Much feared by military aircrew, flak blew thousands of aeroplanes from the sky across the 20th century. We grilled Donald Nijboer author of Flak in World War II, about the dreaded flak.
What is Flak?
“Flak is an acronym/initialism for the German word, Flugabwehrkanone, meaning aircraft-defence cannon. When the Allies began to use the term is not known. It’s interesting that we continue to use the term today…’catching flak at the office’ as one example.”
How effective was it in WW2?
“Flak in the Second World War was very effective. Most of the official Allied histories downplayed its role. Many postwar histories accepted the testimony of leading figures within the Luftwaffe that ground based AA defences achieved limited success in destroying Allied bombers. After the war, the British Bombing Survey Unit (BBSU) continued this line of thinking describing German AA defences as “plentiful†but not “very lethal.†At the same time the official RAF history of the air war estimated that German flak accounted for 37 percent of Bomber Command’s losses between July 1942 and April 1945. Low and medium level flak was even more effective. More American 8th Air Force aces were shot down by flak than enemy fighters.”
How does it compare with fighter interceptors for effectiveness?
“The Germans and the Allies, to a certain extent, used the number of enemy aircraft shot down by fighters and those by flak as a measurement as to its effectiveness. But this was a false metric. It must be remembered that Flak defences were designed, not to shoot bombers down, but to force them to drop their loads from a higher altitude and thus reduce their accuracy. Aircraft shot down or damaged was a bonus. Flak proved a huge benefit to fighter pilots assigned to attack incoming raids. Flak-damaged bombers were forced out of formation, making them easy prey (for both Allied and Axis fighter forces) for marauding fighters. Flak damaged tens of thousands of bombers. These bombers required repair, causing service rates to fall and thus reducing the number of bombers available for new operations. AA shrapnel also killed and wounded tens of thousands of aircrew, significantly reducing the overall efficiency and morale.”
Thank you. Our aviation shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
How many shells are fired to down an aircraft?
“The figure of 16,000 rounds of German 88mm ammunition being required to shoot down a heavy bomber is often quoted to show just how wasteful and ineffective antiaircraft fire really was. But that number is misleading. While it fits well into the Allied narrative of how the strategic bombing campaign robbed the German army of valuable munitions, it was only partially true. Indeed when you compare these numbers to the more effective 128mm AA gun the numbers are intriguing. In 1944 the number of 128mm rounds per aircraft shootdown was 3,000, less than one-fifth the number expended by its 88mm counterpart. This doesn’t take into account the number of aircraft that were severely damaged by flak.”
Where was best defended by flak in WW2?
“I would point to the Luftwaffe flak defenses of the Ruhr, their larger cities like Berlin and their oil refineries. Their light and medium flak over the battlefield was also highly effective and took a great toll on Allied fighter bombers. Allied AA defenses were also effective, one example being the battles against the V-1 flying bombs and the fact that they chose to defend Antwerp against the V-1 using AA guns along is testament to their effectiveness.
7. What was the best AAA system of WW2?
The obvious choice would be the Luftwaffe’s AA defenses, but I would point to the US Navy’s development of the VT fuse or radar equipped proximity fuse. Built around a miniature radio transmitter and receiver, the VT fuse overcame the major disadvantage of the “time†and “contact†fuses and was capable of detecting its target and detonating within 75 feet. It was a game changer and fortunately for the US Navy they had it when the kamikaze appeared. Indeed, even before the kamikaze appeared the US Navy made major improvement to their ships AA defenses with better radar direction, improved AA directors and gunsights and most importantly, more guns. In 1944 the battleship USS Missouri bristled with twenty 5 inch, eighty 40mm and over forty-nine 20mm cannon.
What were the big innovations in AAA in WW2?
“It was the invention of the VT radar proximity fuse. If the Luftwaffe had this shell the Allied bombing campaign would have been far more costly, or stopped altogether. Mention has to be made of the development of gun laying radar. This allowed for aiming at night and in bad weather.”
Which nation was best at using AAA and why?
“I would say the Germans and the Allies had guns and systems that were equal in effectiveness. The allies had the edge with the VT fuse. The Japanese did not develop a robust AA defensive system. They lacked the guns, effective radar, and the cooperation between the Army and Navy was terrible. They never pooled their resources, instead each would go their own way, often siting individual radars in the same place.”
Tell me a myth about flak
“Two myths about flak: one it was not very effective, from an Allied point of view, and second the Allied bombing campaign against Germany created a ‘second front’ siphoning off thousands of men to man the guns and robbing the German army of valuable men. This was only partially true. You have to remember that the Luftwaffe flak arm played a dual role. Luftwaffe flak batteries could be assigned to the army at any time and thousands were. Shortly after D-Day the Luftwaffe transferred 140 heavy batteries and 50 light flak batteries to Normandy. This process continued for the last 10 months of the war, robbing German cities of vital flak defences. As the war progress and the manpower shortage increased thousands of able-bodied flak men were transferred to the army. In their place were hastily trained factory workers, schoolboys, prisoners of war, older men not fit for combat and by the end of the war they introduced the first batteries manned by women for the defence of Berlin. By April 1945 44 percent of the flak arm was made up of people unqualified for combat, foreign nationals or prisoners of war.”
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
Which aircraft type could withstand the most damage? Was armour speed a better defence from flak?
“All aircraft were susceptible to flak. There were a few that were specifically armoured like the Russian Il-2 and German Hs 129 ground attack aircraft to withstand light flak hits. Most Allied bombers and fighters were armoured against fighter attack, but not flak. Speed was a factor, and most fighter pilots knew that when strafing a target you never made a second pass.”
When did radar guided AAA arrive?
“At the beginning of the war, the first British gun-laying Mark I (GL I) radars entered service with several AA batteries. In many ways the term gun-laying was a misnomer when applied to the GL I. It was more of a gun-assisting radar with limited capabilities. Although it gave accurate ranges, it could not produce good azimuth indications or elevation figures.
By the summer of 1941 the Germans introduced their Wurzburg gun laying radar.”
Why should people buy your book?
“The story of flak in World War II is one of those forgotten stories of World War II. There was a reason the official histories downplayed the effectiveness of German flak. It took away from the narrative of how successful the Allied bombing campaign was and the heavy price they paid.
Thousands of aircraft were shot down, and tens of thousands were damaged, not to mention the horrendous cost in lives and those wounded. Flak in World War II takes the reader from the invasion of Poland in 1939 right to the last Japanese aircraft shot down by AA fire in August 1945. It examines heavy flak defences, flak over the battlefield, the failure of ship AA defences early in the war; specifically the Bismarck and the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse in 1941, AA defences against the world’s first cruise missile (V-1), right up to the human guided missile that was the kamikaze in the Pacific.”
What led you to write about Flak?
“I was inspired after reading Edward B. Westermann’s book Flak: German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945. His in-depth and comprehensive study of German flak defences clearly showed how effective they really were. This led me to thinking of how AA guns and defences played a role in the air war over Europe and the Pacific. Most, if not all, of the histories deal with the great air battles strictly in terms of aircraft vs. aircraft; the great fighter aces and how many bombers were shot down by Spitfires, Bf 109s, Fw 190s and Me 110 and Ju 88 night-fighters. And when I started digging deeper, the number of aircraft shot down by flak was astonishing. German flak defenses were responsible for more than half of all Allied aircraft losses. Allied AA guns were equally effective. The Marine heavy AA guns on Guadalcanal, for example, in 1942 forced Japanese to bombers to fly higher reducing their accuracy to a great extent, but you never hear or read about it. The story mostly centres around the fighter defence and how the F4F Wildcat matched up against the vaunted A6M Zero-sen. Both AA guns and the defending fighters played a role in the defence of Guadalcanal. It not just one or the other.”
A good question. It’s a complex topic and it is difficult to give a straightforward answer given that detailed data often isn’t available. The average number of flight hours per year per Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) pilot pales in comparison to that of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in the late-2010s, but it markedly exceeds the abysmal yearly flight hours that Russian Air Force pilots averaged in the early and mid 2000s. It is also higher than Russian numbers from the late 2000s. The marked increase in average yearly flight hours in the 2010s certainly helped improve pilot proficiency. Recent statistics released by the Russian Ministry of Defense show that VKS pilots averaged “over 100†flight hours during the 2018 training year (junior pilots averaged “over 120†flight hours). In the 2020 training year, Military-Transport Aviation pilots averaged “over 140†flight hours (junior pilots averaged “approximately 120†flight hours), Long-Range Aviation crews averaged “over 100†flight hours, and Army Aviation pilots averaged “approximately 100†flight hours. It is important to note that average yearly flight hours for Russian pilots have differed substantially across Russia’s four (now five) military districts. Pilots in the Western Military District have typically averaged more flight hours per year than those in other districts. For example, according to Russian Defense Ministry statistics, during the 2012 training year, pilots in the Western Military District averaged 125 flight hours (Military-Transport Aviation pilots based in the district averaged “no less than 170†hours).
