and bottom sections. It was constructed using four reinforced tubular longerons. The idea was to provide as much interior space as possible while maintaining a degree of aerodynamic efficiency. A small escape hatch was also installed on the upper left rear section of the fuselage.
The wing design was essentially a modified version of that used on the ANT-7. The wings consisted of a rectangular center section combined with straight-tapered outer panels. These sections were connected by spars constructed from tubular-shaped booms. The total fuel load, amounting to 972 liters (214 gallons), was stored in the wings, positioned next to the engines.
During its service life, the ANT-9 was fitted with several different types of engines. Initially, it was powered by M-26 engines rated at 300 hp. These were completely exposed, with exhaust collector rings running through parts of the wings and fuselage, and were connected to simple two-blade propellers. The M-26 engines, however, quickly proved to be the ANT-9’s main weakness. While the aircraft’s overall design was considered modern, the engines were mechanically unreliable and failed to deliver the promised 300 hp. Due to poor production quality, their actual output was closer to 240 hp. The Soviets had hoped that the M-26 would prove to be a cheap and dependable option, but its persistent mechanical issues made a more reliable alternative necessary.
With no domestic solution available, the Soviets were forced to turn to foreign designs. Ultimately, the decision was made to equip the ANT-9 with 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines. These were paired with three-blade, variable-pitch propellers, and the aircraft’s wingspan was slightly increased to accommodate the change. By 1934, nearly all operational ANT-9s had been re-equipped with these engines. The Wright Whirlwinds proved far more reliable and performed their role without major difficulties.
Most ANT-9 aircraft were equipped with dual controls in the cockpit. However, during passenger flights, the crew usually consisted of just a pilot and a flight mechanic. As the title suggests, the mechanic’s role was to maintain the aircraft in good condition and to assist the pilot when necessary, particularly by monitoring the fuel load during flight.
The passenger cabin accommodated nine seats: four on the left side and five on the right. Each seat had a fairly large celluloid window, positioned under the aircraft’s wings on both sides. Passengers were provided with small sliding curtains. Above the seats were net-type racks for small personal belongings, while at the rear of the cabin, there was a storage area for suitcases, along with a small toilet compartment.
The fixed landing gear consisted of two large wire-spoked wheels with a diameter of 1.1 meters, fitted with 25 cm rubber tires. The landing gear legs were braced with metal struts connecting them to the fuselage and wing section. To soften the impact during landings, each wheel was equipped with shock absorbers. In rough or snowy conditions, particularly common in the vast territories of the Soviet Union, the wheels could be replaced with large skis. Finally, at the rear of the aircraft, a small tailskid was installed.
The original configuration of the ANT-9 was powered by three 300 hp M-26 engines. However, due to their poor performance and reliability, they were later replaced with improved 300 hp Wright Whirlwind J-6 engines. Source: www.globalsecurity.orgInside the ANT-9 fuselage, there was room for nine passengers, with four seats on the left side and five on the right. Source: www.globalsecurity.orgANT-9 side view. Source: .wikipedia.To cope with snowy weather, the ANT-9 could have its landing gear replaced with skis, allowing it to operate more effectively in cold climates. Source: Wikipedia
Conclusion
The ANT-9 was one of the many successful projects of the well-known Soviet designer Andrei Tupolev. It provided the Soviet Union with exactly what it needed at the time: a modern, three-engined passenger aircraft. Its robust and reliable design allowed it to serve for more than a decade without any major incidents, proving itself to be an exceptionally dependable machine.
USSR (1938-1940) Experimental long-range bomber – One prototype
With the rapid expansion of Soviet aviation in the 1930s, radical new design concepts were constantly being developed, producing a number of eccentric designs that hoped to break the mold. Among the many different concepts, one particularly unusual design emerged in the form of a twin-fuselage, bat-winged aircraft created by Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev.
This aircraft, known as the Belyayev DB-LK, featured two fuselages, connected by a central wing section with a glazed rear cone. Despite its unconventional layout, testing showed that the DB-LK was a stable and reliable aircraft. However, the Soviet aviation industry at the time prioritized more conventional designs for long-range bombers with the onset of war, which ultimately doomed the project before it could progress further.
Belyayev DB-LK was an unusual twin-fuselage long-range bomber prototype. Source: Reddit
History
Following the end of the First World War and the later Russian Civil War, a new nation emerged from the remnants of a once-mighty empire: the Soviet Union. During the 1920s, it began the slow process of rebuilding its shattered industry. In order to recover, the Soviet political and military leadership decided to prioritize large-scale industrial development, and enormous financial resources, manpower, and raw materials were committed to achieving this goal. As a result, new technologies were quickly introduced, leading to a period of rapid industrial expansion.
The aviation sector also benefited from this renewed focus. A series of new projects, both civilian and military, were initiated to rebuild and modernize the nation’s air capabilities. Before the First World War, in the now-lost Russian Empire, there had been considerable developments in airliner design. However, progress was halted by the outbreak of the First World War, and the devastation caused by the subsequent Civil War. By the early 1920s, the aviation industry’s infrastructure was in ruins, and many of its original engineers and experts had either fled the country or been killed.
By the 1930s, new experts were eager to test various ideas and concepts. Among them was Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev. Born in 1896 (Moscow, Russian Empire), Belyayev showed a strong interest in aviation from an early age and was an enthusiastic engineer. During the late 1920s, he worked with Andrei Nikolayevich Tupolev’s Experimental Design Bureau, and later with Aeroflot, the Soviet civil aviation operator.
Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev was a Soviet aircraft designer and aviation enthusiast who was particularly keen on finding ways to minimize aerodynamic drag while improving overall flight performance. Source: en.wikipedia.org
Belyayev had a particular fascination with a bat-wing, sometimes also described as a butterfly wing shape, design, featuring a slightly forward-swept wing with tips that curved gently backward. At the time, aviation worldwide was marked by the introduction of numerous experimental and innovative concepts. With such rapid technological progress, there was plenty of room for improvement and innovation, and eccentric ideas found fertile ground for development. Belyayev believed that this bat-wing configuration could significantly improve longitudinal stability while also reducing overall drag.
Like many other aircraft engineers who often lacked adequate funding, he decided to test his ideas using simple and inexpensive gliders. In 1920, he built a fully operational glider. In 1933, he managed to construct a glider designated BP-2. It used the bat-wing layout and also featured an unusual twin-tail assembly connected by an extended elevator. The glider was tested in a flight from Crimea to Moscow, towed by a Polikarpov R-5. The tests were successful, which encouraged Belyayev to continue experimenting with new fuselage designs. He was particularly interested in an unconventional twin-fuselage arrangement.
The Belyayev BP-2 was used to test some of his concepts. It successfully flew from Crimea to Moscow while being towed in 1933. Source: airwar.ru
The Development of a New Project
Following his research and experimentation with glider design, Belyayev eventually felt that he had gathered enough knowledge and design experience to put his ideas into practice. In 1934, he began working on a new twin-fuselage, 10-seat transport aircraft. Each fuselage was fitted with a 750-hp engine.
In addition to developing new wing designs, Belyayev also theorized methods to significantly reduce aircraft drag. Conventional twin-engine aircraft had their engines mounted on the wings, which inevitably created drag that could not be eliminated. Belyayev’s new concept was to extend the engine nacelles and use them as the fuselage itself. This meant that no additional structural elements had to be attached to the wing, thereby removing unnecessary drag and creating a more aerodynamically efficient aircraft.
In the late 1930s, the Soviet Air Force issued a requirement for a new long‑range bomber. Belyayev decided to take this opportunity. He essentially reused his original civil aircraft design and adapted it for military use. In 1938, he approached the Soviet Air Force with his proposal for a new long-range bomber. This time, he received approval to construct a working prototype, which was completed rather quickly by November 1939. The resulting aircraft made use of his earlier concept: it featured two fuselages that, technically speaking, functioned more like elongated engine nacelles.
The aircraft received a simple designation: DB-LK. While not entirely clear, this was most likely an abbreviation of Dalniy Bombardirovshchik – Letayushcheye Krylo, meaning Long-Range Bomber — Flying Wing. It is also often referred to by its designer’s name as the Belyayev DB-LK. During the testing phase, it also carried the nickname Kuritsa (Eng. Chicken), given by the test pilot who was afraid to fly it.
Experimental Flights
Once the DB-LK prototype was completed, it was cleared for its first flight tests. While Belyayev may have had doubts about the realization of the entire project, he likely never expected that, despite the vast size of the Soviet Union, not a single test pilot was willing to fly his plane. At this time, most pilots were still flying older biplane designs, and many were often reluctant to test newer aircraft. For example, some even hesitated to fly low-wing monoplanes, which were still unfamiliar to many aviators. This hesitation stemmed both from a general fear of experimental aircraft and, to an even greater degree, from an ingrained belief that proven older designs were superior to new, untested ones. In any case, Belyayev unexpectedly found himself unable to secure a willing test pilot.
This situation dragged on until 1940. That year, the Soviet Directorate of the Air Scientific Test Institute issued an official order assigning pilot M. A. Nyukhtikov to test the aircraft. There was little point in keeping a fully functional machine sitting idle on the ground. To support the pilot during the trials, lead engineer T. T. Samarin and test observer N. I. Shaurov were also assigned to the project.
After several initial flights, Nyukhtikov reported that the aircraft’s controls were heavy and difficult to operate. In addition, he noted that the landing gear should be strengthened. A commission of the Scientific Test Institute, led by A. I. Filin agreed that the control system needed refinement but rejected the pilot’s concerns regarding the landing gear. This decision proved premature, as only a few days later, during a flight test involving Filin himself, one of the landing gear legs collapsed.
Despite test pilots repeatedly pointing out that the landing gear was too fragile, it ultimately took an accident for their superiors to finally realize that this was something that needed fixing and improvement. Source: militarymatters.online
Sudden End of the Project
After a series of test flights, the DB-LK, despite its unconventional, inverted-gull twin-fuselage design, proved to be an airworthy and well functioning aircraft. During testing, the DB-LK could easily reach speeds of up to 488 km/h (303 mph) at an altitude of 5 km (16,400 ft). When fully loaded, it was also capable of climbing to around 8.5 km (28,000 ft). In total, more than 100 test flights were conducted without any major incidents, demonstrating that the overall design was sound.
Complaints from the test pilots focused on the limited visibility experienced by both the pilot and the navigator. Despite this, the DB-LK was viewed as an aircraft with significant potential for future service within the Soviet Air Force.
Then, suddenly, the project was shut down. This occurred for several reasons, though not necessarily because of flaws in the design. By late 1940, war was raging in Western Europe between Germany and Britain, and a wider conflict seemed increasingly possible. The Soviet leadership did not want to take risks with an aircraft considered highly unorthodox. The DB-LK’s twin-fuselage layout likely contributed to these concerns. Instead, the authorities decided to focus production efforts on the more conventional and already-established IL-4 bomber. With that decision, all work on the DB-LK stopped. Its final fate is unclear, but it was likely scrapped.
Technical characteristics
The DB-LK featured an unconventional overall layout, lacking a traditional central fuselage. Instead, the crew stations, armament, and most of the onboard equipment were housed inside two elongated engine nacelles that terminated in glazed tail cones (gondolas), somewhat reminiscent to the aft section of the later German Fw 189. In practical terms, these extended nacelles functioned as the aircraft’s fuselage. Each semi-monocoque structure was built from a framework of metal frames and longerons, covered with duralumin skin. The two glazed cones could be mechanically rotated 360°, boosted by small electric motors mounted on top of the fuselages. This was designed to provide the best possible angle for the rear gunners, while retaining aerodynamic shape.
The DB-LK’s wings featured a distinctive layout. In addition to the characteristic “batwings,” the aircraft incorporated a central wing section positioned between the two fuselages. The wings were slightly forward-swept and ended in backward-curved tips. Structurally, they consisted of a light metal stressed-skin construction over a conventional airframe. The outer wing panels used a Göttingen 387 airfoil profile, while the center section employed a CAHI (TsAGI) MV-6bis profile. The wing leading edges were curved at an angle of –5° 42′.
The aircraft’s rather unusual wings were slightly forward-swept and finished with backward-curved tips. Structurally, they featured a light metal stressed-skin construction built over a conventional airframe. Also note the glazed rear fuselage cone section, where the rear gunner would have been positioned. Source: forum.warthunder.com
The rear tail assembly was mounted on the central wing section between the two fuselages. It consisted of a single vertical fin with a large rudder. Above the rudder, a small horizontal stabilizer was installed, fitted with two large elevators, one on each side.
The rear tail section was also unusual, being positioned in the middle of the central wing section and featuring a large rudder with a small tailplane. Source: wikipedia.org
The landing gear retracted rearward, with one wheel (900 × 300 mm) housed in each fuselage section. During later testing, this arrangement was redesigned, and the gear was modified to retract forward instead. The entire landing gear system was hydraulically operated. A small fixed tailwheel (450 × 150 mm) was installed at the bottom of the tail unit.
The DB-LK was powered by two Tumansky M-87B 14-cylinder radial engines, each delivering 950 hp. These drove three-bladed variable-pitch propellers. It was planned to replace them with the more powerful 1,100 hp M-88 engines, or even the 1,700 hp M-71, but these upgrades were never implemented as the project was ultimately cancelled. Fuel was stored in both the wing and fuselage tanks, with a total capacity of 3,444 liters (910 US gallons)..
Behind each of the two engines, a cockpit with a rear-sliding canopy was installed. The DB-LK was designed to be operated by a crew of four: the pilot, navigator, and two rear gunners. The pilot occupied the left cockpit, and the navigator the right. The gunners were positioned in the two rear glazed cones, with one of them also serving as a radio operator. Crew members entered their positions through the roof hatch doors.
Given its role as a long‑range bomber, Belyayev intended for the aircraft to have a fairly respectable defensive armament for its day, consisting of six machine guns. Both rear glazed tail cones were fitted with mounts for twin 7.62 mm (.30 in) ShKAS machine guns. These weapons had a firing arc of –10° to +10° in all directions. However, the gunner could rotate the glazed cones themselves, allowing him to reposition the guns and further increase the weapon’s effective defensive arc.
The interior of one of the two fuselages. On the right, the rear machine-gun mount is visible, while on the left side, you can see the radio equipment and the mechanism used to rotate the entire glazed tail cone. Source: forum.warthunder.com
In addition to these four rear-mounted machine guns, two more were installed in the leading edge of the center section and operated by the pilot. Altogether, approximately 4,500 rounds of ammunition were carried for all six weapons.
For attacking ground targets, bombs were to be employed. The bomb bays were located behind the landing‑gear doors in each of the nacelles. Each of the two bomb bays could carry up to 1 tonne (2,200 lb) of bombs, or alternatively four 250 kg (550 lb) or two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs per bay, four in total. In addition, a container with 59 smaller bombs could have been used instead. Lastly, an additional external bomb rack capable of carrying up to one tonne could be attached to the central wing section.
Cocnlusion
The Belyayev DB-LK is one example where the overall visual design essentially killed the project. The aircraft itself had no unresolvable flaws. In fact, it demonstrated generally good flight performance. It carried a large bomb payload, and its defensive armament, while not covering every angle, was still respectable. Most importantly, it did not suffer any major problems during the initial test flight phase.
Its main downside was its unusual overall appearance, which may have caused significant concern among industry decision-makers when it came time to consider a production order. It can be assumed that this was one of the key reasons it was cancelled, along with its prototyping being interrupted by the start of the Second World War. Soviet authorities preferred more conventional, proven designs and did not want to commit to a highly unorthodox aircraft that had no equivalent or prior service experience anywhere in the world.