Going over the various training activities that Russian airmen conduct during VKS exercises would take up too much time, so I’ll only very briefly mention several things with a focus on combat aviation. VKS exercises vary in size and complexity. Some exercises are conducted at night and/or in adverse weather conditions (particularly in cold temperatures). Exercises can, among other things, include relocating and operating from alternative airfields. For some aircraft types, exercises can also include operating at very high altitudes and speeds or at low and/or very low altitudes (including in mountainous terrain for some units). In air-to-ground training, many VKS long-range aviation, operational-tactical aviation and army aviation units train to employ both guided and unguided weapons (some long-range aviation units train to employ only guided weapons). However, air-to-ground training for operation-tactical and army aviation is still heavily focused on executing missions with unguided bombs and rockets given that these weapons are expected to be used extensively in the event of conflict due to the limited availability of guided weapons. There are inherent disadvantages to conducting suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) and other missions with unguided weapons even if crews are well trained in their employment. As for air-to-air training, fighter aircraft crews practice air combat maneuvering, carry out interceptions of targets flying at various altitudes and speeds (including conducting simulated/live missile launches), practice escorting other platforms, etc.
Larger VKS exercises can include two or more different types of aircraft, including supporting platforms such as airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and tankers, giving crews the opportunity to practice aerial refueling and train with/against other platforms. They can also include VKS ground-based air defenses, which allows aircraft to train alongside air defenses to repel adversary air attacks and/or to practice air defense suppression and penetration. The VKS also participates in joint exercises with other Russian military service branches and/or the air arms of a number of other nations. Aggressor training for the VKS is done by the 116th Combat Employment Training Center, which is part of the VKS’ 185th Combat Training and Combat Employment Center. The 116th operates MiG-29UBM trainers and relatively capable MiG-29SMT (9-19R) fighters. Lastly, it’s important to note that the war in Syria has allowed many VKS air and ground crews to gain experience operating under real combat conditions and has led the VKS to implement changes in training. One apparent change includes greater focus on the employment of unguided weapons from medium altitudes by operational-tactical aviation during exercises. This change was driven by combat experience in Syria, which showed that Russian operational-tactical aviation largely had to avoid carrying out tasks at low altitudes due to the threat of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and air defense artillery.
Given that information about VKS exercises provided by Russian Defense Ministry media outlets and press releases is typically quite vague, it’s difficult to assess how good and realistic Russian Air Force training is. Based on what we can gather from press releases and media, the Russians appear well-trained in attacking pre-planned stationary targets. Training to conduct dynamic targeting – traditionally, a weak point for the Russian Air Force – is improving as well, in part due to the integration of relevant new technologies into training exercises. The Russians also seem well-trained in ground/air controlled interception; however, training to intercept a large number of targets without the support of ground-based assets or AEW&C aircraft has traditionally been another weak spot for them and the extent to which this has improved is unclear.
What about the quality of Russian air force student pilot training?
Today, the average flight time that a Russian cadet accumulates prior to graduation is drastically higher than in the early-mid 2000s, and considerably higher than in the late 2000s. In the case of the VKS’ Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School for Pilots (fixed-wing aviation) this number is “over 200†fight hours per graduate, including, on average, 60 flight hours as part of the advanced flight training program (“over 200” flight hours is similar to USAF numbers from the mid 2010s). In the case of the VKS’ Syzran Higher Military Aviation School for Pilots (rotary-wing aviation), this number is “no less than 150†flight hours per graduate. Looking solely at these figures, however, will tell you little about the actual training quality of Russian cadets. Indeed, while flight hours are much higher than a decade ago, there are several major interrelated issues concerning the state of Russia’s trainer aircraft fleet that have hampered the quality of Russian cadet training over the past decade. These include a relatively limited inventory of trainer aircraft (particularly modern trainers), and low availability rates (even for modern trainers).
Credit: on image
News about Russian trainer aircraft availability issues occasionally surface. There are examples from the early 2010s and from more recent years. Notably, in December 2019, it was revealed that the availability rate of the VKS’ Yak-130 fleet at the time was a mere 56%. The Yak-130 is the only modern advanced/lead-in fighter trainer in use with the Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School for Pilots (KVVAUL). The school has also been using it as a basic trainer aircraft (it is the only modern jet trainer available for this role, too). Due to the Yak-130’s low availability rate and small fleet size (The VKS’ entire Yak-130 fleet totaled only about 100 aircraft at the time), the school was still using its aging Aero L-39Cs jet trainers for its 4th and 5th courses (basic and advanced flight training programs, respectively). This was negatively impacting the quality of training that many cadets were receiving.
Why is that? Can you elaborate on the situation with Russian air force trainer aircraft?
You see, the L-39C has long been considered grossly inadequate for the 5th course; its avionics are rudimentary and dated (it lacks a glass cockpit), and its performance is lacking (for example, it is incapable of supersonic – or even transonic – speeds). Due to the absence of modern avionics, the L-39C has also been viewed as ill-suited for the 4th course. Consequently, cadets who got little or no flight hours in the Yak-130 ended up graduating pilot school inadequately prepared for subsequent combat training on modern high performance combat aircraft (Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-35S, etc.), with some graduates reportedly requiring a long time to qualify on their assigned aircraft type. To alleviate this problem, KVVAUL has been introducing modern simulators; however, these cannot fully replace real flying. The school also still operates a relatively small number of high performance jet trainers such as the MiG-29UB and Su-25UB which are used for the 5th course, but only the top performing cadets get to fly them. Moreover, like the L-39C, they, too, lack glass cockpits.
At present, it is unclear whether (or to what extent) L-39Cs are being utilized for the 5th course, but they certainly continue to be widely employed for the 4th course due to the ongoing shortage of modern trainer aircraft. Indeed, although the current availability rate of the Yak-130 fleet has not been publicized, the total size of the fleet has increased only marginally. In 2020, only four additional Yak-130s were delivered to the VKS and, according to some reports, these four were still not being employed for flight training as of early 2021. The Yak-130 was initially intended to replace Russia’s aging fleet of Aero L-39C jet trainers. It is a much more capable machine than the L-39C, and its service life is more than double that of what the latter was designed for. To replace the L-39C fleet, the Russian Defense Ministry previously planned to procure some 250 Yak-130s; however, just over 135 have been ordered to date, of which a little over 110 have been delivered since deliveries commenced over a decade ago.
Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. KEEP US PAYWALL FREE. We hate paywalls and would rather avoid them but there’s a lot of work that goes into this site.
Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
How many more Yak-130s might be ordered in the future is unclear. Whereas the twinjet Yak-130 is well suited for KVVAUL’s 5th course, it has long been deemed too complex and expensive to replace the single-engine L-39C in the 4th course. The aging L-39C fleet, however, has also seen low availability rates. Notably, in September 2019, Izvestia reported that aviation repair plants were struggling to repair L-39Cs in a timely manner, and that components were not being supplied on time in the required quantities. According to Izvesita, just one out of every three repaired L-39Cs was being delivered back to the VKS within specified timeframes. Based on various estimates, the number of L-39Cs in service with the VKS at the time stood at only 120-150 aircraft, with many not available for use at any given point in time.
Concerned by the situation with L-39Cs and other trainer aircraft, Russia’s Defense Minister instructed the problem of low availability rates to be resolved. Already in early April 2020 he announced that the availability rate of the VKS’ trainer aircraft fleet had risen from “about 50%” in September to “almost 90%,” noting that cadets will now be able to receive quality training. However, this should be taken with a grain of salt. Indeed, no details were provided as to what specific measures were undertaken to increase the availability rate so rapidly. It’s quite possible that, as some in Russia have suggested, in addition to improving the state of the aviation industry, many unserviceable trainers were simply written off. They were likely also stripped for parts.
In any case, to provide cadets with quality training, Russia will need to procure additional modern trainers, including new aircraft that are more suitable for replacing the L-39C in KVVAUL’s 4th course than the Yak-130. Aware of this, the Russian Air Force has been looking at options for a modern basic trainer aircraft for some time now. In the mid-late 2010s there was quite a bit of talk about the possible procurement of the forward-swept-wing SR-10 developed by Sovremennyye Aviatsionnyye Technologii (SAT) Design Bureau. A prototype of this modern single-engine jet trainer first flew in 2015; however, the Russian Defense Ministry hasn’t placed an order for the SR-10 and it’s unclear if it will. Indeed, in mid 2020, Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation announced that work was nearing completion on a modernized L-39 which features modern Russian avionics, so it is possible that the L-39C fleet will be modernized to this standard instead if testing is completed successfully.