Belyayev DB-LK specifications
Wingspan
21.6 m / 70 ft 10 in
Length
9.8 m / 32 ft 1 in
Wing Area
56.9 m² / 612 ft²
Engine
2x Tumanskii M-87B 950 hp 14 cylinder radial engines
Poland (1934-1939) Type: Light Bomber/Reconnaissance, Number built: 240
In the early 1930s, the Polish Air Force began modernizing its fleet as tensions rose in central Europe. Among its top priorities was acquiring a specialized class of aircraft capable of performing both reconnaissance and bombing missions. The goal was to develop a modern, all-metal aircraft that could fulfill both vital combat roles. This ambition materialized in the form of the PZL.23, produced in two main variants: the PZL.23A, and the improved PZL.23B. A total of 250 aircraft were built, and the design even achieved modest export success. These aircraft went on to serve in the early stages of the Second World War II, seeing combat against both Germany and the Soviet Union, with some measure of success.
The Polish Bomber/reconnaissance plane PZL.23 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.23_Kara%C5%9B
History
At the start of the 1930s, the Polish Air Force was primarily equipped with outdated aircraft. This was the case with its bomber formations, which mostly relied on French canvas-skinned, biplane bombers, such as the Breguet 19. These aircraft were fragile, had a relatively small bomb-carrying capacity, and were intended more to harass the enemy than to inflict significant damage.
The role of the light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft was mostly taken by the French Breguet 19 biplane in the post war years. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samolot_Breguet_19_B2_NAC_1-W-1555-2.jpg
In 1931, the Polish Air Force initiated the development of a new bomber designed to provide close support to ground forces. In addition, it was also to perform the role of reconnaissance operations, this request being primarily based on the experience gained during the Russo-Polish War of 1919–1920. During that conflict, both sides employed a limited number of aircraft, mainly for reconnaissance and bombing operations. As a result, the Polish Air Force sought to replace its aging fleet with new aircraft capable of effectively performing both roles.
In 1931, the Polish Air Force issued a requirement for a new single-engine, monoplane aircraft. It was to accommodate three crew members and be capable of carrying several hundred kilograms of bombs, serving the dual roles of bomber and reconnaissance platform. Few proposals were submitted, including the high-wing PSW.19 and the Lublin R.XVII biplane. Of the two, only the PWS.19 was built and tested, but it was ultimately not accepted for service.
The PSW.19 was a proposal from Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów (Eng. Podlachian Aircraft Factory) for a new bomber/reconnaissance plane. However, the design was not accepted for service. Source: https://www.armedconflicts.com/PWS-19-t185849#valka_group-2
The winning design came from a young engineer named Stanisław Prauss, working at Państwowe Zakłady Lotnicze (PZL, or State Aviation Works). Prior to this project, Prauss had worked on the PZL.13, a single-engine passenger aircraft, which was a modern design for its time, featuring an all-metal structure. Despite its innovative features, the project was ultimately canceled in 1931.
Following that setback, Prauss and his team dedicated much of late 1931 to drafting design plans, and performing critical calculations for the new military aircraft. In order to accelerate development, Prauss chose to incorporate several elements from his earlier PZL.13 project into the new design.
To expedite development, Prauss decided to incorporate several elements from his earlier PZL.13 project. The overall shape of his earlier design was clearly reflected in the later production aircraft, including the fixed landing gear, engine configuration, and fuselage design. Source: http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/samoloty/2296/84/PZL-13
By early 1932, a full-scale wooden mock-up of the fuselage was completed. Both the drawings and the mock-up were presented to the Polish Aviation Department in the spring of that year. After analyzing the wooden construction and technical documentation, the department approved the project and ordered the construction of three prototypes for testing.The first prototype was completed by 1934, powered by a 593 hp Bristol Pegasus II M2 radial engine. Although not of Polish origin, the engine was produced under license in Poland, with the original rights obtained from the United Kingdom. The overall design was simple: a conventional linear crew arrangement with a weapons bay between them. The rear gunner was also expected to serve as the bombardier, for which a small under-fuselage compartment was provided. For defense, the rear gunner operated two machine guns, one mounted dorsally and the other ventrally. Lastly, another crew member was tasked with aiming and releasing the bombs. A forward-firing machine gun was also planned for the pilot’s use, though it remains unclear whether this was ever actually fitted to the prototype.
The prototype, designated PZL.23/I, was flight-tested in early April 1934. Interestingly, it received the nickname Karaś, meaning Crucian-carp, a species of fish. Its performance in the was rather poor, and several design flaws became apparent, such as a cramped interior, limited crew visibility, and vibrations in the rear section. Bombing trials were also problematic: when released, the bombs would shift from a vertical to a horizontal position, then back to vertical, as they fell from the aircraft. This erratic behavior significantly reduced bombing accuracy.
Further tests were carried out to refine the overall design throughout 1934 and into 1935. Eventually, the prototype was handed over to the Polish engineering college, where it was used for training new engineers. It remained there until the fall of Warsaw in September 1939.
The first prototype, although successfully flight-tested, was found to have several design flaws. As a result, after 1934, it was eventually repurposed as an instructional airframe.Source: https://jmodels.net/de-hombres-y-maquinas/aire-air/pzl-23-karas/
In late 1934, work began on a second prototype, designated PZL.23/II. The most notable change was the removal of the centrally located bomb bay. Instead, bombs were mounted under the wings, and the former bomb bay space was expanded to provide more space and improve visibility for the crew. Additionally, the engine was lowered by 10 cm to improve the pilot’s forward view. Other improvements included the addition of new leading-edge slats and flaps.
Testing revealed that many of the previously identified issues had been resolved; however, forward visibility was still considered unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, testing of the PZL.23/II came to a sudden and tragic end. At the end of July 1935, all three crew members were killed in a crash landing. The investigation concluded that the pilot had made a serious error, with some speculating it may have been a deliberate act of suicide.
Following the loss of the previous aircraft, another prototype (designated PZL.23/III) was constructed in 1935. This version incorporated several improvements over its predecessor, including an enlarged canopy and a raised pilot’s seat. These modifications significantly enhanced the pilot’s forward visibility, addressing a major flaw in earlier designs.
An especially interesting feature of the PZL.23/III was the addition of a hydraulically operated rear machine gun mount. This system allowed the rear gunner, if necessary, to engage targets approaching from the front by raising the machine gun above the forward fuselage. However, while seemingly innovative, this setup was likely difficult to use effectively in combat.
Production and Service Problems
Following the successful testing of the third prototype, the Polish Air Force placed an order at the end of 1935 for the production of 200 aircraft. These were to be manufactured at the PZL factory in Warsaw-Okęcie, with the first batch of 40 aircraft scheduled to begin production at the start of 1936. However, after only a few units were built, production was abruptly halted due to a critical issue: the unreliability of the Bristol Pegasus engines.
These engines, produced under license in Poland, were plagued by numerous mechanical problems that required extensive troubleshooting and rework. To make matters worse, the engines were not manufactured in the UK, which meant acquiring replacements or parts from abroad was not an option, given differences in manufacturing tolerances. It wasn’t until September 1936 that these issues were finally resolved, allowing production to resume. The aircraft entered service under the designation PZL.23A, and the initial order of 40 aircraft was finally completed in November 1937.
Unfortunately, matters only worsened once the aircraft entered operational service. The planes delivered to the Polish Air Force proved deeply disappointing, bordering on unusable. The engines were underpowered, limiting the aircraft to a maximum altitude of just 3,000 m. Additionally, the automatic leading edge slats frequently malfunctioned, often deploying mid-flight without warning and causing severe stability problems. As a result, the aircraft was ultimately deemed unsuitable for combat roles and relegated primarily to reconnaissance duties.
Need For Improvements
Abandoning the PZL.23 at that point would have seemed a waste of both resources and time, two things the Polish military could ill afford. Starting from scratch would have required significant time, with no guarantee that a new design would be any more successful. In the face of rising threats from both Germany and the Soviet Union, officials in the Polish Air Force sought ways to salvage the PZL.23 project.
One of the first PZL.23A production aircraft. Source: https://tvd.im/aviation/1666-pzl-p-23-karas.html
The first option considered was installing a stronger engine. PZL engineers decided to equip the aircraft with the newly produced Bristol Pegasus VIII engine, which had just entered production in Poland. This engine offered the advantages of its greater performance and a reliable local supply of parts, making it a logical choice. A prototype designated PZL.23/III was fitted with this engine and tested.
The third prototype was equipped with the new engine. Source: T. J. Kopanski PZL.23 Karaś
Although the speed increased only slightly (from 263 km/h to 274 km/h), the upgraded aircraft could now reach an altitude of 7.3 km, a significant improvement over the previous 3 km ceiling. In addition to the new engine, several other modifications were introduced: the leading-edge slats were removed, the elevator was redesigned, and an extended antenna mount was added to the observer’s gondola for in-flight radio use.
Lastly, the new variant received two machine gun mounts in the forward engine compartment, compared to only one in the earlier model. However, due to a shortage of available machine guns, only one was actually installed in most aircraft. With these improvements, production of the updated model continued under the designation PZL.23B (sometimes referred to as Karaś II). With the introduction of the B variant, the remaining A variant aircraft were mainly employed as trainers. Some of them were thus equipped with dual controls.
The most common variant was the PZL.23B, which resolved many issues with the previous model. Source: https://www-airwar-ru.translate.goog/enc/bww2/pzl23.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=enNearly all PZL.23A aircraft were converted into trainers by rebuilding them with dual controls, as was likely the case with this example, which probably belonged to the training school at Krosno. Source: https://www-airwar-ru.translate.goog/enc/bww2/pzl23.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Production
After the production of 40 PZL.23A aircraft, the remaining 160 units were built exclusively in the upgraded PZL.23B variant, and the initial order for 200 aircraft was completed by September 1937. Due to high demand, the Polish Air Force secured additional funding and requested the construction of 50 more aircraft. This follow-up order was fulfilled by February 1939.
In total, 240 aircraft of the Variant A and B (in addition to three prototypes) would be built.Source: https://panssarivaunut.blogspot.com/2016/02/pzl23-karas.html
Experimental Project
Dive Bomber
While the PZL.23 shared some visual similarities with the German Ju 87 dive bomber, the Polish Air Force initially did not consider employing it in this role. However, by 1936, the idea of using the aircraft as a dive bomber began circulating among Air Force officials. To test the feasibility of this concept, one PZL.23A was modified to serve as a prototype, designated PZL.23/IV. This prototype could be easily identified by the removal of the bombardier’s gondola.
The proposed armament included two forward-firing and two rear-mounted machine guns. The estimated bomb load was 300 kg, though it was hoped that this could be increased to 800 kg for potential export customers. Testing was carried out by the Air Force Technical Institute (ITL) in August 1936. Despite the modifications, it’s overall performance did not improve significantly, and the aircraft proved unsatisfactory in dive-bombing operations.
PZL.42
In April 1937, the prototype was further modified by replacing the single vertical stabilizer with twin vertical tails. This change aimed to improve the gunner’s field of fire. Bombing trials conducted with this version were somewhat more promising. However, for unclear reasons, the aircraft remained at the prototype stage, with only one example ever built. It was later used as a training aircraft until it was destroyed in a bombing raid in September 1939.
The PZL.42 prototype was tested with the new tail design. Source: https://jmodels.net/de-hombres-y-maquinas/aire-air/pzl-23-karas/An aircraft lost in one of many German bombing runs during September 1939. Source: T. J. Kopanski PZL.23 Karaś
In Service
As the first PZL.23A aircraft became available, they were issued to units for familiarization. The first units to be equipped, in September 1936, included the 11th and 12th Flights of the 1st Air Regiment. The 21st Flight of the 2nd Regiment also received some of these aircraft. However, due to the poor performance of the PZL.23A, they were soon relegated to training duties.
With the introduction of the improved PZL.23B variant in early 1937, more than a dozen units received the updated aircraft. The Polish pilots experienced some difficulty adapting to the new type. This was not due to any inherent flaw in the aircraft or deficiencies in training, but rather because most pilots had been accustomed to flying older biplanes. This issue was not unique to Polish pilots—air forces across Europe faced similar challenges during this period of transition to more modern monoplanes.
Nonetheless, the aircraft was involved in numerous accidents. Between early 1937 and August 1939, a total of 23 aircraft were involved in various incidents, resulting in the tragic loss of 55 lives.
The PZL.23 would be dispatched in small groups of up to 10 aircraft to various units of the Polish Air Force. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.23_Kara%C5%9B
In Action
Border Actions
The PZL.23 saw its first operational use against Poland’s neighbors in the year 1938, a particularly turbulent moment in this part of Europe. Nearly all the nations in central Europe had once formed much of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires (including Poland), were embroiled in long-standing border disputes. These tensions escalated rapidly following 1938 as political pressure continued to mount across the continent.
Poland, eager to assert control over territories it considered historically its own, sought to occupy several neighboring provinces. In March 1938, a border clash between Poland and Lithuania triggered considerable alarm, prompting the partial mobilization of the Polish Air Force. However, the operation was poorly organized, hastily executed, and ultimately too late to have any significant impact.
To make matters worse, the relocation of several PZL.23 aircraft to an unprepared airfield near Wilno led to the crash-landing of three planes. By the 20th March, the brief conflict had subsided. Nonetheless, in an effort to intimidate Lithuania, the Polish military carried out a large-scale demonstration flight of over 100 PZL.23 bombers near the Lithuanian border.
The PZL.23 was deployed again in September 1938, this time against Czechoslovakia. At that point, part of Czechoslovakia had already been occupied by Germany with the approval of the Western Allies. Seeing an opportunity, Poland moved to occupy the Zaolzie region. Once again, the PZL.23 aircraft were used primarily as a show of force and did not engage in actual combat.
However, this show of force came at a significant cost. The frequent deployments accelerated the wear and tear on the PZL.23 fleet. Limited availability of spare parts meant that many planes had to be withdrawn from service due to being worn out beyond repair. As a result, some units were disbanded, while others had only a handful of operational aircraft of this type remaining.
Downfall of Poland
By July 1939, tensions between Germany and Poland had reached a boiling point, and the possibility of war between the two nations was becoming increasingly likely. In response, the Polish Air Force conducted several reconnaissance flights along the German border, primarily using PZL.23 aircraft.
On the 23rd of August, the Polish Air Force began mobilizing. According to Poland’s war contingency plan, in the event of conflict with Germany, the air force was to be divided into two main groups. One group would be placed under the direct control of the Polish High Command, while the other would be attached to various ground formations. By the end of August, nearly all PZL.23-equipped units had been mobilized and prepared for potential combat operations.
On the 31st of August, the Polish Air Force issued orders to implement the pre-war organizational distribution plan. The group under the High Command’s direct control consisted of five fighter flights and the Bomber Brigade. The Bomber Brigade included five flights of PZL.23 aircraft, which were at that point renamed Light Bomber Flights. These were supported by seven reconnaissance flights, each equipped with an average of eight PZL.23 aircraft.
The aircraft allocated to direct ground support roles for the army were dispersed in small groups across various units. Although in theory, they were meant to cover vast territories and participate in reconnaissance or bombing raids, in practice, this deployment strategy significantly reduced their effectiveness. Their numbers were too few in each location to have any real impact in combat.
As of 1st September 1939, the Polish Air Force could field only 114 PZL.23 aircraft. Of these, 50 were allocated to the Bomber Brigade and 64 were assigned to various ground forces. An additional 10 were held in reserve. At least 55 more aircraft were in storage awaiting repairs, and another 45 PZL.23s were being used as training aircraft. Some of these would be pressed into combat as a replacement when nothing else was available. The small number of available aircraft meant that the PZL.23 was a generally rare sight during the war in Poland.
Despite many misconceptions about the war, the belief that the Polish Air Force was destroyed on the first day, is simply not true. While many aircraft were indeed destroyed on the ground, many survived and saw continued use through the conflict. The PZL.23, in particular, saw considerable action in both reconnaissance and bombing roles.
The PZL.23s of the 21st Bomber Flight first entered combat on 2nd September. A single aircraft was tasked with locating a German column near Lubliniec. It successfully identified a German motorized unit and carried out an attack against it. Another aircraft was shot down while on a similar reconnaissance mission, having been engaged by four Bf 109 fighters. On September 3rd, the unit suffered further losses, with several planes downed by superior German fighters and anti-aircraft fire. By 11th September, the unit handed over its remaining four aircraft to the VI Bomber Squadron, and the surviving pilots and crew were evacuated to Romania. Between September 1st and 11th, the 21st Bomber Flight dropped approximately 10 tonnes of bombs and lost six aircraft.
The 22nd Bomber Flight saw its first action on September 3rd, attacking a German column. The bombers were engaged by enemy fighters and anti-aircraft fire, resulting in the loss of three aircraft. Two more were lost in a follow-up attack later that same day. Over the following days, the unit continued to carry out bombing raids against German forces. By 10th September, the 22nd had transferred its remaining aircraft to the VI Bomber Squadron and evacuated its personnel to Romania. By that time, the unit had dropped around 12 tonnes of bombs and lost a total of five aircraft.
A PZL.23B from the 22nd Bomber Flight, easily identified by the painted emblem of a flying dragon holding a bomb on the fuselage sides. Source: https://tvd.im/aviation/1666-pzl-p-23-karas.html
The 55th Independent Bomber Flight was another unit that saw heavy action in both bombing and reconnaissance missions. It was almost completely wiped out on 11th September, losing nine of its aircraft. Despite the losses, the unit managed to drop 14 tonnes of bombs in 40 combat sorties. The 64th Light Bomber Flight also suffered significant losses during the war, losing 21 aircraft to German fighters and anti-aircraft fire.
The 24th Reconnaissance Flight was engaged from the very beginning of the conflict, tasked with spotting enemy formations and tracking their movements. On the 3rd September, six of its aircraft took part in a bombing run against a German armored column near Rabka. Polish pilots reported scoring several hits on enemy targets, although one aircraft was lost to anti-aircraft fire.
Despite sustaining losses, the unit still had operational aircraft by the 14th September. The following day, one aircraft was assigned the dangerous task of delivering a message to the Polish High Command in besieged Warsaw. The pilot had to fly 360 km over enemy-held territory and land in a city under siege, with no guarantee that the airfield was still secure. Against the odds, the mission was successful. The aircraft even managed to take off again and return, despite German attempts to shoot it down. The unit remained active until 17th September, when it was forced to evacuate to Romania due to the Soviet invasion from the east.
The 41st Reconnaissance Flight operated a small number of improved PZL.43A aircraft (an export version of the PZL.43 that had been sold to Bulgaria). While most of these aircraft were delivered to Bulgaria before the outbreak of war, a few remained in Poland awaiting final delivery. Initially, they could not be used due to missing components.
Interestingly, on the 6th September, an element of this unit engaged a German reconnaissance balloon near Przasnysz. Despite being protected by anti-aircraft guns, the Polish aircraft managed to shoot it down. By the 10th September, the unit had only two PZL.43As remaining. On that day, during a reconnaissance mission, one of the aircraft was hit by anti-aircraft fire and crashed, killing its crew. The following day, the last remaining aircraft was damaged by an enemy fighter and subsequently lost in a crash landing.
A PZL.23B from the 41st Reconnaissance Flight. Source: https://www-airwar-ru.translate.goog/enc/bww2/pzl23.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
By the time of Poland’s surrender on the 6th October, 1939, the PZL.23 aircraft of the Bomber Brigade had conducted over 186 sorties, during which they dropped approximately 64 tonnes of bombs. Meanwhile, the independent flight units assigned to the Army saw even more combat activity, flying around 260 sorties. However, these units dropped only about 20 tonnes of bombs, as their missions were primarily focused on reconnaissance rather than bombing enemy positions and forces on the move. Of the 140 aircraft deployed, over 100 were eventually lost in combat during the war. Far from the myth that the Polish Air Force was destroyed on the first day of the war, they fought with every tool at their disposal until the end.
By the end of the war in Poland, some 120 PZL 23 would be lost in combat. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WWIIplanes/comments/12bnmuw/german_personnel_examine_the_remains_of_a_polish/
In the Foreign Service
As soon as the first PZL.23 aircraft left production facilities, the Polish authorities were eager to generate foreign interest. In the spring of 1936, the PZL.23/III was presented at the air fair in Stockholm. Later that year, in November, another aircraft was exhibited at the Paris Air Show. Despite these efforts, Poland failed to attract any significant foreign interest in the design.
One PZL.23B was modified with a more powerful 925 hp Pegasus engine and equipped with a three-bladed, variable-pitch propeller. This variant was intended for export, but it failed to generate any interest, and was eventually reverted to the standard PZL.23B configuration.
The PZL.23B was modified with a 925 hp Pegasus engine, equipped with a three-bladed, variable-pitch propeller. Source; T. J. Kopanski PZL.23 Karaś
Bulgaria
The PZL.23 would see some export success. In March 1936, a delegation was sent to Poland by Bulgaria to evaluate and potentially acquire aircraft for their own use. Following a series of negotiations, Poland agreed to sell them 12 PZL.23 bombers.
However, the Bulgarians requested that the aircraft be powered by Gnome-Rhône engines, which presented a design challenge. The positioning of the Gnome-Rhône radial engines and their cylinders prevented the installation of the forward-firing machine gun originally housed within the engine compartment. Polish engineers had to overcome this by finding a new, suitable position for the machine gun within the fuselage, an issue that took some time to resolve.
By the end of summer 1936, the modified variant was ready. Due to changes in both the engine and fuselage design, the new aircraft was given a different designation: PZL.43. Although the contract between Poland and Bulgaria was signed on the 9th April 1936, actual production faced delays. The main issue was the engine: the requested Gnome-Rhône 14N had to be imported from France.
Bulgaria was the only country that showed interest in this aircraft, acquiring around 50 of a modified variant designated as PZL.43. Source: https://jmodels.net/de-hombres-y-maquinas/aire-air/pzl-23-karas/
It was not until May 1937 that the last of the ordered aircraft arrived in Bulgaria. The Bulgarians were satisfied with its performance and placed a new order for 42 additional aircraft. These were to be powered by the Gnome-Rhône 14N engine and received the new designation PZL.43A. Most of these aircraft were delivered by late August 1939.
Following the German occupation of Poland, the few PZL.43A units that had not yet been delivered were briefly tested by the Germans before being sent on to Bulgaria. In total, Bulgaria acquired 50 aircraft, comprising both the original PZL.43 and the updated PZL.43A variant.
During the war, these aircraft were primarily used for training purposes, though they were occasionally employed in operations against Yugoslav partisans. By September 1944, due to a lack of spare parts, most had been withdrawn from service. A few remained operational until 1946, when they too were finally scrapped.
Romania
Besides Bulgaria, Romania also operated some of these aircraft. They came into Romanian possession following the defeat of Poland in September 1939, when a group of 21 aircraft managed to escape German forces by fleeing to Romania. Of these, the Romanians were able to restore 19 to operational status, using the remaining two for spare parts. The aircraft saw extensive action against the Soviets, serving both in bombing, and reconnaissance roles, until 1943, after which they were reassigned to secondary duties. The last of these aircraft remained in service until 1946, when it was finally scrapped.
Romania operated at least 19 fully operational aircraft until 1943 when they were relocated for second line duties. Source: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/media/a-crashed-pzl-23-karas-no-12-romanian-af.25926/
Germany
After their victory in Poland, the Germans managed to capture several PZL.23 aircraft, most of which were either in poor condition or heavily damaged. They repaired a few PZL.43s and used them for testing purposes. Beyond that, however, they showed little interest in these aircraft.
Germans tested some captured aircraft but showed little interest in them. Source: T. J. Kopanski PZL.23 Karaś
Soviet Union
The Soviets also managed to capture several PZL.23 aircraft, some of which were actually in working condition. These appear to have been put to some use by the Soviets; however, beyond that, nothing else is known about their ultimate fate.
Technical characteristics
The PZL.23 was a single-engine, low-wing aircraft intended for both bombing and reconnaissance missions. The fuselage featured an oval-shaped fuselage cross-section built using a framework of stringers and struts. The tail section employed a semi-monocoque construction for added strength and reduced weight. The entire fuselage was then skinned with duralumin sheeting.
An excellent illustration of the PZL.23 internal component and crew’s positions. Source: https://panssarivaunut.blogspot.com/2016/02/pzl23-karas.html
The wings were constructed in three main sections. The first section consisted of two spars that formed an integral part of the structure. In addition to serving as the attachment point for the rest of the wing structure to the fuselage, this central section also housed the mounting points for the two landing gear units. It was further reinforced to support a bomb rack installed beneath the aircraft fuselage.
Following this were the two outer wing sections, which were built using an innovative method. These outer parts featured a torsion box design, constructed with corrugated heavy-gauge duralumin sheets. These were connected spanwise by additional corrugated, stress-bearing duralumin plates with a smooth finish. Finally, the wing tipsand trailing edge slats were attached to complete the wing. The tail assembly was built using spars and ribs, all of which were covered in duralumin for structural strength and aerodynamic efficiency.
The wing was made up of three sections. The first section was directly attached to the fuselage and housed the landing gear and fuel tanks. This central section was flanked by the two remaining outer wing panels. Source: https://www-airwar-ru.translate.goog/enc/bww2/pzl23.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
The cockpit was positioned at the front of the aircraft. In its early development phase, the PZL.23 suffered from poor forward visibility. This issue was eventually addressed in the B variant by lowering the engine and raising the pilot’s seat. Directly behind the pilot sat the observer and bombardier, who was provided with a glazed canopy offering fairly good all-around visibility. Beneath the fuselage was the bombardier’s gondola. Finally, at the rear of the aircraft was the gunner’s position
Close-up view of the aircraft glazed crew compartment. Source: https://panssarivaunut.blogspot.com/2016/02/pzl23-karas.htmlThe instrument panel. Source: https://jmodels.net/de-hombres-y-maquinas/aire-air/pzl-23-karas/At the bottom of the fuselage, a small bombardier’s gondola was installed. Source: J. B.Cynk The P.Z.L.23 Karaś
The first variant was powered by a 670 hp Bristol Pegasus II M2 engine. Later production aircraft were equipped with the more powerful 710 hp Bristol Pegasus VIII. In both versions, a two-bladed fixed-pitch propeller was used.
The fuel load consisted of 740 liters stored in six fuel tanks located within the central section of the wings.
The landing gear comprised two front-mounted fixed wheels (775×240 mm), each enclosed in aerodynamic spats. On many training aircraft, these spats were removed. To absorb shock during landings, shock absorbers were mounted on the landing gear legs. At the rear, a small tail skid with a shock absorber was installed.
The defensive armament included one forward-mounted 7.92 mm Wz.33 (Karabin lotniczy wz. 37) machine gun. The rear was protected by two 7.92 mm Wz.36 machine guns. Each machine gun was supplied with 600 rounds of ammunition. The B variant was designed to accommodate two forward-firing guns, but due to a lack of mounts, only one was typically installed. A ventrally mounted machine gun was also present, with an elevation and traverse range of 60 degrees.
For self-defense from rearward attacks, two machine guns were installed. Source: T. J. Kopanski PZL.23 Karaś
Initially, the aircraft’s bomb bay was located just behind the cockpit. However, during early testing, this design proved to be inefficient and was soon eliminated. Instead, bombs were mounted on an external rack positioned under the central fuselage.
This bomb rack could carry a payload ranging from 300 to 700 kilograms, typically using one of the following configurations: six 100 kg bombs, eight 50 kg bombs, or twenty-four small 12.5 kg bombs. In practice, however, loads exceeding 400 kg were rarely employed.
Production and Proposed Versions
PZL.23 I-III Prototypes – A small series of three prototypes
PZL.23A – An experimental version created by combining the Re.2002’s fuselage with the Re.2005’s wings. One built but never used operationally.
PZL.23B – possibly one modified for this role.
PZL.43 – Variant developed for Bulgaria
PZL.43A – Further improvement over the previous variant
PZL.23/IV – Proposed dive-bomber variant remained at prototype stage
PZL.42 – Future modification with new tail assembly, used as training aircraft until destroyed in September 1939,.
Operators
Poland – Operated fewer than 50 aircraft.
Bulgaria – Purchased 50 PZL.43 and PZL.43A aircraft, with a few remaining in service until 1946.
Romania – Acquired 21 aircraft from Polish pilots who escaped to Romania. Of these, 19 were put into service and used against the Soviet Union until 1943.
Germany – Captured numerous PZL.23 aircraft, though most were in poor condition. The Luftwaffe showed little interest in utilizing them.
Soviet Union – Also captured several PZL.23s, but there is no known record of their operational use.
Conclusion
The PZL.23 has developed something of an unfair reputation as a poorly designed aircraft. While it was far from perfect, it was not as ineffective as it is often portrayed. The aircraft did manage to inflict some losses on German forces, conduct many reconnaissance missions, and remained in service with Poland until almost the end of the campaign. However, like many of its contemporaries, it was too slow to effectively evade or counter enemy fighters. While capable in its designed role, it was adapted for various missions, some of which it was neither designed for nor particularly suited to, such as dive bombing, and it often flew missions without fighter escort. This left the aircraft highly vulnerable and with little chance of survival. Ultimately, nearly all PZL.23s were lost by the time the war in Poland came to an end.
Kingdom of Italy (1940-1943) Twin-engine maritime reconnaissance aircraft. Number built: 2 prototypes and 8 production aircraft
During the 1930s, Italian aviation made considerable strides, marked by the introduction of numerous new aircraft designs and technologies, such as all-metal air frames. However, not all of these designs were successful. Some, like the Ba.65 and Ba.88, ultimately proved to be failures, despite showing promise in their initial evaluations. However, a number would go on to prove incredibly successful despite troubled origins, with one notable example being the FIAT CR.25. In the late 1930s, FIAT proposed the development of a twin-engine fast bomber that could also serve in reconnaissance roles. After a fraught and meandering development cycle, only a small number of CR.25 were produced, they proved to be reliable and capable during the war.
The FIAT CR.25. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.25
History
In 1936, FIAT approached the Italian Air Ministry with a proposal for a modern, light bomber. In addition to its primary role, they suggested that the aircraft could also serve as a reconnaissance platform. A FIAT representative assured the Ministry that the aircraft’s exceptional speed and robust defensive armament would enable it to excel in both roles, with a maximum estimated speed above 500 km/h.
The Air Ministry found the proposal promising and approved the project. As FIAT worked on developing the first prototype, the Air Ministry made an additional request: the aircraft should also be capable of fulfilling the role of a heavy fighter, alongside its initial design purposes.