In addition to having a shortage of modern trainer aircraft for the 4th course, KVVAUL is also still waiting on a modern replacement for the L-39C in the 3rd course (primary flight training program). It is planned that this role will be fulfilled by the Yak-152 primary trainer. The Yak-152 is a single-engine piston aircraft with a low operating cost (notably, its fuel consumption is far lower than that of the turbofan-powered L-39C). Unlike the latter, the Yak-152 also has a glass cockpit – a feature which will enhance the preparation of cadets for the transition to the Yak-130 (and to other modern trainers that may be introduced in the future). According to reports from the mid 2020, deliveries of the Yak-152 to the VKS are supposed to commence this year. It is not yet clear how many will be procured; however, this figure is likely to be in excess of 150 aircraft.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
As part of other efforts to improve the efficiency and quality of training at KVVAUL, the school has taken delivery of modern, glass cockpit-equipped Austrian Diamond DA42T piston twin trainers (assembled in Russia) and decided that some cadets will begin flight training at an earlier stage. Training at KVVAUL lasts five years and, until very recently, all cadets began flight training only in their third year (3rd course). In the 3rd course, cadets fly on either the L-39C or the twin-turboprop L-410. They then progress to the 4th course in which they fly on either the L-39C and/or Yak-130, or the L-410 and/or the twin-turboprop An-26, respectively (the An-26, by the way, is also used for the 5th course). Recently, however, the school has decided to begin flight training for some cadets (such as those training to become Military-Transport Aviation pilots) on their second year (2nd course) using the new DA42Ts. This approach allows for much more efficient use of time and funds because initial flight screening can now be done on the second year using the DA42T rather than on the third year using the much larger L-410, which has a higher operating cost. It also increases the availability of L-410s for other training tasks. So far, two contracts for a total of 55 DA42Ts have been signed by the Russian Defense Ministry. The first – for 35 aircraft – was reportedly completed in 2020, and training on the type at KVVAUL likely commenced that same year.
Guy Plopsky is the author of a number of articles on air power and Russian military affairs. He holds an MA in International Affairs and Strategic Studies from Tamkang University Taiwan.
The month of March is often considered to be ‘Women’s History’ month, largely because International Women’s Day (IWD) is on 8th March, and doubtless there will be plenty of listicles of ‘top women’ or ‘first women’ in this or that field. Lists of women who are or have been significant in aviation generally focus on the famous European and American pioneering flyers, such as Amy Johnson, Amelia Earhart, Valentina Tereshkova or Bessie Coleman. IWD 2021’s theme is ‘Choose to Challenge’, so for this guest blog I have chosen to challenge the commonplace lists of women pilots. Instead I offer a list of 10 women who have done significant work in aeronautical engineering of various kinds, in alphabetical order, mainly women of the past but starting off with a living example.
An A400M (U.S. Air Force photo/ Tech. Sgt. Ryan Crane)
Jenny Body was the first woman to become president of the Royal Aeronautical Society in 2013. This society, perhaps because its history is so associated with a ‘new’ industry, was for decades the only professional body to admit women as members, even if it took a while longer for one to become its president. Jenny Body came from an engineering family and benefited from the combination of practical and academic training as an undergraduate apprentice with British Aerospace and Imperial College. Whilst in BAE’s avionics group she created the software for fly-by-wire aircraft. She worked on wing development as lead for the A400M team and established the Next Generation Composite Wing Programme, and in 2002 became engineering lead of the Nimrod wing design team. She was technical manager for wing assembly and retired from Airbus in 2010.
Her work both on the technical side and also her work in support of other women in her field have gained her a CBE, as well as many prestigious fellowships and an honorary doctorate. Interestingly, Airbus’s lead engineer on the A380 wing design was another woman, Sue Partridge, who is now head of its ‘Wing of Tomorrow Programme’.
For the rest of that summer, autumn and winter Wilbur Wright flew numerous times, generally taking a passenger with him. Bearing in mind that this was not a question of climbing into the cockpit from the ground but of climbing a tower from which the plane was suspended, we can understand why Carlotta waited until October before venturing aloft. The tower was a means of launching the plane, by a falling weight acting as a catapult. Her flight was typical of many, at an altitude of about 25m and lasting about 4 minutes.
Anne Burns (nee Pellew) BSc ( 23 November 1915 – 22 January 2001)
Burns was an aeronautical engineer and glider pilot, who became the world expert in ‘Clear Air Turbulence’ and its effects on aircraft safety. She gained a 1st class degree in engineering science from Oxford University (1936) and then joined the Structures and Mechanical Department at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough, Hampshire (1940), remaining there for her full career. She became expert in ‘flutter’ and clear air turbulence, was the first flight test engineer to use strain gauges and was involved in the investigations into the Comet disasters (1950s). It is easy now to forget how dangerous flying was even by the mid-20th century. Burns was part of the first generation of aeronautical engineers who applied stringent mathematics and physics principles to test airframes for safety. Many military and civilian planes had design faults which only became apparent when ‘unexplained’ disasters befell them. It was Burns’ life work to find the explanations for such problems as ‘flutter†and the disastrous Comet airliner crashes. As a flight test engineer observer she had to fly in many planes known to be dangerous, whilst monitoring her innovative strain gauges. In the 1960s she became known world wide for her expertise and daring in seeking out clear air turbulence and studying the problems which airframes can experience. Awarded the Queen’s Commendation for her bravery and contribution to Comet investigation (1955); R.P. Alston Medal by the Royal Aeronautical Society for this work (1958); Royal Aeronautical Society Silver Medal for Aeronautics (1966); Whitney Straight Award for her services to aeronautical research and flying (1968).
The now out-of-print biography of her life and work Clear Air Turbulence: A Life of Anne Burns by Matthew Freudenberg is worth hunting down.
Hilda Margaret Lyon MA., MSc., AFRAeS. (31st May 1896- 2nd December 1946)
Yorkshirewoman Hilda Lyon was of a generation of women who became engineers through their mathematical talents. Her mathematics degree from Newnham College, Cambridge in 1918 led to work as a technical assistant at Siddeley Deasy Motor company in Coventry, and then George Parnall & Co, Bristol aircraft manufacturer. In 1925 she joined the Royal Airship Works in Cardington, to work on the design and stress calculations of the R101’s transverse framing. She was soon considered an expert in this and the Aeronautical Journal published her first, and very important, paper on the strength of transverse frames of rigid airships in 1930. This won her the first R38 Memorial Prize to be awarded to a woman by the Royal Aeronautical Society.
Her experience with the design process of the R101 made her realise that wind tunnel testing, at that time, produced results that did not match real life. So she went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she got her first independent access to wind tunnels, enabling her to carefully eliminate the errors caused by turbulence due to model support wires etc. The outcome was her finding that airships could actually be less pointed at the front with no effect on air resistance. Decades later this discovery led to what is now known as the ‘Lyon Shape’, which is the basis for the shape of the American submarine USS Albacore, as well as many subsequent US submarines, and those of many other nations. She gained an MA for her thesis on The Effect of Turbulence on the Drag of Airship Models.
My book about Hilda Lyon can be obtained from Amazon, or signed copies direct from me.
That work took her next to Göttingen in Germany, where she conducted aerodynamics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft für Strömungsforschung with Ludwig Prandtl for about 18 months. Unemployed but still working on her research from 1933-37, she published 2 papers on streamlining and boundary layer effects in 1934 and two more, on wing flutter, in 1935 before the RAE employed her in its aerodynamics department in 1937. From 1937 onwards she was publishing frequently, mainly as official reports, up to and even after her death. Her war work included stability analysis of the Hurricane’s rudder and she was part of the post-war team which visited Germany to assess and retrieve aeronautical equipment and experts.
Her 1942 report on ‘A theoretical analysis of longitudinal dynamic stability in gliding flight’ was considered seminal and continues to be cited in various fields relating to streamlining and motion in fluids as well as contributing to the understanding of how to inhibit the dangerous ‘phugoid motion’ in aircraft.
In 1946 she died following an operation and is buried in her home town, Market Weighton in Yorkshire, where this now a commemorative blue plaque on her childhood home.
Elizabeth Muriel Gregory ‘Elsie’ MacGill, OC (March 27, 1905 – November 4, 1980)
Elsie MacGill’s cold-weather Hurricane was arguably the first winterized fast attack craft in the world and saw battle on the Eastern front.
MacGill with the Maple Leaf II Trainer. The Trainer was the first aircraft designed and built by a female aviation engineer.
Canadian Elsie MacGill is thought to have been the first woman to get a Master’s degree in aeronautical engineering (1929). This, with her first degree, in electrical engineering, equipped her to get her first job, as an assistant aeronautical engineer at Fairchild’s Aircraft company. In 1942 she moved, to become Chief Aeronautical Engineer at Canadian Car and Foundry.
This meant she was the only woman in the world with such a senior post in the industry, initially designing the Maple Leaf trainer and then massively ramping up the factory’s production and efficiency to take on a huge wartime contract building Hawker Hurricanes. For use in Canada’s harsh winters, MacGill had to design de-icing improvements for the Hurricanes. Her role was high profile and the print media of the time nicknamed her ‘Queen of the Hurricanes’. Following her marriage to colleague Bill Soulsby in 1943 they were both dismissed from the company and set up an aeronautical engineering consultancy together. She has been honoured posthumously as one of the first inductees in the Women in Aviation, International’s (WAI) Pioneer Hall of Fame. Bourgeois-Doyle’s 2008 biography, ‘Her Daughter the Engineer: The Life of Elsie Gregory MacGill’ is worth reading, not least for the extraordinary story of her mother’s life too.