In April 1937, a meeting was held between FIAT and Air Force representatives to discuss the overall characteristics of the aircraft. One key question was whether the aircraft should include a dedicated bombardier’s station or prioritize a more streamlined design. The precise details of the armament were also debated. After a series of discussions, it was agreed that the initial plan for four forward-mounted heavy machine guns would be reduced to three. Additionally, the rotating turret on the lower fuselage would either be removed or completely redesigned. Lastly, it was decided to retain the dedicated bombardier and observation position.
As work progressed, it was decided to remove the rear machine gun gondola to achieve a more aerodynamic shape and save weight. However, the project encountered its first major issue when the designers, despite all efforts, failed to reach the required maximum speed of 500 km/h. At best the prototype recorded a speed of 450 km/h. The Air Ministry began to lose interest in FIAT’s design, as the Breda Ba.88 appeared to be a more promising alternative. During its initial tests, the Ba.88 managed to achieve speeds exceeding 550 km/h.
Ironically, despite this promising start, the Ba.88 turned out to be a disastrous design, with only a few aircraft ever seeing combat. Further testing of the Ba.88 revealed additional flaws, raising concerns among the Italian Air Force’s leadership. As a precaution, FIAT was granted permission to prepare for the production of 40 of their twin-engine bombers, which were then designated as the CR.25.
The production order was issued before the first prototype was even fully completed. This prototype, designated MM.332, underwent flight testing in July 1937, followed by extensive flight and endurance trials. Meanwhile, work on the second prototype, designated MM.333, and the first aircraft from the production order, was slowly progressing. However, before any of them could be fully completed, the situation surrounding the aircraft changed dramatically.
In the late 1930s, as tensions in Europe rose and the prospect of a new war loomed, the Italian Air Ministry began selecting aircraft for mass production. They carefully evaluated each design to determine its intended role and operational performance.
The FIAT CR.25 first prototype registered as MM.332. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.25
A debate emerged regarding the future of the CR.25. Despite its promising overall performance, the aircraft failed to meet the required maximum speed, a flaw considered critical in its design. The earlier decision to reduce its bombload had also already cast doubt on its viability as a fast bomber. Furthermore, its initial intended role as a fast heavy fighter had also been abandoned. In essence, the Air Ministry was inclined to terminate the project.
However, with approximately 40 units already in production, halting construction entirely would have resulted in wasted time, resources, and production capacity. In order to make good on the cost of producing these planes, the CR.25 was repurposed in 1938 as a dedicated reconnaissance aircraft, instead of a fast bomber.
This new role also presented challenges. The Air Ministry first wanted to properly evaluate the aircraft’s suitability for reconnaissance missions. Additionally, there was a shortage of suitable engines, and introducing another aircraft into service risked further straining the already limited supply of critical engine components.
Trials of the CR.25 were conducted alongside a modified Ba.88, and a Caproni Ca.312. During these evaluations, the Ba.88 was quickly dismissed due to persistent mechanical issues. While the Ca.312 was not without its flaws, it was ultimately favored for the reconnaissance role.
Production
In August 1939, a decision was made to scale back the CR.25 production order to just eight aircraft, in addition to the two existing prototypes. The remaining 32 units were canceled, with the incomplete airframes being set aside for replacement parts.
The A.74 engines were also salvaged from incomplete aircraft, as new engines would not be available for the production line. The final CR.25 from the initial order of eight aircraft was completed in early 1940.
Despite the initial order for 40 aircraft of this type, only 8 were ever fully completed beside the two prototypes. Source: https://comandosupremo.com/fiat-cr-25/
Sources slightly disagree on the exact number of aircraft built. The previously mentioned production figures are based on G. Apostolo’s (FIAT CR.25). However, other sources, such as D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata – Italija), suggest that a total of 12 aircraft were produced.
In Service
The 10 available CR.25 aircraft were allocated to the 173rd Squadriglia (Eng. Squadron), and the two prototypes were used as training aircraft. The personnel assigned to equip this unit were drawn from the 31st and 35th Stormi B.M. (Eng. Maritime Bombing Wing). For most of 1940, the unit saw no operational use. It was not until 1941 that the squadron began intensive training for its pilots and crew. Aircrew training was conducted in Turin, while ground personnel were stationed at Palermo-Boccadifalco.
Pilot training officially began in April 1941, but problems arose almost immediately. The most significant issue was that the pilots selected for this unit had only flown maritime aircraft and lacked experience with land-based planes. Another major challenge was the absence of suitable training aircraft with dual controls, which slowed the entire process considerably. Matters were further complicated when one of the prototypes caught fire during a training flight. Fortunately, the pilots and crew managed to bail out in time, but the aircraft crash-landed and was destroyed.
The first prototype was lost in an accident when the aircraft caught fire and crash-landed. Both the pilot and the passenger survived the incident as they managed to escape the plane in time. Source: G. Apostolo FIAT CR.25
By July 1941, only four aircraft and their respective crews were considered trained and ready for frontline deployment. The squadron’s first operational missions, primarily submarine reconnaissance flights, began later that month. On 25th July, four additional CR.25 aircraft arrived at the base in Palermo-Boccadifalco.
These eight aircraft saw extensive use throughout 1941 and early 1942. Despite their limited numbers, they were employed in wide-ranging reconnaissance and escort missions over the Mediterranean. However, three aircraft were sent to be scrapped after suffering damage in landing accidents that rendered them irreparable.
In 1940, only eight CR.25 aircraft were produced, and deployed for frontline use as maritime reconnaissance aircraft. Source: https://comandosupremo.com/fiat-cr-25/
From February 1942 onward, the 173rd Squadriglia was permanently attached to the 10th Stormo, operating out of the same base. This unit included SM.79 and Ca.314 aircraft in its inventory. On 6th February, the first recorded action involving the CR.25 against enemy aircraft took place. One of the 173rd’s CR.25s intercepted a British Blenheim bomber during a patrol. The bomber, heavily damaged during the encounter, was subsequently shot down by a German Bf 109.
On 21st June, two CR.25s were conducting an escort mission for an Axis convoy. During the mission, Allied aircraft attacked the convoy. The CR.25s managed to shoot down two enemy planes, while three more were downed by the convoy’s destroyer escort.
By October, the combination of landing accidents and a lack of spare parts meant that only three CR.25 aircraft remained operational. To prevent the unit’s disbandment, additional Ca.314 aircraft were assigned as replacements. However, these planes were poorly received by the pilots due to their inferior performance compared to the CR.25.
By 1943, the chronic shortage of spare parts effectively marked the end of the CR.25’s operational service life. The aircraft’s last recorded patrol occurred in mid-January 1943. The remaining four planes were subsequently withdrawn from service and placed in storage, likely awaiting scrapping.
Berlin Attaché Transport CR.25
Interestingly, one of the eight procured CR.25 aircraft found its way into service as the personal transport of the Italian military attaché in Berlin. Visually, it differed from the remaining aircraft by lacking the glazed nose typically seen on the model. Additionally, the interior was extensively modified to suit its specialized mission.
The first production aircraft was repurposed for military use as a transport aircraft, primarily serving to ferry politicians and ambassadors between Italy and Germany. Although it was essentially the same model as the original design, it lacked the glass-enclosed nose section. Source: https://www.vvsregiaavions.com/RegiaHTML/rcr252.htm
The redesigned interior featured seating for four passengers and dual controls. This aircraft was actively used by the Italians during the war. However, after the Italian capitulation in September 1943, it was seized by the Germans. They temporarily repurposed it as a training aircraft, but its service ended once spare parts became unavailable.
Some sources have referred to this aircraft as the CR.25A, though there is no evidence to suggest that the Italians officially used this designation.
Technical characteristics
The CR.25 fuselage was constructed using four tubular longerons, secured by a combination of crossbars, braces, and diagonal metal tubes. These components were assembled into three sections to form the complete fuselage. The wings and tail units were built using a similar construction method. However, unlike the fuselage, which was entirely made of metal, the tail and wing surfaces were covered with fabric.
The cockpit was located directly behind the aircraft’s nose and accommodated the pilot’s position. To the pilot’s right was the position originally intended for the bombardier. However, as the aircraft was rarely used in a bombing role, the second crew member performed various other tasks, such as navigation, observation, operating the radio, and managing the onboard camera. In practice, the second crew member was often overburdened with multiple responsibilities.
For observation and other tasks, the second crew member could use the cockpit’s side windows or the lower section of the nose, which was glazed to provide a clear view of the area below. Interestingly, the Italians incorporated an auxiliary control stick located behind the pilot. This allowed the second crew member to partially operate the aircraft if the nose sustained severe damage or if the pilot was incapacitated.
The lower part of the CR.25’s nose was enclosed in glass, allowing the crew members tasked with identifying targets for bombing runs to have a clear view. Source: G. Apostolo FIAT CR.25Close up view of the CR.25 cockpit command board. Source: https://www.vvsregiaavions.com/RegiaHTML/rcr252.htm
The CR.25 was powered by two 840-horsepower FIAT A.74 RC.38 engines, each paired with 3-meter-long FIAT automatic pitch propellers. The aircraft’s fuel load consisted of 1,600 liters, distributed among six smaller fuel tanks located in the wings. These tanks were protected by armored plating, offering protection against weapons up to 12.7 mm caliber.
The primary armament included two 12.7 mm SAFAT heavy machine guns mounted in the aircraft’s nose. For defense against enemy aircraft, another heavy machine gun was positioned in a small, rotating Breda Type M.2 turret located on the rear upper fuselage. This turret was operated by a third crew member.
The fuselage of the CR.25 featured a small bomb bay capable of carrying up to 300 kilograms of bombs, though this capacity may vary according to different sources.
The CR.25 armament consisted of two nose-positioned and one in the rear turret 12.7 mm heavy machine guns. Source: https://comandosupremo.com/fiat-cr-25/
Conclusion
Unlike a number of Italian aircraft that failed to live up to their expectations, and were produced in limited numbers, the CR.25 stood out as a success despite its short service life and limited production run. While it was certainly no extraordinary aircraft by any measure, it performed well in its intended role, and despite being produced in relatively small quantities, it saw significant use in the Mediterranean theater, and was favored by its crews over other comparable aircraft.
Though never employed as a bomber, the CR.25 was predominantly used as a reconnaissance aircraft with great success. Remarkably, no aircraft of this type was ever shot down by the enemy. By 1943, however, they ran out of spare parts, which effectively marked the end of the CR.25’s long service career.
Operators
Kingdom of Italy – Operated 10 aircraft
Germany – Briefly operated the one captured aircraft for training purposes
Kingdom of Hungary (1943) Reconnaissance aircraft – Over 28
During the Second World War, Hungary aligned itself with the Axis powers, and in 1941, they dispatched their armed forces to support the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Initially, the Hungarian Army, particularly its Air Force, was poorly equipped for this conflict and lacked many vital military resources, particularly modern weapons and aircraft. For example, its Air Force had to conduct tactical reconnaissance using obsolete biplane aircraft. In 1943, to support their ally, the Germans supplied a small group of the modern Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft to the Hungarians. Although these aircraft were limited in number, they saw extensive action until the end of the war.
Hungarian-operated Fw 189. Source: G. Punka Focke-Wulf Fw 189 in Action
History
Despite many attempts to improve its Air Force during the 1930s, Hungary faced numerous obstacles that hindered its progress. The most significant challenge were the restrictions on developing certain military technologies, including aircraft, imposed by the Treaty of Trianon in June 1920. Although the geopolitical landscape in Europe had changed considerably by the 1930s, rendering the Western Allies incapable of enforcing this ban, it did little to assist Hungary. The country simply lacked the financial resources and could not find any potential sources from which they could purchase a large number of new aircraft from.
As a result, the Hungarian Air Force had to rely on the Weiss Manfred WM 21 Sólyom, a biplane developed domestically in the late 1930s, for reconnaissance operations. Fewer than 130 of these aircraft were built. To supplement the WM 21, Hungary acquired the Heinkel He 46 from Germany. However, by the time Hungary entered the war with the Soviet Union in 1941, both aircraft were clearly obsolete. Nevertheless, with no better alternatives available, they had to continue in their reconnaissance roles.
The Weiss Manfrédfrom WM 21 two-seat reconnaissance aircraft. Source: lasegundaguerra.com
By 1943, it had become clear to Hungarian Air Force officials that the two aging aircraft in their fleet needed to be replaced. With limited options available, they turned to the Germans for assistance. At that time, Germany was deeply entangled in the conflict with the Soviet Union and was in desperate need of support from its allies. Realizing the necessity of keeping Hungary well-equipped in the fight against the Soviets, the Germans agreed to supply a small contingent of the well-known Focke-Wulf Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft to reequip the Hungarian forces.
A Brief Fw 189 History
The history of the Fw 189 dates back to 1937, when the German Ministry of Aviation initiated the development of a new tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The role of the aircraft was to survey the front line, and carry out army liaison duties. One of the companies that responded to this competition was Focke-Wulf, which presented the Fw 189. This aircraft won the contract, leading to a production order that began in 1940. The Fw 189 was a twin-engine aircraft with a heavily glazed central fuselage which gave its crew excellent visibility. It was well-liked in service and generally performed well, with most of them being employed on the Eastern Front. By the time production ended in 1944, some 900 of these aircraft had been built.
The German Focke-Wulf Fw 189. Source: Wiki
Operational Service Life
While the Fw 189 aircraft were allocated to the Hungarian Air Force, they operated under German command. This was not irregular; in fact, to better coordinate their efforts, large parts of the engaged Hungarian Air Force were placed under German operational control. In May 1943, Germany supplied the Hungarians with a group of 12 Fw 189A models, which were assigned to the 3rd Hungarian Flying Squadron under the command of Captain Lorand Telbisz. This squadron was subordinate to the German 4th Air Fleet.
The first aircraft operated from airfields near Harkow, where they undertook over 224 reconnaissance missions against Soviet forces. Some of these missions even targeted Soviet partisans in the Pripet Marshes. During one of these operations, the Hungarians lost their first Fw 189, when it was shot down in late May.
The aircraft also saw heavy action during the Battle of Kursk, performing reconnaissance missions and, in many instances, conducting light bombing attacks against enemy forces. However, with the failure of the German offensive, the Hungarian forces were forced to retreat as well.
The Fw 189 was the first Hungarian modern reconnaissance aircraft, employed first in 1943. Source: G. Sarhidai, G. Punka, and V. Kozlik Hungarian Eagles
In September 1943, a lone Hungarian Fw 189 achieved remarkable success against Soviet fighters. On the 21st, during a reconnaissance mission, the Hungarian Fw 189 was engaged by a group of three Yak-9 fighters. To evade the enemy, the Fw 189 pilot descended sharply, making abrupt turns. Despite intensive enemy fire, the rear gunner managed to shoot down one of the fighters. A second Soviet fighter was lost when its pilot misjudged his altitude and crashed into the ground. The last surviving fighter disengaged and retreated. While the Fw 189 lacked for a heavy defensive armament, its spindly form and exceptional maneuverability made it a difficult target for interceptors, when an experienced pilot was at the controls.
Later that same day, another Fw 189 was attacked by at least six La-5 fighters. After extensive maneuvering and exchanging of fire, the rear gunner of the Fw 189 claimed two of the attackers. In both cases, the Fw 189s successfully returned to their bases.