Baroness Beryl Platt was of the generation of women for whom the Second World War opened up a brief window of opportunity in engineering, only for the ‘marriage bar’ to shut it again. Her mathematical talent took her from Westcliff High School for Girls to Girton College Cambridge, to pass the mechanical science tripos with honours (1943) under the wartime accelerated degree programme. Cambridge of course did not at that time actually award the degrees which women had earned. The same programme directed her into aeronautical engineering at Hawker Aircraft Ltd, as a technical assistant in the experimental flight section of the Design Office. Her work analysed data from test flights of fighter planes, including the Hurricane. In 1946 she became a technical assistant in the performance and analysis section of British European Airways’ Project Department, testing new aircraft and ensuring compliance with UK and international safety regulations. However, in 1949 she married and the convention of those times was that married women retired from their paid employment. She then started a political career, rising from parish councillor to the House of Lords and chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Although her own career as an engineer had been brief, she did a lot to support the opportunities for women in engineering, in particular setting up the Women Into Science and Engineering Year in 1984. Her eminent career in support of equal opportunities for women and technical engineering education led to many honorary doctorates, the CBE in 1978 and the Freedom of the City of London in 1988.
Hawker Hurricane (U.S. Air Force photo)
Beatrice Shilling BEng, Msc, PhD, CEng, HonMWES (Mrs Naylor) (8th March 1909-18th November 1990)
The now out-of-print biography of her life and work ‘Negative Gravity: A Life of Beatrice Shilling’ by Mathew Freudenberg is also worth looking for.
She is principally celebrated today for her WW2 role in solving the carburettor problems of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines used in the Spitfires and Hurricanes, leading to her invention of the “RAE Restrictor†or, less officially, “Miss Shilling’s Orificeâ€. However that was just one of many engineering jobs she was given at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. With the post-WW2 advent of the jet engine, her previous specialism in piston engines was less useful and she was asked to design, specify and commission a new High Altitude Test Plant to enable the testing of the ancilliary equipment for the new jet planes, including their hydraulics, fuel systems and cabin pressurisation equipment. These were all critical now that all planes, both civil and military, were flying faster and much higher. She also worked on the early rocket engines, in particular the fuel delivery systems which had to provide two fuels in very precise quantities at precise timings such as to control the explosive forces involved. Next she joined the many teams working on Cold War era guided weapons, including the ramjet engines for missiles, such as her work on the Blue Streak’s ‘boil-off’ of fuel during launch.
More high-profile than this top secret work was the investigation she led into the Munich air crash which killed the Manchester United footballers. Her expertise on cold weather problems meant she was able to exonerate the pilot who had been blamed for the crash, as it was actually due to runway slush dragging the plane’s speed down below that safe for take off. This work in the 1960s led her to become an expert in the interactions between tyres and runways at higher speeds and NASA consulted her before her compulsory retirement in 1969.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
Clare Mulley’s book, ‘The Women Who Flew For Hitler’ covers her life in detail, along with that of her contemporary but complete opposite, the Nazi Hannah Reitsch. Although this lumps them together and although they came from the same region, the two women could not have been more different. Reitsch was a devoted Nazi, right to the bitter end, but von Stauffenberg with her privileged background partially hiding (even from her initially) some Jewish ancestry was in a social milieu of secret hostility to the Nazis. Mulley’s excellent book describes them as the only female test pilots in Nazi Germany but almost certainly they were the only ones outside of the USSR at that time. The reason I include von Stauffenberg is the other key difference between the two women. Both were very talented test pilots with thousands of hours of risky flying to their names, but only von Stauffenberg, with her cum laude (meaning in the top 30% of the class) engineering degree, was an aeronautical engineer who could do all her own test flight analysis and design changes. When her husband’s involvement in the 20th July Plot to assassinate Hitler came to light, it was only her aeronautical engineering work that protected the family to a great extent. This impelled her to work harder and harder on her test flight work, to protect them. She became the technical director of the Versuchsstelle für Flugsondergeräte (Test center for special flight devices). She was unfortunately shot down by the USAF when she was flying in Bavaria to try to find and rescue her imprisoned husband. She died from her wounds in April 1945.
Johanna Weber Dr. Rer. Nat. (8 August 1910 – 24 October 2014)
Source: Concorde blog
Dr Johanna Weber, was one of the foremost aerodynamicists of her generation and contributed significantly to the design of the Concorde and other supersonic swept-wing aircraft.
Born in Düsseldorf, Germany she lost her father in the First World War, making her eligible for financial support for her education and graduated Dr. rer. nat. (a first degree but to doctoral level, in natural philosophy or physics) with first-class honours in 1935. She then did teacher training but was barred from such work due to not joining the Nazis. Rather oddly, this did not apparently bar her from work in armaments. She first did ballistics research for the Krupp company in Essen and later moved to Göttingen’s Aerodynamics Research Institute (Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt Göttingen) in 1939.
This started her career-long work with aerodynamicist Dietrich Küchemann in Germany and later in UK.
Frances Bradfield
At the end of the War, the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) recruited Küchemann and Weber, probably on the reccommendation of Hilda Lyon who wrote the report covering their work. Her initial work at RAE was in Frances Bradfield’s Low Speed Wind Tunnels division, on air intake cowlings for jet engines, on which she co-authored a series of papers. The work for which she is more remembered today was on wing design, showing that a thin delta wing could generate sufficient lift to for take-off and landing for supersonic planes. Her concepts were implemented in the iconic Concorde, VC10 airliner and Airbus A300B designs. She retired from the RAE in 1975 at the grade of Senior Principal Scientific Officer.
Weinling Women
The women of the Weinling family were the first women to be employed by the UK government in a technical role connected with aviation. When balloonists started to use hydrogen gas as the lifting agent, instead of heated air, they sought a material that would be impermeable to the hydrogen’s tiny molecules. No such a fabric became available until the 1920s. In the meantime the solution was a product known as ‘Goldbeaters’ Skin’. Although this was, as the name shows, a long-known product, its use for hydrogen balloons was a secret known only by the people who made the balloons for Mr Herron, the Weinling family. Goldbeaters’ Skin is made from the outer layer of the bovine caecum, also called the blind gut or appendix. After preparation it resembles thin parchment, but when damp it sticks to itself easily ( a bit like cling film or Saran Wrap) to make larger pieces without glue or stitching. Airship gasbags usually consisted of up to seven layers of skin, needing vast quantities of the guts, most being imported in barrels from the USA. The largest airships came to require a quarter to half a million pieces. When the family first began work at the Royal Balloon Factory, it was an era when everyone expected the head of a household to be a man and there were clearly gendered lines of whether an occupation was for men or women. Fortunately for the Weinling women, the craft of processing Goldbeaters Skin was not controlled by any guild or trades group and women had probably always done at least part of the process. Frederick Weinling senior died in 1874 so that Ann was head of the household and leading her daughters, Matilda, Elizabeth and Eugenie in the business. In 1906 Eugenie has risen to become forewoman of the balloon making workshop at the Royal factory.
During the Boer War, the gas envelopes of goldbeaters’ skin were made in significant quantities for reconnaissance balloons, in 1901, the 4th Balloon section alone required £2000 spent on making or repairing some 14 medium to very large balloons and over 100 small ‘pilot’ balloons. The Weinlings were said to guard their ‘secret’ jealously but it is clear that the family must by now have been assisted by other workers, almost certainly local working class women, as well as having to train up soldiers in field repairs. During the First World War, with airships demanding even vaster numbers of skins made up into gas envelopes, the Weinling women were supervising significant numbers of women and there were women working at commercial airship builders. None of these women, the Weinlings or those they supervised, would probably have considered themselves to be engineers and they certainly had no formal education or training in anything that might be so recognised at the time. They are examples of the thousands of women who would never be famous in aviation but, during 2 world wars, there was no part of an aircraft that was not made by women somewhere in the UK.
The Weinlings continued their service until about 1922 when new fabrics became technically feasible for containing the hydrogen gas.
Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. KEEP US PAYWALL FREE. We hate paywalls and would rather avoid them but there’s a lot of work that goes into this site.
Thank you. Our shop is hereand our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
The F-35 is a Ferrari, the F-22 a Bugatti Chiron – the United States Air Force needs a Nissan 300ZX. Both the F-35 and F-22 have higher levels of technology than USAF requires for the vast majority of its everyday tasks. They are very difficult and costly to maintain, operate and upgrade. What is needed according to the USAF’s Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr is an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace the F-16. It must be faster to develop and upgrade than the F-35 and need not feature such exquisite technologies. The only way to escape the exceptionally slow and expensive development process is to obey the following:
A very fast project definition process. A sensible low-risk hard- and software solution is chosen and frozen within a year. Regular software updates are planned. A 1-year PD phase seems almost impossible if there were to be competition between L-M and Boeing. Single-sourcing without a contest would be necessary. The acquisition approach is likely to be a Government-directed prime contractor and engine supplier (P&W, on the grounds that the F-119 will be put back into production through this programme). Then a Skunk Works-like programme against a well defined, but small, set of mandatory requirements, with freedom given to the main contractor to choose sub-contractors. The Government will specify the weapons fit, digital interfaces for datalinks and weapons, all other sub-contractors to be selected by prime. The contract will be incentivised for rapid delivery, with stage payments for demonstration of successful integration of specific sensors and weapons systems. This approach should meet USAF objectives for timeliness, while ensuring a reasonable sharing of risk between Government and Industry. (If the PD phase is competed, you would need Boeing, L-M and N-G, and perhaps add at least a year to your schedule. But you might get a better price. One possibility is borrowing from old UK procurement policy: No Acceptable Price, No Contract, and deal with L-M, or have a 2-year competitive PD phase, with a model-based down-select to award a Prime Contractor.)
2. Move fast enough to minimise pork-barrelling. Bypass politicising the project through the removal of competitive element – all primary components sources decided at a very early stage unilaterally (and the same with secondary sources in the case of serious issues with primary contractors). As an alternative solution, 3D printing away from conventional factories could partly solve the pork barrelling issue.
3. A ‘Luddite Czar’ is appointed to block the addition of any new technologies, roles or excess weight increases during development. Personality required: exceptionally strong-willed, non-careerist disagreeable individual with high technical knowledge.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplaneshere.
Requirements creep is the enemy.
4. The smallest lowest tech production line possible is used. Plans are made for rapid expansion if large export orders are received.
5. Existing technologies used for engines, sensors and materials. Existing components are further simplified where possible.
6. A lower density design with surplus volume, surplus electrical generation. Minimum onboard computer intelligence and maximum data-linking. Remote mentoring as phase 2 enhancement once the technology is mature.
7. A simple fuselage shape with surplus volume that could potentially accommodate a game-changing advance in propulsion technology
8. Less emphasis on low radar signature than F-35 and F-22.
9. 3D printing used to maximum effect. Additive manufacturing. The application of 3D aerodynamic modelling to blended shapes.
10. Accelerated multiple prototype/test aircraft project concentrates on reliability and upgradability. Large test fleet is kept throughout aircraft’s left to robustly test updates.
We wondered what might a notional ‘F-36’* look like? I enlisted the help of Stephen Mcparlin who spent 22 years at RAE/DRA/DERA/QinetiQ at Farnborough, using low speed, transonic and supersonic wind tunnels, while evolving and validating aerodynamic design methodologies for mostly military aircraft and James Smith, who had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon, and the illustrator Andy Godfrey from the Teasel Studio to provide a visual representation.
*Jumping back to into the vacant F-20s designations seems retrograde and would involve solving the riddle of the YF-24
Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. KEEP US PAYWALL FREE. We hate paywalls and would rather avoid them but there’s a lot of work that goes into this site. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
Thank you. Our shop is hereand our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here.
This is a new aircraft. What is the primary requirement? What we have come up with is a long range, supersonic, manoeuvrable BVR and WVR fighter. Of course, later in its life it will become an overweight bomb trucks, festooned with stuff, just like the F-16, but let’s not draw it in middle age just yet.
The design
The wing is based on that of the F-16XL. The cranked arrow has an inboard section of increased sweepback, creating a controlled high-lift vortex without the need for a foreplane. The wing is efficient at high speeds aiding in creating a faster fighter than the F-35. The F-35’s slowness is a disadvantage for the beyond-visual range mission. The wing also allows ample room for fuel (we can expect a higher full fraction for the whole aircraft than the F-22) and external hardpoints (one notable issue that requires long range is the likely ability of supercruising Chinese J-20s to outrange F-22s). The wing loading is lower than the F-35 for most given configurations. Rather than emphasising an extremely high speed that is rarely met (as the case with F-14 and F-15 etc) the F-36 is very comfortable achieving speeds in the mach 1.8-2 range, rather like the European Typhoon. The F-36 is designed for unreheated supersonic performance at M = 1.4 , using reheat for acceleration up to M = 2.0 .
On agility, the big wing will give great instantaneous turn rate, and energy manoeuvrability should be well up there with low wave drag and good T/W. As primary design is for BVR ,sustained turn performance is less important. Internal weapons are carried in intake trunking weapons bays, curving into the lower wing fillets. Likely weapons would include new generation long range air-to-air missiles.
F-36 mugs, t-shirts and much more available at our online shop
Engines considered included the F-15EX’s F110-GE-129 which would offer commonality but lack sufficient thrust or the F135 of the F-35 which is suffering technical issues. The chosen powerplant is a simplified version of F119 of the F-22. Returning the engine to production would also benefit the F-22 Raptor force. It is estimated returning the engine to production would take 3.5 years meaning early test aircraft would need to borrow from the Raptor. The F110-GE-129 is a lower risk option. Unlike the F-22 , the F-36 does not have thrust vector control. The F119 production re-start would be expensive however and an uprated F110 and or improved F135 should not be ruled out.
Sensors
The primary sensor is the AN/APG-83 AESA and an IRST based on the LEGION POD.
Cockpit
The F-35’s cockpit concept was probably a little ahead of the state-of-the-art in some aspects. It has been criticised by pilots for its absent HUD and the lack of feel and unreliability of inputted commands relating to the touchscreen-centric approach. The F-36 cockpit will address both issues and will feature a widescreen HUD in conjunction with a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), a cheaper option than the F-35 helmet system.
Gun
With modern infra-red missiles almost guaranteeing a kill before fighters reach the merge a gun may seem an archaic inclusion and certainly Stephen McParlin was sceptical of whether one was needed. There are several reasons that the F-36 has a gun. The first is political: gunless fighters have a bad reputation, the second is practical: any F-16 replacement is likely to end up performing the Close Air Support mission. The weapon is the M61 Vulcan mounted in the starboard wingroot. It is not ideal to use supersonic optimised fighters for CAS and ideally the F-36 would be complemented by new or existing subsonic aircraft better suited to the mission.
We showed our speculative design to Bill Sweetman who commented “I think Harry Hillaker would have approved”.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
Name: Brian McCoy Rank: Captain Service: United States Air Force
How did the MiG-21 differ from the F-5E? The biggest difference for the pilot would have to be familiarity. The F-5E is essentially a beefed-up, fighter version of the Northrop T-38 Talon … an aircraft every USAF pilot had experience in during basic flight training.
First Impressions? Small airplane! Small cockpit, archaic instrument panel, high canopy rails.
How would you rate the cockpit for the following:
a. Ergonomics? Ergonomics wasn’t yet a thing when the ‘Fishbed’ was designed.
b. Pilot’s view? Outward visibility contends for the worst single problem encountered by the Fishbed pilot during air combat manoeuvring. Fighting the MiG-21 required deliberate manoeuvring simply to keep the adversary in sight … regardless of the tactical advisability of such manoeuvring.
The blind zone behind the pilot (due to the ejection seat and structural members behind the seat) extends at least 40 degrees either side of the tail. The wings are not visible to the pilot – neither is the vertical tail.
The blind zone under the high canopy rails extends about 70 degrees either side as measured from the pilot’s butt centerline (aircraft structure).
The blind zone out front is about 10 degrees either side of the nose (tall instrument panel; poorly-placed gun camera; combining glass supports; thick, translucent Pexiglass sheet placed in front of pilot as protection from B-52 tail gunner).
c. Comfort
i. While not really a concern for the designers, it’s not any more uncomfortable than other fighter designs from the era. And they did paint the instrument panel a soothing shade of green specifically to calm the pilot.
d. Instrumentation i. Primarily the instruments we used were factory-installed … with Cyrillic characters and metric system measures and graduations – neither of which were familiar to the average American fighter pilot. Luckily our outstanding maintenance professionals placed green arcs for normal operating ranges and red radials for system limits. At some point, numbers are numbers.
Our jets had American altimeters, airspeed indicators, radios, transponders, oxygen regulators and drag chutes (for the Soviet jets … F-7 jets came from the factory with drag chutes).
Yes, the ejection system was factory installed. For the older Soviet jets, that meant a 57mm mortar shell fired to propel the ejection seat (and pilot) from the aircraft. It also brought along the forward-hinged canopy which attached to the headrest of the pilot’s seat and then folded down in front of the pilot as a shield from windblast. (The canopy and related support members probably weighed 250 – 400 pounds!) The later F-7 jets featured a rocket-propelled seat that had nearly 0/0 capability (the pilot was on his own against the breeze). The fabulous ACES-II ejection seat installed in the F-15 and F-16 aircraft (among others) used similar rocket tubes that fired sequentially to keep the G-loading associated with riding the seat during ejection down to a maximum of about 16 G’s. The F-7 rocket tubes fired all at once … giving the ejectee a spine-compressing 21 G “boost†from the aircraft.