During this period, the Germans added a few more aircraft to the unit to replace losses and worn-out planes. By the end of October 1943, the 3rd Flying Squadron had completed its 1,000th flight mission. However, while it remained active until the end of the year, a lack of fuel and spare parts greatly reduced the number of operational flights. By March 1944, the unit had only one operational aircraft left. That same month, the unit was officially disbanded, and the surviving personnel were sent back to Hungary.
Despite the small number operated, the Fw 189 saw extensive use by the Hungarian military. By the end of October 1943, the 3rd Flying Squadron had completed its 1,000th flight mission. Source: G. Punka Focke-Wulf Fw 189 in Action
The story of the Fw 189 in Hungarian service did not end there. In April 1944, the 4th Reconnaissance Squadron was relocated to Hungary and stationed at Bydgoszcz. The squadron’s crew underwent training in night reconnaissance operations, which were completed by May. Following their training, the unit engaged in extensive action on the Eastern Front, ranging from Poland to Hungary. They remained active on the frontline until September, when it was disbanded. Following the unit’s dissolution, the surviving aircraft were returned to the Germans. While the exact number of Fw 189s operated by this unit is unclear, they are known to have lost between 10 and 11 aircraft of this type to all causes. This marked the end of the Fw 189’s service within the Hungarian Air Force.
It is not clear precisely how many aircraft of this type were operated by the Hungarians. Author G. Punka (Hungarian Air Force) places the number of 28 aircraft of this type, while in another book, Hungarian Eagles, written by Sarhidai, G. Punka, and V. Kozlik, a figure of 21 is given. While most of these received Hungarian Air Force markings, many of them retained the original German markings, which makes identification somewhat confusing, likely contributing to this ambiguity.
After 1943, the Fw 189 would still see service within the Hungarian Air Force but primarily for night reconnaissance operations. Source: https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/490017-visegrad-group-aviation-tech-tree/page/3/
Technical Specification
The Fw 189 was designed as a twin-engine reconnaissance aircraft with a unique construction. Its central fuselage featured extensive glazing, with the cockpit at the front of the compartment, followed by a small crew area, and a gunner’s station at the rear. The fuselage was bulkier at the front and tapered toward the rear. Access to the crew area was provided through two hatches above the cockpit and a larger hatch at the rear. Although the extensive glazing left the crew more exposed to enemy fire, it was ideal for its reconnaissance role, offering excellent all-around visibility.
The wings are composed of two distinct sections. The central, square-shaped panel connects the nacelle and engines, while the second section extends outward from the booms. The wings feature a metal base covered with duralumin, though the ailerons and split flaps are clad in fabric.
The aircraft was powered by two 465 hp Argus As 410 A-1 12-cylinder air-cooled V-12 engines. These engines demonstrated remarkable effectiveness and reliability, even under the harsh winter conditions of the Eastern Front. With these engines, the Fw 189 achieved a maximum speed of 335 km/h, though exact figures may vary between sources. Each engine drove a two-blade, constant-speed propeller. Fuel was stored in two 110-liter tanks, which were housed in the tail booms. The Fw 189 had a maximum operational range of approximately 670 km.
The landing gear consisted of two landing gear assemblies that retracted into the engine nacelles. The rear smaller tail wheel was located inside the vertical stabilizer and was retracted in flight. While nominally a reconnaissance aircraft, the aircraft could be armed with machine guns for strafing targets, and had four underwing shackles for bombs, or flares.
Conclusion
The Fw 189 was a well-designed aircraft that excelled in its intended role. Given its effectiveness, it’s no surprise that the Hungarians made extensive use of the few aircraft they were supplied with. These planes were deployed exclusively against the Soviets, primarily in 1943 and late 1944.
In the late 1930s, the British Royal Navy was in desperate need of a modern carrier-based fighter. No existing aircraft in the British inventory could effectively fulfill this role; fortunately, the aircraft manufacturer Fairey was developing a versatile light bomber. Upon closer examination, it became clear that this aircraft could be adapted for carrier operations. The result was the Fairey Fulmar, which entered service in 1940.
With little time or resources on hand as a new World War loomed, the Royal Navy’s need for a carrier-based fighter was the found in the Fairey Fulmar. (wikimedia)
History
By the late 1930s, Japan was expanding across Asia, and there were increasing signs that a new war in Europe was on the horizon. This prompted nations such as the United Kingdom to invest in new military developments, focusing on new weapons, aircraft, and nascent technological fields which might yield decisive advantages. The Royal Air Force (RAF) saw a surge of new aircraft designs, some of which would prove to be war-winning weapons, such as the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters.
In contrast, the British Royal Navy struggled to find a suitable fighter aircraft to protect its ships. Few existing designs met the requirements, and while some older designs still had some use left in them, like the venerable Gloster Gladiator, the need for modern fighters was becoming apparent. The main airborne threats were maritime patrol aircraft that could reveal the position of the Royal Navy’s fleets, but with rapid advancements in aviation happening year over year, new dangers were soon to emerge.
Ruggedness, endurance, and advanced navigational equipment were key aspects of carrier-based fighters, but for a short-legged, landbased day fighter, these design goals were secondary at best. As a result, the Royal Navy’s requirements for a new fighter prioritized long-range radio navigation equipment and a multi-crew design. While these additions reduced the aircraft’s speed, the trade-off was considered necessary for the sake of improved coordination and operational effectiveness. In addition, the new fighter needed to carry enough fuel for a flight of at least three hours.
Developing an entirely new design was likely to take years, and given the rising tensions in Europe, the Navy wanted a solution as soon as possible. Fortunately for them, the RAF had been experimenting with a high-speed light bomber concept. In response, several companies, including Fairey Aviation and Hawker Aircraft, submitted proposals, the Fairey P.4/34 and the Hawker Henley.
However, before either of these designs reached flight testing, the RAF abandoned the fast bomber concept altogether. The Navy, on the other hand, remained highly interested in a potential fighter based on the designs. Both aircraft demonstrated impressive speed and an endurance of over four hours, making them strong candidates for the naval fighter role the navy was seeking.
To further improve their options, a third aircraft, the Phillips and Powis M.9 Kestrel, was included in the evaluation as a private venture. However, as it was initially intended as a trainer, it lacked the long-range capabilities required for naval operations and was quickly rejected.
In January 1938, after meeting with representatives from the Air Ministry, it was suggested that the Navy select the Fairey entrant as the winner. This recommendation was not based primarily on overall performance, but rather on Hawker’s already overloaded production schedule. The company was heavily engaged in manufacturing the much-needed Hurricane fighter and could not afford to divert time and resources to another project.
After analyzing its limited options, the Navy agreed to the proposal but issued a series of requirements for the new fighter. Among these were an endurance of six hours at a speed of 220 km/h (138 mph) and three hours at 427 km/h (265 mph), all at an altitude of over 3,000 meters (10,000 feet). The aircraft’s armament was to consist of at least eight 7.62 mm (0.303 in) Browning machine guns. Navy officials determined that a rear-mounted machine gun would not be necessary. While not specifically intended for attacking enemy ships, the aircraft was to be capable of carrying two 113 kg (250 lb) bombs if needed.
A more significant requirement was that the fighter should be adaptable for floatplane operations, with the ability to be equipped with floats in the field by a four-man crew in a relatively short time. Additionally, the aircraft had to be built with a sufficiently strong structure to allow for carrier landings and catapult launches.
In February, representatives from the RAF and the Navy met to discuss the proposal further and refine the specifications. During these discussions, several additional modifications were agreed upon, including raising the canopy to improve visibility during landings, and the rear observer/navigator’s compartment was to be equipped with the necessary navigational instruments. If these requirements were met, production was estimated to begin in September 1939, with a planned output of 8 aircraft per month. The new fighter was designated as Fairey Fulmar.
In March 1938, Fairey was informed of the Navy’s request for a new fighter aircraft. After examining the details, Fairey’s engineers began assessing whether the necessary modifications could be made without compromising the aircraft’s performance. By May, they informed Navy officials that their P.4/34 prototype could be adapted for the role. Following this, Fairey received a production order for 127 aircraft. Interestingly, the contract did not include the construction of an additional P.4/34 prototype for testing.
However, the project came to a halt that same month. The main issue was that Fairey was already overwhelmed with other commitments. The P.4/34’s designer, Marcel J. O. Lobelle, was instead assigned to work on the Fairey Barracuda and Albacore torpedo bombers. With his focus diverted, he was unable to dedicate time to yet another project. Despite this setback, work on the fighter continued, albeit at a slow pace.
The Munich Crisis of September 1938, in which Britain and France negotiated the fate of Czechoslovakia with Germany, further heightened tensions in Europe. With the possibility of war increasing, the order for the new fighter was expanded to 250 aircraft. However, given the existing delays, Fairey informed Navy officials that production could not commence before March 1940, seven months later than originally intended. To compensate for lost time, the monthly production was to be increased to 25 aircraft and carried out at the newly constructed Stockport factory.
First Production Aircraft
During the spring of 1939, the P.4/34 prototype was modified and tested as a potential new fighter. Following its success, two more pre-production aircraft were completed in late 1939. The first of these underwent flight testing in January 1940, while the second was not tested until May of that year. The delay occurred because the designers wanted to evaluate the installation of the Rolls-Royce RM3M engine. However, despite this test, the production aircraft that were to be gradually introduced were to be powered by the Merlin VIII engine instead.
One of the five pre-production aircraft was used as a test prototype. (D. Brown Fairey Fulmar Mks I and II Aircraft Profile 254)
Testing of the first aircraft revealed that its performance was below expectations. It achieved a maximum speed of 410 km/h (255 mph), which was lower than intended, and its climb rate was also deemed insufficient. More importantly, its operational endurance was an hour below the originally promised six hours. The primary issue was that once armament and additional equipment were installed, the aircraft’s weight increased considerably, which negatively impacted its overall performance.
On the 6th of April 1940, the first production aircraft underwent flight testing at the Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment in Boscombe Down, Wiltshire. The aircraft was described as pleasant to fly and highly responsive. However, much like the prototype, its performance was subpar compared to modern land-based fighters.
Further testing was conducted by No. 770 Squadron, a trial unit stationed at Lee-on-Solent Naval Air Station. The aircraft arrived at its unit on May 10, 1940—the same day Germany launched its invasion of Western Europe. There, it was used for takeoff and landing trials, both on solid ground and on a wooden dummy flight deck designed to simulate aircraft carrier runways.
In early June 1940, the aircraft underwent flight tests aboard the newly built HMS Illustrious. The Fairey Fulmar proved easy to land, thanks to its excellent forward visibility and responsive controls. However, during takeoff, pilots noticed a tendency for the aircraft to veer to the left.
Despite its mediocre capabilities, and with no viable alternative available, the Fairey Fulmar was put into production. Manufacturing began in April 1940, and between April and December of that year, approximately 159 aircraft of this type were built.
Despite the urgent need for such fighters, production was delayed. When it finally began, it began at a slow pace, meaning the aircraft were never available in significant numbers during the war. (https://hushkit.net/2020/03/24/fairey-fulmar-how-an-absurd-lumbering-thing-became-britains-top-scoring-naval-fighter/)
Improved Mk. II Model
As Fulmar production was underway, Fairey proposed an improved variant. Essentially, it was the same aircraft but powered by a 1,260 hp Merlin 30 engine. Additionally, it was estimated that the new model could have its weight reduced by approximately 160 kg (350 lb). Once approval was granted, Fairey modified one of its already-built Fulmar aircraft to create the prototype for the new version, designated as the Fulmar II (Mk. II). The prototype modification was completed by the end of 1940, and flight testing began after nearly a month. The conversion proved successful and straightforward, requiring no major retooling of the production process. As a result, manufacturing soon transitioned to the new Fulmar II. However, despite the more powerful engine, its overall performance saw only marginal improvement. The aircraft built using older airframes, but fitted with the new engine, were designated as Fulmar I/II. By February 1943, a total of 600 aircraft of both variants had been produced.
Night Fighter Role
When the war in Europe began, Britain was among the many countries that lacked a dedicated night fighter. By 1940, the situation had not improved significantly. In particular, night raids by the Italian Air Force inflicted damage on several British ships stationed in the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy’s Fulmar fighter was ill-equipped to counter these nighttime attacks, and naval officials requested Air Interception Radar Mk. VI sets from the RAF. However, the experiment proved disappointing, as the radar performed poorly at the low altitudes where anti-ship attacks were conducted.
From 1942 onward, the older Mark IV radar system replaced the Mk. VI. This upgrade involved installing three antenna masts on the wings and in front of the aircraft. Unfortunately, this installation further reduced the Fulmar’s already slow speed by an additional 32 km/h (20 mph). Due to these challenges, none of the 100 modified aircraft were deployed to the front lines until February 1944, and it remains doubtful whether they ever saw combat.
While the Fulmar failed in its night fighter role, approximately 50 aircraft were repurposed as night-fighter trainers, making up half of the originally modified night-fighter fleet.
Long-Range Reconnaissance Role
Beginning in April 1942, some Fulmars were tested with lightweight H/F W/T radio sets. The installation proved successful, leading to further modifications for use as long-range reconnaissance aircraft equipped with improved radio equipment. These aircraft were primarily deployed for extended patrols over the Indian Ocean.
In Combat
Northern Europe
As the first Fairey Fulmars entered service in 1940, Europe was already engulfed in war. The first operational unit to receive the aircraft was No. 806 Squadron. Initially, Fulmars operated from airfields in the UK, from which they were deployed to support the defense of Norway, and later played a role in the evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk. Their first assigned aircraft carrier deployment was aboard the newly commissioned Illustrious, beginning in August 1940.
Later in 1941, Fulmars were used to patrol, and escort convoys bound for the Soviet Union in the North Sea. While engagements with enemy fighters were rare, one notable encounter took place in late July 1941. During this engagement, a group of Fulmars intercepted German aircraft, resulting in the destruction of two Bf 109s and one Me 110. However, the Fulmars suffered losses as well, with two aircraft being shot down in the process.
Additional units were formed as more aircraft became available. Interestingly, some Fulmars from No. 804 Squadron were assigned to operate from Fighter Catapult Ships, escorting Atlantic convoys. These were actually modified merchant ships equipped with catapult rams. Once the fighter was launched, the pilot was to fly it until he ran out of fuel. After that, the pilot would use his parachute or ditch the aircraft in the path of a ship that could recover him.
While they were intended to function as carrier-based fighters, their early operational life saw them deployed from coastal airfields in the UK. (https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/c2ivcq/fairey_fulmar/)
The last recorded sortie from an aircraft carrier occurred on the 8th of February 1945. On that day, a Fulmar night fighter was dispatched to intercept an enemy aircraft approaching a convoy destined for the Soviet Union. However, en route to its target, the Fulmar’s radar equipment malfunctioned, forcing the pilot to return to the carrier. During landing, the aircraft missed the arrestor wire and instead crashed into the safety barrier.
Mediterranean Theater of War
As production increased, additional units were formed. Such as No. 804 Squadron, which was assigned to operate Fulmars from merchant ships fitted with catapults, escorting Atlantic convoys. These vessels would launch the aircraft when an enemy target was identified. Between June and September 1940, this tactic saw limited use, with the Fulmars managing only to inflict minor damage on a German Fw 200 bomber. The Fulmars also participated in the hunt for the German Bismarck battleship but played a minor reconnaissance role.
Their combat service was primarily seen in the Mediterranean, and in September 1940, HMS Illustrious was deployed to that theater of war. At the time, the British Navy operating there lacked any form of fighter support. This role was then fulfilled by the 18 aircraft of No. 806 Squadron.
For the remainder of the year, the squadron was mainly tasked with targeting Italian reconnaissance aircraft and enemy bombers. Despite their limited numbers, they managed to shoot down 26 Italian aircraft by the end of 1940. This success was achieved by effectively coordinating their operations with Illustrious‘ radar system.
However, the situation changed drastically in 1941 when the German Luftwaffe arrived in greater numbers. Illustrious was heavily damaged, forcing No. 806 Squadron to relocate—first to Malta and then to Crete in February 1941. There, they were attached to another carrier, Formidable, and effectively merged with No. 803 Squadron.
The squadron continued operations from Formidable until May 1941, when the carrier was severely damaged by German attacks. By that time, the Fulmars had managed to shoot down at least 56 enemy aircraft, but these successes came at a cost—more than half of their already limited numbers were lost.
In April 1941, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal was tasked with protecting Gibraltar, supported by No. 807 and No. 808 Squadrons. These squadrons remained active until August 1941, when Ark Royal was sunk. Following its loss, No. 808 Squadron was disbanded, while No. 807 Squadron continued operating in the area. They were primarily assigned to patrol missions, occasionally engaging German submarines. In June, while conducting operations around Malta, they managed to shoot down five enemy aircraft but suffered the loss of three of their own. Afterward, they were redeployed to the United Kingdom.
During August 1942, No. 807 Squadron played a role in protecting a supply convoy to Malta. The British forces were supported by 18 Fulmars from No. 809 and No. 884 Squadrons. Between the 11th to 12th of August, intense battles with Axis fighters took place. The Fulmars successfully shot down at least two enemy aircraft but lost three of their own in the process.
On a few occasions, they also engaged Vichy French aircraft near Syria. In one such encounter, a group of Fulmars clashed with French D.520 fighters. Although they failed to bring down any of the French aircraft, the British lost three of their own.
The Fairey Fulmar was predominantly employed in the Mediterranean against Axis maritime patrol aircraft. (https://www.armouredcarriers.com/fairey-fulmar-models)
Deployment to China Bay
In February 1942, a small contingent of Fairey Fulmar aircraft was dispatched to China Bay to support the Royal Air Force’s General Reconnaissance No. 273 Squadron. The Fulmar equipped two squadrons, No. 803 and No. 806. No. 803 Squadron suffered heavy losses in April 1942 when four of its six aircraft were shot down during an engagement with Japanese fighters. However, the squadron managed to achieve one air victory during the battle.
On April 9, the Fulmars saw action again when they engaged Japanese bombers attacking the British aircraft carrier HMS Hermes. Despite being at a disadvantage, they successfully shot down three enemy bombers but lost two of their own aircraft in the process.
End of Service
By 1943, most Fulmar aircraft that had been deployed as day fighters were withdrawn from frontline service. The remaining aircraft were repurposed for training or used as second-line night fighters for the remainder of the war. As the war in Europe neared its end, nearly all Fulmars were replaced by the improved Fairey Firefly. In total, approximately 40 Fulmars were lost in combat by the war’s conclusion.
Technical characteristics
The Fulmar was a single-engine, all-metal carrier-based fighter. Its monocoque fuselage was constructed using metal panels placed over a tubular framework. A similar design approach was employed for the rest of the aircraft, including the wings and tail assembly.
Since the aircraft was intended to operate from smaller aircraft carriers, where space was limited, its wings needed to be foldable to maximize available room. As a result, the inner section of the wings was fixed to the fuselage, while the outer sections were designed to fold back efficiently against the sides of the aircraft. The tail assembly followed a more conventional design, featuring two horizontal stabilizers and a single vertical stabilizer.
Since it was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier, where space was limited, its wings were modified to fold. (https://www.armouredcarriers.com/fairey-fulmar-models)Its landing gear consisted of two main wheels that retracted inward into the fuselage, along with a small fixed tail wheel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Fulmar)
The first prototype developed from the P.4/34 was powered by a 1,030 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin II V-12 engine. It was later replaced with a slightly more powerful Merlin VIII engine, producing 1,080 hp. With this upgrade, the aircraft achieved a maximum diving speed of 724 km/h (450 mph) and a cruising speed of 398 km/h (247 mph). The final improved variant was instead equipped with a Merlin 30 engine, delivering 1,300 hp. This modification increased the cruising speed to 417 km/h (259 mph).
Initially powered by a 1,030 hp engine, it was soon replaced with a later variant that produced 1,300 hp. While this upgrade didn’t significantly increase its maximum speed, it was certainly a welcome improvement in its rate of climb and sustained turn rate. (https://www.armouredcarriers.com/fairey-fulmar-models)
Beneath the fuselage, there were sets of catapult spools along with an arrestor hook. These components were essential for launching the aircraft from a carrier. The arrestor hook featured a V-shaped design and was secured in place by a snap lock. The pilot could release it when needed, and when not in use, only a small portion of the hook remained exposed.
The cockpit consisted of a position for the pilot and a rear, extended radio operator/observer cabin. To provide the best forward visibility, the pilot’s canopy was slightly elevated. The remaining crew compartment was fully glazed to ensure the best possible view of the surroundings. Given the distance between them, the crew communicated using a speaking tube or, when necessary, a sidetone. However, due to engine noise, the latter method was not always the most effective.
The Fulmar featured a raised pilot’s canopy, providing an excellent forward view. Additionally, its rear crew compartment was fairly long and enclosed by a glazed canopy, offering a good all-around view. (https://hushkit.net/2020/03/24/fairey-fulmar-how-an-absurd-lumbering-thing-became-britains-top-scoring-naval-fighter/)
The armament of this aircraft consisted of eight 7.62 mm machine guns mounted in the wings. Each gun was initially supplied with 750 rounds of ammunition, which was later increased to 1,000. While eight machine guns may sound formidable, in practice, they lacked the firepower needed to inflict serious damage on larger targets, given their relatively small caliber.
The ground crew in the process of loading each gun with 750-round belts. Later, this was increased to 1,000 rounds per machine gun. (https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/fairey-fulmar/)
For example, the British recorded an incident in which three Fulmar fighters engaged a single Blohm & Voss BV 138, a long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. Despite firing nearly 18,000 rounds at it, the German aircraft suffered no significant damage and managed to escape.
To address this issue, the British considered equipping the Fulmar with heavier 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns. While the installation proved feasible, a shortage of these weapons meant that very few aircraft were ever fitted with them. Around 100 units were slated for modification to carry four of these heavy machine guns, but only a small number actually received the upgrade.
Despite having enough space, no attempt was made to mount a rear-positioned machine gun, despite the crew’s insistence on doing so. Instead, the crew improvised with whatever defensive weapons they could find. Some used Thompson submachine guns, while others relied on signal pistols. The most unusual weapon employed for self-defense was a bundle of standard-issue toilet paper, secured with an elastic band. When thrown out of the aircraft, the band would snap, creating an explosion of paper that, on rare occasions, helped distract or deter enemy pursuers.
The Fulmar was originally designed to carry a bomb load consisting of either two 45 kg or 113 kg (100-250 lbs) bombs. However, this was never actually implemented, as no bomb racks were installed to accommodate such a load. On rare occasions, small 9 to 18 kg (20-40 lbs) bombs were carried to engage enemy anti-aircraft batteries during support missions.
Production
Production of this aircraft began in May 1940 and ended in February 1943. During that time, 250 units of the Mk. I variant was built, followed by 350 of the later Mk. II variant. In total, approximately 600 aircraft of this type were produced during the war.
Production Versions
Fairey Fulmar Mk.I– First production variant
Fairey Fulmar Mk.II– Second production variant equipped with a Merlin 30 engine
Night Fighter/trainer– Modified to act as a night fighter, supplied with radio equipment. In total 100 were converted to this role of which half were reused as night fighter trainers
Long-Range Reconnaissance – Equipped with long-range radio equipment
Surviving Aircraft
Only one of the approximately 600 aircraft of this type has survived to this day. This surviving example is actually the first prototype, which was later used for civilian purposes after the war. Today, it is on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton.
The only surviving Fairey Fulmar can be seen at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Fulmar)
Conclusion
The Fairey Fulmar was an attempt to adapt an existing aircraft design into a fighter type that was in high demand by the British Royal Navy. While it met most of the required specifications, it was too slow and heavy to compete effectively against faster, purpose-built fighters. Its
armament, despite featuring multiple machine guns, was also still somewhat underpowered. However, this did not prevent the Fulmar from achieving remarkable success for a relatively large fighter. Despite its small production numbers, it proved effective against Italian aircraft and, on occasion, even German fighters. By 1943, however, it was becoming obsolete, and by the end of the war, all remaining Fulmars had been retired from service. Nonetheless, it paved the way for later, more advanced naval aircraft.
United Kingdom (1943-1944) Rotor Kite Transport – One prototype
During the Second World War, airborne troops became an essential component of modern military strategy. They allowed armies to wreak havoc on unprotected rear areas by destroying critical targets, such as the enemy’s vital command structures, and the infrastructure supporting their army. However, one major drawback was that once on the ground, these troops were lightly equipped and moved at a walking pace. However, an engineer named Raoul Hafner proposed an innovative solution: airlifting light vehicles using unpowered rotary wings, similar to those later used in helicopters. His concept involved towing the vehicle, behind a truck or light aircraft until lift off. Once airborne, it would be released, and the pilot would use autorotation to fly the vehicle to the landing zone. A prototype was built and tested, but with the advent of larger gliders, the project was ultimately abandoned.
With the abundance of US-supplied military vehicles, the British sought ways to incorporate them into various roles, and experiments. Among those interested was Raoul Hafner, a rotor kite enthusiast. Rotor kites were essentially unpowered rotary-wing aircraft that shared many design features with later helicopters. While helicopters can take off under their own power, rotor kites cannott, instead, they need to be towed by a larger aircraft, or a suitable ground vehicle. Once airborne, they rely on airflow over their rotary wings to generate lift and remain airborne. This can be achieved by descending to generate speed and lift, having a strong wind to keep the rotor wing turning, or remaining tethered to another vehicle for the entirety of the flight. Although this technology was inexpensive to build, it was never implemented on a larger scale.
Hafner was born in Austria in 1905. In his early twenties, he developed an early interest in rotorcraft design, and in 1928, he collaborated with Bruno Nagler on an early helicopter prototype. In the early 1930s, Hafner emigrated to the United Kingdom, where he began working on gyroplanes there, he designed and built a functional prototype known as the Hafner A.R.III Gyroplane. Hafner continued refining his designs, but with the outbreak of World War Two, he was briefly held in state custody due to his Austrian origin.
Raoul Hafner would go on to play a vital role in the history of helicopter development. However, his early work was primarily focused on an unpowered variant known as the rotor kite. Source: en.wikipedia.org
Upon his release, Hafner began working on a solution to Britain’s shortage of materials needed for parachute construction. His goal was to develop an inexpensive, one-man rotor kite to carry an infantryman deep behind enemy lines. The core principle behind his concept was that, given the scarcity of materials required for parachute production, a small, easy-to-build, and simple-to-control rotor kite could serve as a cost-effective alternative. These kites were designed to be towed into the air by another aircraft and then released near the designated target. Once released, the pilot/paratrooper would glide down slowly before proceeding to their objective. Hafner followed with a small prototype series of these aircraft, designated the Hafner Rotachute. While his work showed promise, it ultimately resulted in only a limited number of experimental prototypes, with no further large-scale implementation.
The so-called Hafner Rotachute was an experimental attempt to develop an alternative to parachutes. While the concept was intriguing, it never progressed beyond a small prototype production run. Source: en.wikipedia.org
He soon expanded on that idea, if he could devise a way to land soldiers, why not include light vehicles as well? Paratroopers, who were often dropped behind enemy lines to wreak havoc among key targets, were frequently left vulnerable as they were lightly armed and had limited mobility. The challenge, however, was that airdropping even light vehicles was no simple task. Hafner theorized that his rotor kite design could be expanded and enlarged to allow for the airlifting and deployment of light vehicles. If successful, this would provide paratroopers with a means of transportation, increasing their effectiveness in combat.
The overall design was intended to be as simple as possible. A standard light vehicle, left mostly unmodified, would be partially enclosed within an aerodynamic fuselage, likely made of plywood, to provide lift and protect the crew from the tow aircraft’s propeller wash, and the wind. A rotary assembly would be mounted on top, while a large tail section at the rear would ensure lateral stability. Upon landing ,assuming a safe descent, the crew would discard the fuselage, leaving the vehicle fully operational and ready for use without issue.
In 1942, with this idea in mind, he approached the Central Landing Establishment, later renamed the Airborne Forces Experimental Establishment, to present his proposal. While, at first, the concept of attaching a makeshift rotary wing to a lightweight wheeled vehicle may seem dangerous and wasteful, it would be phenomenally valuable should it succeed. Developing an effective method for transporting such vehicles over long distances would have provided significant combat advantages. This was especially crucial at a time when the Allies were considering various plans and strategies for invading occupied France, plans where airborne units played a star role. Thus the Central Landing Establishment saw potential in this idea, and Hafner received approval to move forward with its development. Now, Hafner needed to find a suitable light chassis for the job. Fortunately for him, he didn’t have to search for long, the answer was already in the hands of the UK’s ally across the Atlantic.
A Well-Known Icon
In the 1930s, the leadership of the US Army closely observed the rapid military developments unfolding in Europe and the Pacific. In response, the Army sought to modernize its forces, starting with an increase in mobility for its reconnaissance units and couriers, which at the time primarily relied on horses.
Initially, as in Germany, motorcycles were introduced for this role. While they were an improvement over horses, they had significant limitations, primarily their limited carrying capacity, as they could only transport the driver, one additional passenger, and a very small amount of cargo. It became clear that a larger, more capable vehicle was needed.
This led to the development of small, relatively inexpensive, all-wheel-drive light vehicles. Throughout the 1930s, the Army conducted extensive testing and evaluation of several different designs. After these trials, a final decision was made to adopt Willys-Overland Motors’ design, known as the Willys MB, but generally, it was simply referred to as the Jeep, as the Army’s standard lightweight reconnaissance vehicle. Unbeknownst to them at the time, they had just created one of the most iconic military vehicles in history.
The Willys MB would become one of the most iconic military vehicles in history. Source: en.wikipedia.org
While Willys was set to produce these new vehicles, the immense demand and the need to utilize the vast production capacity of its competitor, Ford, led to the company also receiving orders to manufacture the vehicle. Although Ford was allowed to make some modifications, the overall design had to remain to ensure all mechanical components for the vehicles were interchangeable. Between 1941, when production began, and 1945, over 600,000 of these vehicles were produced. They saw widespread service across the globe during and after the war, with a significant number still in use today.
Initially designed for reconnaissance operations, their sheer numbers and popularity led to their adaptation for various roles. These included medical evacuation, combat, self-propelled rocket launchers, and long-range raiders for missions against enemy rear positions. They were also used as command vehicles, among many other roles.
The vehicle was widely exported to Allied nations, including the UK, which received tens of thousands. Even the Soviet Union acquired them and eventually developed its own variant. Given the vast stockpile of these vehicles, it is unsurprising that Hafner chose to test his idea using one of them.
The Jeep saw extensive use by British special forces in North Africa, where it played a crucial role in raids targeting enemy rear positions. Source: wikipedia.org
Name
The unusual vehicle was known by many nicknames. It received the Air Ministry designation ML 10/42 Special Rotating Wing Glider. It was also called the Malcolm Rotaplane, Flying Jeep, and Blitz Buggy. Eventually, it became best known simply as the Hafner Rotabuggy. For the sake of simplicity, this article will refer to it as the Rotabuggy.