Against the F-16? a. In WVR: Which aircraft would have the advantage and why? i. The F-16 holds every advantage: Higher thrust-to-weight ratio, vastly better outward visibility, higher instantaneous turn rate, much higher sustained turn rate, better weapons, much better cannon and gunsight, better man/machine interface, better acceleration … the only potential advantage the ‘Fishbed’ pilot might enjoy is if the speeds in the fight slow below 250 KIAS – well below. The slower the fight gets, the more the advantage swings to the MiG.
b. Which set-ups and altitudes would the MiG-21 favour? i. Offensive perch at 1,000 foot range in solid gun tracking solution … LOL. ii. Side-by-side, line-abreast 500’ spread, 150 KIAS (or less), 20,000 feet MSL.
c. How should the MiG-21 pilot fight? i. Call for help, stay close to the Viper, get slow (and hope the Viper follows suit), keep pointing the nose at the Viper to threaten him, call for help, look for any opportunity to leave the fight, consider pre-emptive ejection, call for help!”
d. Who would you put your money on? i. It might be obvious that I’m leaning toward the F-16. ii. But this question opens a line of consideration I’ve encountered several times on related FB posts … the idea that the superior aircraft always – and almost automatically – wins. For nearly eight years I flew nothing but air-to-air in engagements ranging from 1v1’s to Red/Green/Maple Flag exercises. I’ve led small missions and those Flag exercises. Debriefed both using high technology or chalkboards in as much detail as the situation required to illustrate the learning points involved. I estimate I’ve been in 4,500 engagements during those years. As I learned more and more about air combat and experienced varied tactics, aircraft capabilities (or lack thereof) and the occasional imposition of simple luck … the more I came to realise the skill, daring and bravado of the pilot in that other airplane was far more important in determining an engagement’s outcome than the type aircraft he was strapped into. iii. But I’d rather be in the F-16 for such a fight.
About 60 – 70% of our ‘adversaries’ paid attention in our pre-mission briefings and avoided fighting in such a way as to maximise our limited list of potential advantages. They kept their energy up, kept their distance, threatened us enough to force us to bleed energy and then killed us quickly and cleanly. We lost nearly all of these sorts of engagements – just as intended!
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order our Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.Until Tuesday 6th April we are running a bank holiday weekend promo code. The code is CRACKING20 and is valid for 20% off pledges and pre-orders on The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes
20 – 25% of our adversaries either ignored our briefings or intentionally sought to see what happens when they ‘stepped into the phone booth’ with us. We’d win well over half of such fights … pretty good considering we almost always started out defensively.
The rest either had a bad day, didn’t have a plan, or were so overcome by the situation that they forgot what to do. We knew what to do.
iii. We normally started on the DEFENSIVE perch, allowing frontline pilots the opportunity to watch the threat aircraft do it’s thing while they were looking out their front windows … much easier than assessing performance while looking over their shoulders. iv. I had memorable engagements against F-15’s, F-16’s, A-4M’s … but perhaps especially against the original F/A-18.
Best thing about the MiG-21? a. Simplicity
Worst thing about the MiG-21? a. Toss-up between abysmal outward visibility, incredible susceptibility to battle damage and astounding energy bleed-off during heavy manoeuvring.
How would you rate the MiG-21 in the following areas: a. Instantaneous turn rate i. Totally dependent on airspeed. Nothing special until below 250 KIAS – then it became startling. The rate did not increase at the lower speeds … it simply did not fall off as much as expected. b. Sustained turn rate i. Woeful. A 4+G level turn in full AB bled a bit over 1 knot per degree of heading change. Impossible to assess a “sustained turn rate†with bleed off like that. c. Weapons platform i. Keep in mind we flew very early export model ‘Fishbeds’ – MiG-21 F-13’s and F-7’s. Not the most advanced Fishbeds built.
ii. We simulated carriage of the IR-guided AA-2 Atoll … a direct copy of the AIM-9B Sidewinder. Not an impressive missile. Fishbeds also carry the AA-8 Aphid IR missile … a short range missile with impressive cornering capability.
iii. As a gun platform the Fishbed suffers from an incredibly unstable gunsight … useless above 2.5-3 G’s. The gun itself suffered from poor rate of fire and low muzzle velocity … but at least it didn’t carry many rounds. d. Acceleration i. Acceleration of the early-model Fishbed was actually quite good. Less than late- model F-16’s but on par with F-15C’s. e. Top Speed i. We lived with a self-imposed limit of 600 KIAS … enough for perhaps Mach 1.3 at altitude. It’s reportedly a Mach 2 capable airframe. I see no reason to doubt that capability.
Read what fighting these MiGs was like from an F-15 pilot here
f. Take-off characteristics i. Tonopah Test Range Airfield sits at about 5,600 feet above sea level – enough altitude to seriously reduce takeoff performance. We never flew the Bandits from a lower field elevation. ii. Temperature varied considerably at TNX – also effecting flight performance drastically. iii. Taking the runway, I’d lock the nosewheel in the straight-ahead position and select nosewheel braking to aid in any abort situation. Once cleared for takeoff (except for that ONE time!), I’d run the power up to MILITARY while holding the brakes. When prepared to launch, I’d simply release brakes and note the acceleration sensation at the small of my back. After perhaps 2 seconds of acceleration at just MIL, I’d thumb the release and select MAXIMUM power. The afterburner lightoff process took a few seconds (and featured a very good opportunity for the engine to cease operating altogether), caused several expected engine instrument fluctuations and normally resulted in much higher thrust output. (Sensing the differing acceleration rates of the two power settings gave me another check for normal engine operation.) Once lit, the afterburner made things happen much more quickly.
iv. The MiG-21 typically rolled about 3,500 to 5,000 feet before attaining takeoff speed at about 150 KIAS. Climbout was always in full afterburner until reaching 10,000 feet MSL. (This was to get us as quickly as possible out of the more dangerous low altitude ejection envelope.) We typically climbed out at 300 KIAS with a very steep climb angle.
v. The aircraft was designed to takeoff from even unprepared fields, climb quickly to high altitude, accelerate to supersonic speed … and run down attacking B-52 bombers. I never took off from a plowed field, so I can’t verify that specific capability – but the airplane’s delta wing made it very capable of quick climbs and rapid acceleration.
g. Landing characteristics i. Oh, boy! Do we have to do this? ii. First of all, refer back to the section where I discussed the limited forward visibility. Nowhere is that more relevant than during each mission’s landing phase.
Pilots had to fly the overhead traffic pattern looking obliquely forward during the final turn. This is completely natural and how every final turn is flown in every fighter jet.
When rolled out on final, that same oblique viewpoint (out both sides now) has to be used to fine-tune runway alignment … and it works okay. But the normal down-the-runway cues most guys use for rounding out and flaring to land are hidden, so peripheral vision has to substitute perceived sink rate to help ‘feel’ for the runway. This skillset needed some development. (It wasn’t as bad as the wall in front of Charles Lindbergh in the ‘Spirit of St. Louis’ … but it wasn’t as good as looking through your car’s windshield, either.) iii. The engine’s extremely slow windup makes the landing pattern the most dangerous phase of flight for the unwary or careless ‘Fishbed’ pilot.
Idle to MILITARY power took as much as 13 seconds … almost a quarter of a minute!! Imagine a ‘Fishbed’ pilot allowing the engine’s rpm to decay all the way to idle while at low altitude, low airspeed and high sink rates – as normally occur during any routine traffic pattern.
One of the signs of low thrust availability came anytime engine rpm dropped below 80% N1. a. The extended windup time was less than the 13-second Idle to MIL marathon … but even 5 or 6 seconds waiting for useable thrust could be critical. b. The exhaust nozzle opened fully right around that 80% N1 reading, dropping the effective thrust to nearly nothing. That was the true danger of allowing the engine rpm to decay. c. Instructor pilots flying chase aircraft (AT-38B’s) could visually monitor the exhaust nozzle during traffic patterns with new pilots so as to provide warning and guidance in case of decayed engine rpm … or other issues with transitioning pilots’ traffic pattern work.
An AT-38B Talon aircraft flies over the plains during a 479th Tactical Training Wing Lead-In Fighter Training (LIFT) flight near Holloman Air Force Base. Training on the Talon, LIFT pilots and weapons systems officers become familiar with fighter tactics and maneuvers which they will eventually use tactics and maneuvers which they will eventually use when flying more technologically advanced aircraft.
d. While potentially dangerous, this condition was easily avoided by simply not allowing the engine rpm to slow below the 80% N1 level. As a result, we flew wimpy wide traffic patterns with very gradual turns and descents. iv. The Fishbed was actually easy to fly through it’s landing pattern … so long as the pilot was aware of and prepared for the unusual and potentially dangerous pitfalls unique to the aircraft. v. Being a single-engine aircraft, we spent a lot of time thinking about and training for flameout recoveries. Our glide profile was flown at 250 KIAS … the same speed we used for other emergency recoveries. vi. While TNX was our prime recovery field, flight conditions at the time of the emergency could make landing there impossible due to distance. There were several contingency landing possibilities in the area – like old, inactive runways or dry lake beds. (Necessity is the mother of invention.) vii. We used drag chutes on every landing to extend brake and tire life.