Building and Testing the Vehicle
After receiving approval, the next task was to find a suitable chassis, and someone capable of building the vehicle or aircraft. Given the abundance of options, Hafner decided to utilize the US-supplied Jeep light reconnaissance vehicle. For the construction of the working prototype, he approached R. Malcolm Ltd., a small company that had been building aircraft components during the war.
Once the base components were selected, the construction of the working prototype began. It was likely completed by mid-1943. The first flight trials of the Rotabuggy were scheduled for November 1943. These trials were planned to be conducted using a Diamond T 4-ton 6×6 truck as a tug vehicle. This was seen as a simple, cost-effective, and safe option, given the prototype’s early development stage, far too early for tests with aircraft. The flight tests were carried out on the 16th November, 1943. Despite numerous attempts, the crew was unable to get the Hafner Rotabuggy off the ground, as they could not achieve the necessary speed to generate lift.
The Rotabuggy’s shape in its early experimental phase was still evolving. Experimenting with the design led to many changes, such as the introduction of much larger tail fins. Source: www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com
Further tests were carried out on 27th November. This time, a stronger, albeit unspecified, tug vehicle was used. The initial test was successful, as they managed to lift the Rotabuggy into the air. The first flight test using a tug aircraft, specifically a Whitley Bomber, was conducted in December 1943. However, the first design problems were identified during this test flight. At a speed of 80 km/h (50 mph), the vehicle experienced strong vibrations, forcing an early end to the flight.
Subsequent tests with a similar tug vehicle showed that the vibrations persisted at speeds of 70 km/h (45 mph) and higher. Additionally, during one test flight, one of the rotors struck the tail fin, damaging it in the process. Following these tests, the Rotabuggy was temporarily grounded for various repairs and modifications.
By February 1944, the Rotabuggy achieved a speed of 112 km/h (70 mph), and many more tests were carried out throughout 1944. On September 11th, 1944, the first major test flight was undertaken. At a height of 120 m (400 feet), after being towed by a Whitley bomber, the small buggy was released. After some brief difficulty controlling the aircraft, the pilot managed to land the vehicle, though with some effort.
In later stages, it would look visually much different, having a fully enclosed cockpit. Source: www.macsmotorcitygarage.com
Fate
Given the extensive testing, it was clear that there was significant interest in this project. However, despite more than a year of development, the project was ultimately canceled. The primary reason for this was not the new concept itself but rather the fact that the British had begun mass-producing gliders, such as the Waco CG-4, which could carry a Jeep within its fuselage. As a result, the Rotabuggy was no longer needed.
While his Rotabuggy project reached an unsuccessful dead end, this was not the end of Hafner’s story. Given his expertise in rotor aircraft development, he was appointed Chief Designer and head of the newly established Helicopter Division at Bristol. Hafner’s work at Bristol was highly successful, and he played a pivotal role in advancing early British helicopter design. His contributions were instrumental in the development of aircraft such as the Type 171 Sycamore, and the large tandem-rotor Bristol Belvedere.
He was also among the first aircraft engineers to receive the Dr. Alexander Klemin Award, a prestigious honor in the field of vertical flight aeronautics. Tragically, in 1980, Hafner disappeared at sea when his boat went missing and was never found.
Technical characteristics
The Rotabuggy fuselage was an extension added to the U.S. Jeep, designed to enable controlled flight. During testing, it was concluded that the Jeep could be dropped from a height of up to 2.35 m (7.7 ft) without suffering any major mechanical breakdowns. It could thus theoretically survive rough landings on unprepared ground.
Essentially, it consisted of a standard Jeep with four metal bars arranged in a pyramidal shape at its base. To enhance structural integrity, two additional metal bars connected the front and rear pairs. Atop this framework, a rotor unit was intended to be installed.
Another metal frame was attached to the rear section, consisting of at least four long stringers reinforced with smaller crossbars. Surrounding this structure, a series of almost circular frames, decreasing in size toward the tail section, were added to shape the fuselage.
A clear view of the Rotabuggy’s internal framework, which consists of at least four long stringers reinforced with smaller crossbars and enclosed in a plywood skin. Source: www.macsmotorcitygarage.com
The structure forming the base of the fuselage was then covered with plywood for aerodynamics. The sides and top were essentially flat, without any noticeable features. Large windshields were added at the front and on the crew’s side doors, providing excellent, almost all-around visibility. This gave the crews a clear view, more than sufficient for landing the aircraft. While little data for its flight characteristics survive, its estimated rate of sink at a speed of 77 km/.h (48 mph) was 4.9 m/s (960 ft/min)
Large windshields were added at the front and on the crew’s side doors, providing excellent, almost all-around visibility. This gave the crews a clear view of their surroundings. Source: rafbeaulieu.co.ukThe rear part of the fuselage was essentially flat, featuring only a slight curve. Source: /www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com
To help provide lateral stability, a large tail assembly was added to the vehicle’s rear. It consisted of two fairly large vertical stabilizers. Interestingly, there were no rudders on these fins. Lastly, a small landing skid was located at the end of the vehicle’s tail.
The tail assembly features two large fins that provide much-needed lateral stability. Source: www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com
The crew consisted of two members: a driver and a pilot. The driver was seated on the left side, as in the original Jeep configuration. The pilot sat in the opposite seat and was responsible for controlling the rotor blades, which were used to lift the vehicle off the ground. To control the vehicle, the pilot was provided with a control column, a rotor tachometer, and a set of basic and glider navigational instruments. Once on solid ground, the vehicle would be driven like a regular Jeep.
The Rotabuggy used rather long rotor blades, with a diameter of 14.22 meters (47 feet). There were some issues with this length, as on at least one occasion, they damaged the rear tail assembly, luckily without injuring its crew.
The control column for the aircraft. Source: aviadejavu.ruThe Rotabuggy used rather long rotor blades. There were some issues with this length, as on at least one occasion, they damaged the rear tail assembly. Source: aviadejavu.ru
Surviving Aircraft
Since it never progressed beyond the prototype stage, it is not surprising that the vehicle did not survive to the present day. The prototype was eventually refurbished back to a standard Jeep . However, being such an intriguing design concept, a replica was built by the Wessex Aviation Society. can now be seen at the British Museum of Army Flying in Middle Wallop, Hampshire.
While the prototype did not survive, the Wessex Aviation Society managed to modify a Jeep and create a modern replica of the Hafner Rotabuggy. Source: www.reddit.com
Conclusion
The Hafner Rotabuggy was surely an interesting and unique attempt at utilizing the relatively new rotorcraft design. In theory, this concept would allow for an alternative method of airdropping men and materials, including vehicles.
While the Rotabuggy had some issues, such as severe vibration during flight, it was generally considered a mechanically sound design. However, its main drawback was that, despite its novelty, it did not offer significant improvements over the gliders already in use. As stronger and more capable gliders were developed, which could transport both personnel and lightweight vehicles, the Rotabuggy became obsolete.
Although its service life was short, the project played a vital role in shaping Hafner’s future work in rotary-wing aircraft, ultimately contributing to the development of various helicopter designs.
Close-support ground attack aircraft : Two prototypes built
The Luftwaffe (Eng. German Air Force) entered the Second World War without a dedicated close air support aircraft, with their more infamous dive bombers carrying out their missions independently of ground forces. As this need became increasingly apparent, attempts were made to identify a suitable design, but any new aircraft would have to be as inexpensive as possible, as other aircraft projects were prioritized. With limited options, Focke-Wulf proposed adapting its Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft for this role. While promising in theory, the adaptation proved flawed and ultimately unsuccessful in practice. Despite this, two prototypes were built and tested, but by 1940, the project was abandoned.
The rise of Nazism in Germany during the 1930s led to a massive military buildup, defying the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which by this time was little more than a formality, with few parties motivated to uphold it. Among the most rapidly expanding branches was the Luftwaffe, which received substantial investment and development, leading to the introduction of a series of modern aircraft designed for various military roles.
One of these roles, tactical reconnaissance, was initially assigned to the Henschel Hs 126. Despite its somewhat outdated design, this high-wing aircraft proved reasonably effective for its intended purpose. However, its relatively low speed and the absence of a dedicated observer limited its effectiveness in reconnaissance missions.
Even as the Hs 126 entered service, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or German Air Ministry, took steps to develop a more advanced replacement. In 1937, they initiated a program to explore new designs. Although multiple projects were tested, the Focke-Wulf Fw 189, headed by the engineer Kurt Tank, ultimately emerged as the chosen design. While RLM officials were initially uncertain about the Focke-Wulf proposal, they eventually placed an order for three prototypes. Construction on the first prototype designated the Fw 189V1, began in April 1937 and was completed in 1938. It was soon followed by two additional prototypes.
As preparations for production were underway, the RLM initially decided to rely solely on the Hs 126. However, after the successful conclusion of the Western campaign against the Allies in France in June 1940, Luftwaffe officials reconsidered their stance on the Hs 126. It became evident that this aircraft would soon be extremely obsolete in its intended role, necessitating an urgent search for a replacement. The only aircraft that could potentially fulfill this role within a short timeframe was the Fw 189. Production began in the summer of 1940, and by 1944, fewer than 900 units of this aircraft had been built. Despite the limited production, the Fw 189 saw extensive service and proved to be both popular and highly effective throughout the war.
A Modern Air Force With No Ground Attack Aircraft?
While the rearmament of the German military forces was underway, Luftwaffe officials recognized the need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft to provide close air support. Although the Ju 87 Stuka was designed for precision bombing to neutralize fortified targets, it was clear that they needed a heavily armed and well-protected aircraft for close-in support near friendly units. Despite this need, early Luftwaffe development in this area lagged, for reasons that remain unclear. Kurt and his team at Focke-Wulf saw a potential business opportunity and decided to repurpose their Fw 189 aircraft to meet this demand.
Recognizing that the Fw 189’s glazed, unarmored fuselage was not equipped for the ground-attack role, the Focke-Wulf team set out to develop a more protected fuselage design, which would house both a pilot and a rear gunner. Eager to proceed quickly, Focke-Wulf engineers decided to modify the first prototype of the Fw 189. The aircraft was returned to the Focke-Wulf factory in 1938 so that work on the modifications could begin immediately. After several months of redesign and construction, the new prototype designated Fw 189V1b (later marked with the code NA+BW) was completed and underwent its first flight tests in 1939. It was powered by the two 430 hp Argus As 410 engines.
The results of these tests were disappointing, to say the least. The prototype was difficult to control, and its overall flight performance was poor. The added weight significantly affected its handling and maneuverability. Furthermore, the small armored glass windshield provided a limited view for the pilot, making it challenging to fly. To make matters worse, the rear gunner’s visibility was almost nonexistent.
Only two prototypes of this variant would be constructed. (Source: planehistoria.com)
With few other options, the aircraft was returned to Focke-Wulf for further modifications. Both the pilot’s and rear gunner’s visibility issues had to be addressed, necessitating adjustments to the overall design. After a series of modifications, the aircraft was deemed ready and submitted to the Luftwaffe for evaluation. Despite the promise of close-support ground attack aircraft, it attracted little interest from major German aircraft manufacturers, leaving the Henschel Hs 129 as its only real competitor.
After a series of test flights with both aircraft, Luftwaffe officials grew increasingly annoyed and disappointed. The Fw 189 and the Hs 129 performed quite poorly. As a result, both aircraft were sent back for further improvements. However, the story of the Fw 189V1b came to an abrupt end shortly after this competition. During one demonstration flight, the pilot miscalculated his approach and collided with a building while attempting to land. Although he survived with injuries, the prototype was so severely damaged that it was written off entirely.
Future Development
Despite a rough start, the project was not abandoned. Though the initial prototype failed, it still held interest with some Luftwaffe officials, leading to an order for Focke-Wulf to produce another prototype for further testing. Expectations were high, as this version was intended to enter production as the Fw 189C and to have corrected all the faults of the disappointing first attempt. To meet these demands, Focke-Wulf developed the Fw 189V6 prototype, which carried the code D-OPVN.
In appearance, the Fw 189V6 closely resembled the previous model, but it featured a slightly modified fuselage and was powered by a more powerful 465-horsepower Argus As 410 engine. The prototype was completed and tested in 1940, with trials conducted by the 5 Staffel of Lehrgeschwader 2. During testing, pilots who had the chance to fly both the Fw 189V6 and its competitor, the Henschel Hs 129, overwhelmingly favored the Focke-Wulf design.
However, the pressures of the ongoing war and reduced production capacity meant that the Luftwaffe needed an option that was quicker and cheaper to mass-produce. Ultimately, the Hs 129 was chosen, despite its reputation as a more cumbersome design. The fate of the Fw 189V6 is unclear, though it was likely scrapped. The close support role was later taken up by the Fw 190, with special fighter bomber variants being created to take up the mission and phase out the dated dive bombers.
The Fw 189V6 prototype was to serve as the base for the anticipated C variant, but in the end, nothing came of it. (Source: www.airwar.ru)
Although the Fw 189C never entered production, some Fw 189A models were modified for ground-attack roles during the war. Designated as the Fw 189A-4, these variants were armed with two forward-mounted 20 mm cannons and two MG 17 machine guns. Additional armor was installed to protect vital components, including the fuel tanks, engines, and fuselage. An unknown number of these modified aircraft were produced starting in late 1942.
Technical characteristics
The Fw 189C prototypes incorporated several components from the original Focke-Wulf design. The original glazed fuselage was replaced with a fully enclosed, two-man armored compartment. This updated cockpit featured an armored, pointed nose, designed to provide an improved forward view while maintaining some degree of aerodynamic efficiency. The canopy had three small windows, and directly behind it was a compact compartment for the rear gunner. The aircraft’s overall construction consisted of rounded metal frames covered with a stressed duralumin skin. The new fuselage was reinforced with armor plating, though specific details about the placement and thickness of the armor are not mentioned in available sources. Unfortunately, the design proved to be cramped and lacked consideration for the comfort of both the pilot and the gunner.
The aircraft’s wings consist of two primary sections: a central, square-shaped segment connecting the nacelles and engines, and an outer section extending from the booms. The wing structure has a steel spar framed by duralumin, while the ailerons and split flaps are covered in fabric. At the rear, the twin-tail assembly includes two large rudders connected by a single, extended elevator, with both tail control surfaces also being fabric-covered. Since the wing root was designed to support heavy armament, the central part of the wing had to be reinforced to withstand the recoil forces.
The first prototype was powered by a 430-horsepower engine, while the second prototype featured 465-horsepower Argus As 410 A-1, both 12-cylinder air-cooled engines. Unfortunately, specific details about the aircraft’s flight characteristics were not mentioned in available sources. It is known, however, that the added weight of the armor and armament degraded its flight performance, though the extent of this impact remains unclear.
The main landing gear extended from beneath each engine nacelle, with smaller wheels extending from the rear tail assembly. Later in the war, the second prototype received reinforced landing gear to improve durability.
As it was intended for ground attack operations, the second prototype was armed with two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons and four 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns. For rear self-defense, a dual MG 81 machine gun mount was installed. Had it entered production, it is likely that bomb racks would have been added
Close up view of the Fw 189’s experimental fuselage. (Source: www.airwar.ru)Top view of the new fuselage with the canopy removed. (Source: www.airwar.ru)The two prototypes were provided with single-leg landing gear. (Source: www.airwar.ru)
Conclusion
The Fw 189C was an intriguing attempt to develop a ground-attack aircraft based on the successful reconnaissance version. While it performed effectively in its original reconnaissance role, the ground-attack variant proved far less successful, proving cumbersome and difficult to fly. Only two prototypes were ever built before the project was discontinued in 1940, with the Hs 129 deemed a more cost-effective alternative.
Type: Ground anti-aircraft rocket – 83 Launchers Built
By late 1944, the Germans were losing on all fronts and the Allies were steadily advancing into Germany itself. To make matters worse, the extensive losses in manpower and equipment had become irrecoverable. As a result, various makeshift, improvised, and even obsolete weapons were brought to the front lines in a desperate attempt to halt the Allied advance. One such last-ditch effort was the creation of a 73 mm rocket launcher, intended as a close range anti-aircraft weapon by firing a volley of small rockets. While the official project name has been lost to history, it is often referred to as the 73 mm Föhn-Gerät.
Throughout history, rockets in combat were typically a cheap complement to artillery. While early rocket designs lacked the destructive power of conventional artillery, their primary role was to disrupt enemy lines and instill chaos, acting more as psychological weapons than as tools of mass destruction. By the onset of the Second World War, however, rocket technology had advanced significantly, rockets could now fire over greater ranges and deliver larger payloads, making them far more effective in both tactical and strategic contexts.
In Germany, early rocket development was largely driven by civilian efforts to explore new technologies and their potential applications. Much of this work focused on using rockets to power aircraft, exemplified by Fritz von Opel’s experimental work in the 1920s. Von Opel was assisted by another prominent aircraft designer Alexander Martin Lippisch. While technically speaking these were not real rocket-powered flights, given that these gliders did not take to the sky using purely the rocket engine but were towed to altitude. Nevertheless, these flights showed that considerable investment was going into rocketry, with the desire for it to break into new roles.
The early German rocket program was mainly intended for civilian use, such as its use in Fritz von Opel’s experimental rocket-powered glider. Soon, the Army saw a potential use of rocket technology and tried to implement it for its own use. (Source: L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot The Story of German Test Pilot Erich Warsitz)
Over the following years, Lippisch became quite interested in rocket technology and joined the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut DFS, where he worked as an engineer. There, he developed a series of new glider designs, like the DFS 40, to test rocket propulsion. This work would eventually lead to the creation of the Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. Another major stepping stone in rocketry was the work of Wernher von Braun. In 1932 and 1934, von Braun managed to successfully launch two rockets using liquid-fuel rocket engines. In 1935 he managed to come into contact with Dr. Ernst Heinkel 1935. With financial and infrastructure support, von Braun would participate in the creation of the first operational rocket-powered aircraft, the He 176.
The He 176 Source:luft46.com
In the early 1930s, the German military began to take an interest in using rockets to produce new artillery systems. The Germans had a unique motivation to develop rocket technology, as it was not prohibited by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The pioneering work of engineers like Hauptmann Dr. Ing. Walter Dornberger and von Braun played a significant role in advancing German rocket programs. Their work made it possible to create rockets that rotated around their longitudinal axis, effectively stabilizing them during flight. This innovation reduced the need for specialized wings and fins that would otherwise be required to maintain stability. As a result, a simpler, smooth-barreled launcher could be used, significantly lowering production costs while also creating lightweight launchers.
Due to its unique characteristics and capabilities, the artillery rocket held great potential as a formidable weapon. With the ability to fire over long ranges, multiple rockets could be launched rapidly from a single launcher, allowing it to carry outa rapid salvo compared to contemporary artillery pieces. Additionally, rockets could carry a larger payload than artillery shells of the same caliber, increasing their impact. However, they lacked precision and were less effective against fortified targets.
The German army formed its specialized Nebeltruppe (Eng. Smoke Troops) in 1929. These were initially equipped with large caliber mortars. As rocket launchers became available, these were then integrated in Nebeltruppen. Initially, rockets were used primarily to obscure enemy positions with smoke-generating rounds, rather than for direct attacks. Although chemical rounds were also developed, these were not employed in combat. Interestingly, they also employed rocket launchers to deliver propaganda leaflets, although they were rarely employed.
The first mass-produced rocket launcher was the 15 cm Nebelwerfer (Eng. Smoke Thrower) 41. Development of this weapon began in 1934, and it officially entered service in 1940. Designed to be simple and cost-effective, the Nebelwerfer utilized existing components to streamline development. The base of the launcher was adapted from the 3.7 cm PaK anti-tank gun carriage, and with the gun and shield removed, it was fitted instead with a six-tube launcher, each tube 15 cm in diameter. A folding pad was added to the front of the carriage for stabilization during firing.
The 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41 was one of the first, and one of the most common, rocket artillery systems. It was a towed weapon and needed a prime mover to transport it over longer distances. (Source: en.wikipedia.org)
A Literal Propaganda Weapon
Besides using rockets to deliver deadly payloads or smoke, the Germans also employed them in a rather unconventional manner: distributing propaganda leaflets over enemy lines. In 1941, they introduced the Propagandagranate 41 (Eng. propaganda grenade), a specialized 7.3 cm rocket designed for this purpose.
The Propagandagranate 41 was slightly over 3 kg in weight and about 40 cm long. It was launched from a metal frame stabilized by three fixed spades. After setting the correct firing angle, the rocket was placed into the mount and at a distance from the base of the tube. This arrangement was necessary because the rocket was ignited using a percussion-firing system, essentially functioning like a mortar.
To fire the rocket, the operator would retreat to a safe distance and pull a string to release the captive rockets. This action allowed the rocket to slide down into the base, striking a firing pin that ignited the percussion primer located at the rear.
These rockets were assigned to specialized propaganda units known as Propagandatruppen. While it is difficult to assess the exact effectiveness of this method, it was undoubtedly a unique way to distribute propaganda leaflets during the war.
The 73 mm rockets were originally designed to distribute leaflets over enemy lines (Source: www.lonesentry.com)
A New Life For The Failed Propaganda Weapon
While rockets developed during the war were primarily forms of artillery, they were not limited to this role. The flexibility of unguided rockets allowed them to be adapted for use against aerial targets and even ships. Once again, the Germans tested various such weapons when their fortunes declined, including ground-to-air missiles, intended to counter the escalating Allied bombing raids. These projects mixed results and failed to achieve the level of success their designers had hoped for. Notably, attempts to build various surface-to-air missiles were met with only limited success. As resources became scarce and the war more desperate, the Germans sought simpler, cheaper, weapon systems designed to saturate the sky with numerous rockets in the hope of bringing down enemy aircraft. One such project appears to have been initiated in 1942.
Starting such a project from scratch was not considered an option at this stage of the war. Instead, the Germans attempted to repurpose what they already had. This is where the 73 mm propaganda rocket came into play. Since the tooling for its production still existed, it was feasible to use it for creating new anti-aircraft rocket launchers. The overall design was quite simple, consisting of a box launcher, rail cages, and a control cabin, and was set on a fixed or mobile carriage.. By 1944, work on this project ran at a slow pace and not many such launchers were built.
As this was a late-war project produced under desperate conditions, not much is known about who precisely initiated it. It is known that they were developed by the Waffenprüfstelle der Luftwaffe Tarnewitz (Weapons Testing Center of the Air Force Tarnewitz). Based on several sources, it appears that the launchers were constructed by Rheinmetall. Other sources claim that Henschel built and developed it. What is certain, however, is that these weapons entered production and service in late 1944.
To provide a cost-effective means of defending vital installations, the Germans introduced the 73 mm Föhn-Gerät rocket launcher in late 1944. (Source:www.landmarkscout.com)
Production
The production of the launchers progressed at a slow pace. By 1944, only 50 units had been completed. By February 1945, this number had increased by 83, or increased to 83, though sources are somewhat unclear on the exact figure.
Designation
No official designation for this system is known to have survived. In available sources, it is often mentioned that the Germans simply referred to it as the 73 mm Föhn-Gerät. The word Föhn refers to a certain type of wind, while Gerät translates to Device.
Some internet sources also designate it as the Henschel Hs 297. Interestingly, captured systems examined by the Western Allies were designated as the 7.5 cm Multiple Fortress Rocket Launcher. This designation is incorrect in both caliber and intended purpose. For the sake of simplicity, throughout this article, we will refer to the system as the 73 mm Föhn rockets.
In Combat
A small number of these launchers were built and deployed for frontline use near the end of the war. They were primarily used to protect bridges over the German rivers on the Western Front. In particular, a few were defending the area around the Remagen bridge in 1945.
The 73 mm Raketen Sprenggranate was introduced to service near the end of the war. (Source: en.wikipedia.org)
Design
Cradle and Carriage
The 73 mm Föhn cradle features a simple conical base, above which is a saddle with two trunnions that securely hold the rocket rail box in place. The entire system could either be bolted to a concrete base, or mounted on an older 3.7 cm Flak 18, two-wheel carriage for mobility. The stationary configuration was chosen for defending critical ground targets where mobility was unnecessary. In contrast, the mobile version was likely intended for use by ground forces as a standard anti-aircraft weapon. When deployed in the field, the rocket system would be lowered to the ground, and the crew would unfold two sheet metal plates designed to provide them with a standing platform.
The 73 mm Föhn-Gerät in mobile (left) and static configuration. (Source: www.lonesentry.com)Side view of the mobile launcher variant. This version seems to be much rarer, as significantly more photographs exist of the static variant. (Source:www.armedconflicts.com)
Controls
The controls for the 73 mm Föhn system were located on the left side of the assembly and housed within a partially enclosed cabin. The front and the right side, which faced the rocket launcher, were shielded by thin sheet metal plating. This housing was not designed to protect against enemy aircraft fire but rather to guard against the exhaust generated when firing the rockets.
At the upper front of the cabin, there was a large, curved glazed window, providing the operator with a mostly field of view. The controls themselves were straightforward; elevation was adjusted using a handwheel, while traversal was managed with a simple flat metal bar, likely welded to the right-side armor of the cabin. To traverse the system, the operator would push the bar forward or backward with their left hand, pivoting the box launcher on its mount.
This greatly illustrates the position of the operator and the two control units (a bar and hand wheel) for elevation and traverse. Interestingly this weapon appears to be a prototype, as it has more launchers than those found at the frontline. (Source: www.armedconflicts.com)A rear view of the operator’s partially protected cabin. The armor was too light to provide effective protection against enemy return fire; instead, its primary purpose was to shield the operator from the rocket’s exhaust. (Source: www.armedconflicts.com)
Armament
The project was based on the 73 mm propaganda rocket but required several modifications. The rocket’s steel body was shortened to 28.2 cm, and weighed 2.74 kg, including 0.48 kg of propellant, and a 0.28 kg explosive charge. Propulsion was achieved through seven small venturi nozzles, which provided rotational stability during flight. This rotation ensured the rocket’s stability without the need for fins.
Two types of explosive charges were available. The first consisted of a mixture of 60% cyclonite (RDX) and 40% TNT, while the second comprised 55% cyclonite, 40% TNT, and 5% wax. The rocket’s 73 mm nose warhead was equipped with a percussion fuze, meaning it had to strike the target to detonate in mid-air. Although not intended, they could be used against ground targets in case of an emergency.
To prevent unexploded ordnance from littering the battlefield, the Germans incorporated a self-ignition detonator. This safety feature ensured that unused rockets would not remain a hazard after missing the intended target. The rocket had a velocity of 380 m/s, and could reach a maximum height of 1.2 km.
A close-up view of a surviving 73 mm anti-aircraft rocket. (Source: www.landmarkscout.com)
The rockets were launched from box-shaped launchers, each equipped with 35 guide rail tubes arranged in a grid of five rows horizontally and seven columns vertically. The dimensions of the launcher were 58.4 cm in width, and 81.3 cm in height, with each guide rail tube measuring 78.7 cm in length. The launchers had an elevation range of -12° to +90° and a full 360° traverse capability.
The loading process for the 35 rocket remains somewhat unclear. However, the launcher tubes were constructed in two distinct parts. The front section serves as a guide for the rocket, while the rear section is loaded separately, already containing the rocket inside.
Side view of the rocket guide rails. (Source: www.landmarkscout.com)This photograph suggests that the launcher tubes were constructed in two distinct parts. The front section serves as a guide for the rocket, while the rear section is loaded separately, containing the unfired rocket. (Source: www.luftarchiv.de)
Once the system was prepared and a target identified, the operator aimed at the approaching enemy aircraft. Upon sighting the target and ensuring it was within range, the operator activated the rockets. All 35 rockets were fired in a single salvo. The idea behind this approach was to saturate the area around the target, increasing the chances that some rockets would hit.
However, this method had significant drawbacks. The rockets were low-velocity and imprecise, making them an unreliable means of bringing down aircraft beyond extremely close range. Additionally, the smoke generated during firing revealed the launch position. While mobile launchers could relocate after firing to avoid detection, stationary ones were left exposed and vulnerable to Allied aircraft.
Reloading the launcher was likely a tedious process, requiring considerable time to prepare all 35 rockets for another volley, or reload from additional racks. Once the rockets were expended, the ground crew could do little but wait for the enemy aircraft to move on. Theoretically, operators could control the number of rockets fired by removing or securing the rockets’ safety pins. How practical this would be is another question.
It was hoped that the 73 mm Föhn could be employed as a relatively cheap anti-aircraft weapon. As demonstrated, its accuracy could be suspect. (Source: www.armedconflicts.com)
Crew
The exact number of crew members required to operate this launcher is not specified in the limited available sources. However, at least one operator would have been necessary to operate the launcher. Additional crew members were likely stationed nearby to assist with loading the rocket launcher or preparing it for transport, and it is reasonable to assume that a commander was also part of the team.
Ground Attack Variant
During their advance toward Germany in 1945, the Allies managed to capture a vast collection of abandoned vehicles and weapons. Many of these were outdated and obsolete, brought into action out of desperation. Among the captured equipment were several improvised weapons, including a 73 mm rocket launcher that appeared to be designed to provide fire support against ground targets. However, little is known about this particular weapon, as it seems to have been a hastily constructed, improvised device created as a last-ditch effort.
An improvised launcher for the 73 mm rocket captured by the Allies at the end of the war. (Source: www.lonesentry.com)
Surviving Systems
Despite its rarity and late introduction during the war, a few of these launchers have survived to the present day. One example is preserved at the Russian Military Historical Museum of Artillery in St. Petersburg, while another is housed at the Swedish Army Museum in Stockholm.
One surviving system can be seen at the Swedish Army Museum in Stockholm. (Source: www.stronghold-nation.com)Another partially preserved launcher is located at the Russian Military Historical Museum of Artillery in St. Petersburg. (Source: www.landmarkscout.com)
Conclusion
The effectiveness of these weapons in combat remains uncertain, but they likely performed poorly. The rockets had a short range and produced excessive exhaust fumes which marked the position of the weapon. They could only be fired in single salvos, meaning that if they missed their target, enemy aircraft could return and engage them without fear of retaliation. Additionally, the rockets were notoriously imprecise, making the chances of hitting an enemy aircraft quite low despite the large salvo the weapon could deliver.
73 mm Föhn-Gerät Specifications
Caliber
73 mm
Crew
One (likely more but it is unspecified in the soruces)
Nazi Germany (1940)
USSR (1927-1945)
Poland 
Kingdom of Italy (1940-1943)
Kingdom of Hungary (1943)
United Kingdom (1940)