Read what fighting these MiGs was like from an F-15 pilot here
h. Climb rate i. The aircraft could climb rapidly and steeply to whatever altitude was required. Once level, the Fishbed could quickly accelerate to supersonic speed.
i. Range i. This is an astonishingly short-ranged aircraft … even for a fighter. I’ve taken off from TNX, climbed to meet an adversary almost directly overhead the runway, fought three engagements and left the range with need to land immediately due to fuel considerations … ten minutes after takeoff! ii. I flew 287 ‘Fishbed’ sorties in my Constant Peg career – logging 134.5 hours … a bit under 0.47 hours per sortie. We weren’t trying for long sorties and made liberal use of afterburner, so your results may vary. iii. We never flew the Bandit jets with external fuel tanks or in a cross-country fuel-efficient mode … at least not while I was there.
j. Sensors i. Mark-1 eyeballs were our best set of sensors – by far! Our best-in-the-business GCI controllers were a close second. ii. There was no onboard Airborne Intercept search-and-track radar. iii. There was no IRSTS. iv. There was a range-only radar system that displayed information on a meter equipped with lights to indicate “In Range.†It was a pathetic system useful only when I pointed the jet straight down to get altitude verification. I suppose it may have been effective against relatively cooperative, bomber-sized targets.
Biggest myth about the MiG-21? a. That it is not an effective combat machine. With well over 11,000 copies built over a very long production run, it remained deadly due to sheer numbers for decades.
What should I have asked you? a. How many times did the MiG-21 try to kill you? [Tried hard only once] b. Would you willingly fly the MiG-21 into combat? [No.] c. Was the MiG-21 easy to taxi? [Not Day One … or Day Two]
Describe you most memorable exercise in the MiG-21? a. Describe a typical MiG-21 fight b. How did the Soviets fight and where did this knowledge about their tactics come from? i. I’m unsure of the remaining classification status of some aspects of this sort of information and not comfortable discussing it. It’s probably now unclassified since the USSR is out of business but I’d prefer to leave this topic alone. c. Which model of MiG-21 was it and where did it come from? i. We flew the MiG-21 F-13 (an early export model best known for combat operations versus United States aircraft in Southeast Asia.) We also flew later license-built (?) F-7 aircraft. Where these aircraft came from is frankly more than I personally know or am willing to discuss.
d. What was life like between missions? How did the desire for secrecy change things in your life?
i. We left Nellis AFB every morning via MAC-owned/operated C-12 executive transport aircraft (Beechcraft King Airs). We returned almost every evening after the day’s flight operations were complete. This travel was required to enable face-to-face debriefings with our adversary aircrews. Non-pilot personnel typically traveled to Tonopah on Monday mornings and returned to Nellis Friday afternoons. There were adequate dormitory, mess hall and recreational facilities to accommodate all assigned personnel. Pilots each had a full-time dorm room in case they needed to remain overnight.
ii. Details of our squadron’s operations were classified – but the fact that something special was going on was not a closely-guarded secret. We were treated with something like lofty respect by the Nellis fighter community – and granted unquestioned ‘expert’ status in matters regarding adversary aircraft.
iii. I could not share specific information with my family. If I’d been killed while flying a MIG – my family would have been told a cover story.
iv. One night at home my heart nearly stopped during a local news broadcast clearly showing a MiG-21 taking off at Tonopah! I couldn’t say a word about what I’d seen on the TV … thankfully my young family couldn’t tell a MiG-21 from a B-29 … but my jaw dropping to the floor might have drawn attention.
Tell me something I don’t know about the MiG-21 a. It accelerates right with the MiG-27 … knot for knot!
Describe the MiG-21 in three words a. Surprisingly nimble $hitheap!
Quickest way to lose a fight with a MiG-21? a. Failure to pick him up visually before he’s in firing position. With a wingspan under 24’ … it’s very hard to see! b. Slowing down with him (assuming he’s willing and able to fight at very slow speed)
Against the F-15 a. How does the MiG-21 compare to the F-15 in WVR? i. Each of the advantages enjoyed by the F-16 in the previous discussion also apply to the F-15’s advantages (except that acceleration is basically a draw) – with the additional factor that the Eagle is even better than the ‘Fishbed’ at slow speeds. The MiG is considerably smaller and much harder to see and perhaps keep track of in a visual fight. b. What was your most challenging opponent in BFM/DACT and why? i. Not really a definitive single answer to this question – owing to the pilot skill factor brought up above. ii. Need to mention that most Constant Peg engagements went according to plan.
In a 1v1 between an F-5E and a MiG-21 which aircraft would you rather be in and why? a. If life and death is not on the line, I’d prefer to be in the MiG-21. Knowing what I know, I can control the fight, bring it to a situation I can completely control and confidently maneuver to win the fight … decisively. b. If life and death is on the line … give me the F-5E. (Damn few ‘Fishbed’ pilots realise they can fight that jet down to 30 KIAS. The better survivability of the F-5E can’t be denied.)
What was Constant Peg and how did it work? a. Constant Peg was a flight program utilising actual threat aircraft to expose frontline American fighter crews to the sight of an aircraft they’d expect to kill. There was some exposure to fighting that aircraft – with the expectation that they would not encounter more skilled pilots anywhere else. b. Normally selected units deploying to Nellis for Red Flag exercises were given the opportunity to spend part of their time with us. i. They would operate out of Nellis – just as they did for Red Flag. ii. We’d inbrief them into our program – usually on a Saturday.
During this inbrief each pilot would sign a sheet informing them of the penalties for divulging information about our program.
We’d also brief them about the aircraft they’d be flying against. (This was when we’d tell them not to go into the phone booth with the ‘Fishbed’!) iii. We would wait on the ground until GCI told us our adversaries were inbound to our operating areas at the extreme northwest corner of the vast Nellis airspace complex. Our flight time was extremely limited, so saving fuel was a primary … and constant! … concern. iv. Immediately after takeoff (we most often took off in pairs), we’d run a Soviet-style tactic for our adversaries to practice their radar work. They’d also run a stern-conversion on us to get us quickly together to get on with the meat of our mission. v. Participating pilots had to first experience a Performance Profile mission with one of our pilots. This was a sophisticated ‘show and tell’ mission where the Red Eagle pilot described identifying features of his aircraft (without actually naming the aircraft … never know who’s listening!), coordinated a drag race to compare acceleration capabilities and led an advanced-handling demonstration.
vi. Once completing a PP with a ‘Fishbed’ pilot, our adversaries normally got a second PP with a Flogger pilot. vii. After flying a PP with both aircraft, they were cleared to fly BFM missions with us.
BFM missions with the ‘Fishbed’ were full-up fights. We’d normally begin out front in the defensive position … allowing our adversary to watch us do our thing out their front window. Most of the time we’d start at about 20,000 feet, with about 400-450 knots on both jets and the adversary about 9,000 feet behind at the MiG’s 4:30 or 7:30 position. We’d usually get two long or three short engagements before the ‘Fishbed’ was out of fuel.
Who would win Eurofighter Typhoon versus Dassault Rafale? Analysis here
BFM missions with the Flogger were not very challenging for our adversaries … the Flogger couldn’t turn well at all. But seeing that in person was an important thing to learn. viii. Once completing BFM missions with both aircraft, adversary pilots moved on to DACT missions – normally against one ‘Fishbed’ and one ‘Flogger’. (We rarely flew DACT sorties since so much emphasis was put on the BFM missions.) c. We also participated in actual Red Flag missions – either with the Bandit aircraft or our AT-38B’s … or sometimes with both! (Our participation limited the Red Flag scenario to American participants only – due to the classification of our program.)
Why were you chosen for this effort and how would you describe the other individuals in your team? a. I sometimes wonder why I was selected for this program. I volunteered, had built a solid reputation within the USAF fighter community and had appropriate experience that allowed me to be considered. Only Aggressors, Fighter Weapon School graduates and former Topgun Instructors were considered to become Bandits! I was an Aggressor. Bottom line? I got lucky!! i. Even with those prerequisites, a prospective Red Eagle had to pass muster with the current Red Eagles. One vote, “No†… and you were out. ii. Three personal interviews took place: two with individual General Officers – in their offices. Not intimidating at all! The third … and most important … was with the Red Eagle Operations Officer. Fail that one – and the outcome of the other interviews didn’t matter. iii. Needed a security clearance a notch above Top Secret to play. Not routine. b. Everyone that wore a Red Eagle patch was absolutely top-notch! The pilots I flew with – USAF, USN and USMC – were extremely skilled aviators. I’d go to war with any one of them … or all of them! Red Eagle GCI controllers were the absolute best. Our maintenance folks were beyond comparison … best in the business! They could build an airplane from spare parts without any problems – or they could fashion parts if none existed! We pilots routinely placed our lives in their hands without batting an eye. We also entrusted our lives to the Life Support technicians that worked directly for me (I was the Squadron Life Support Officer) but needed no direction from me. (There were two ejections while I was there … both pilots survived without meaningful injuries – thanks in part to the efforts of my guys.) We had dedicated professionals manning the firetrucks, security posts, refueling trucks, cooking our meals, cleaning our rooms, filling out our paperwork … at every level of effort – amazing, hand-picked personnel volunteered to pull classified duty at a classified location for several days each week away from home. I’m still impressed by the numbers of highly-qualified people that supported our unique mission. And kept it all secret until the program was declassified in 2006!
Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is hereand our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order our Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow first flew in 1958, and was a high performance interceptor with great potential. It does not make this list as it was cancelled in February 1959.
The ‘Top 10 fighters of 1960’ will be a controversial selection, however impartial and numbers based the process someone will be offended and re-arrange the order or promote their favourite chariot despite it being pug-ugly and with the performance of a foil-wrapped brick.
This is my version with supporting narrative, experience flying some of them, advice from some sage contemporaries and I believe the basis for reasonable discussion.
1960 was a watershed year in the leap from first generation jets – guns and ‘mind of their own’ missiles if any – to supersonic turning fighters with beyond visual range (BVR) missile capability. The Korean War was in the rear view mirror, Vietnam was on the near horizon and no longer just a French colonial issue as the USA was supporting the regime in the south but not yet with ‘fast air’ in theatre; meanwhile NATO was generally concerned with shooting down the Warsaw Pact (WP) nuclear bomber whilst deploying fighter bombers (FB) to stop a potential mechanised army attack into Europe from the east.
The missiles (BVR) versus guns argument was intensifying, leading to some strange anomalies; sacrificing manoeuvre/agility for weapons payload, the 1957 Defence White paper eviscerating the UK aircraft industry, slaughtering many sacred cows and forcing industry amalgamations. Surface-to-air missiles were the new ‘must have’ and the English Electric Lightning only survived because it was so far along the development trail that cancellation was too much bother.
The Soviet Union had learned lessons from Korea despite participation being vehemently denied and the Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) design bureau capitalised. Because of the vast area to protect Soviet air-defence philosophy leaned towards point defence of critical assets rather than area denial for interceptors. China commenced negotiations to licence build Soviet fighter aircraft.
The USA was awash with design teams and manufacturers generating research vehicles and prototypes aiming to fulfil the slightly confusing Department of Defence proposals or profit seeking with unsolicited proposals. In the late-50s period 8 manufacturers produced 14 fighter types, but nuclear bombers were the priority and air defence picked up the scraps. Many pure interceptors failed the test and became fighter-bombers.
Industrial homework in Europe produced some innovative and effective designs for national procurement until $$$ overtook NATO air planning/procurement and some offers became too good to refuse. Unfortunately one strong contender was born just too late for selection: Dassault Mirage IIIC ‘the one that got away’ initially delivered to FAF in July 1961.
Europe feared a cold war incursion and North America both the nuclear bomber threat and an asian hot war. Different imperatives: point defence interceptor, area defender against the nuclear bomber, limited war fighter bomber with offensive capability, or an amalgam of them all which of course produced some ‘bastards’ a few ‘Jacks of all trades’ and the odd classic.
Aerodynamic breakthroughs, material breakthroughs, radar and weapons development – radar BVR missiles, early Infra Red (IR) seekers, beam riders and Semi Active Radar Homing (SARH) terminal guidance all played their part.
The late 50s/early 60s was a period of major next generation fighter development from the ‘first’ or early jet iterations to a researched product driven by perceived threats and actual combat experience. Aerodynamics, propulsion, sensors, weapons all improved in leaps and bounds but were not necessarily integrated or even compatible, certainly many systems didn’t talk to each other well, if at all, and weapons employment was quite ‘hit or miss’.
Missiles were generally ‘hitiles’ with small warheads and initially primitive impact fuzing then proximity, but all very similar in concept.
There are over 30 fighters to choose from but other than personal opinion and preference what criteria have been used? Design freaks, errors, prototypes, wishful production and obvious stupidity have been discarded and the aircraft must have actually entered service. Utility, peer comparison in the role, capabilities – numerical and performance – and any actual 1v1 results have been extensively reviewed. Some aircraft are at the end of their service life others are brand new and there are a couple of ‘near misses’. Rated on my objective values of: performance, sensors, armament and the eye test, does it look ok and would I step into it? Luckily I have in 3 cases.
10. Hawker Hunter F6
Arguably the prettiest but probably the least powerful of the selection, but if it looks right it probably flies right. With a low Thrust/Weight (T/W) 0.56 and light Wing Loading (W/L) 252Kg/m² it was certainly one of the easiest to fly and fight in what was its original role of day-fighter interceptor relying on clear airmass or Ground Controlled Interception (GCI). The F6 was the sports car model delivered in October 1956 unencumbered by the 4 tanks and pylons or rocket rails of later models but with the characteristic ‘dogtooth’ leading edge step to cure high Mach No. ’pitch-up’ and the uprated Avon 203 engine. Fitted with a quick-turnaround replaceable four 30-mm Aden cannon pack and 150 High Explosive rounds per gun it had a big punch which you could smell in the cockpit ‘I love the smell of cordite in the morning’ but they did act as a retro device when fired, equivalent to opening the spade airbrake, and quite a few knots were lost.
Energy retention was good in manoeuvre at high indicated airspeed to more that 7g with a ‘combat flap’ setting (one notch = 15º or 2 = 23º) available up to 350kts but subject to aerodynamically ‘blowing in’ if over-stressed; lack of tailplane pitch authority above Mach 0.9 with flap down reminded you to bring them in. Instantaneous maximum turn would generate an energy loss although flap would improve the turn rate at low speed which was otherwise poor, but again at an energy cost. A medium speed turning fight was the much preferred option if surprise could be achieved. Good engine acceleration allowed separation from an engagement with supersonic just achievable in a dive from medium level but outrunning an opponent, especially missile armed, was not really an option. It retired from day fighter operations in 1963, replaced by the English Electric Lightning with many converted to the close support role as Hunter FGA9s.
It had also excelled as an RAF Black Arrows formation aerobatic team aircraft completing the 22 aircraft loop at Farnborough in 1958 followed by a 16 aircraft roll. Major Bill Beardsley USAF exchange to the RAF in1959 described it as a cross between an F-86F and an F-100.
Great fun dog-fighter, short range weapons, clear airmass, subsonic but beautiful to see and fly.
Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:
9. North American F-100A/C/D Super Sabre (‘Hun’)
Conceived as ‘son of’ the legendary F-86 Sabre, the F-100A series introduced to the USAF from 1954 was conceptually smart with advanced aerodynamics, a high speed point interceptor which could fight its way out of trouble, but it was very unforgiving and had to be ‘flown’ constantly in manoeuvre. It had a low T/W 0.55 and medium W/L 352Kg/m² but a high angle of attack (AoA-âº) ‘pitch up’ followed by random roll one way or the other into aerodynamic departure. The engine generated gyroscopic effects during acceleration and suffered compressor stalls; adverse yaw from the ailerons at low speed and high ⺠caused opposite roll departure (the ailerons produced more drag than lift). The handling answer was rudder authority and less aileron at high âº. “Only way to control the ’Hun’ at high ⺠is rudder” commented John Boyd of Nellis Fighter Weapons School†but noted, it could fly “Severely supersonic†and was capable of intercepting the B-47 state of the art strategic bomber at altitude – much to SAC’s displeasure. Despite its exciting performance and four 20-mm cannon with 200 rounds per gun, it was obviously a handful for the average squadron pilot as many accidents proved, so in 1958 the USAF commenced phasing it out having already requested an FB version which appeared in 1956. A yaw damper, pitch damper and up rated J57 engine partially resolving the compressor stall produced a more benign and eventually AIM-9 equipped ’C’ model which performed in the FB and secondary fighter role in Vietnam from 1961 supplemented by the ‘D’ model, which had itself suffered development issues with the constant speed drive, electrical generation, undercarriage and brake parachute. A few ‘kills’ versus MiG-17s were recorded early on but FB operations became the norm and MiG-21s were to be avoided at all costs. The ‘A’ model re-appeared in USAF cameos for another few years as International tensions rose and fell while the ‘C’ and ‘D’ models became successful NATO partner exports. Both the USAF Thunderbirds in 1956 (F-100C/D), and USAFE Skyblazers in 1956 (F-100C) found it quite compatible with close formations display flying.
Overall a considerable if challenging step up in the USAF fighter inventory. ‘Severely Supersonic’ but with short range weapons initially and very esoteric handling qualities.
8. Republic F-105B/D Thunderchief (‘Thud’)
Developed as a follow on to the F-100 series the Mach 2 nuclear capable fighter bomber was introduced into service in 1958 equipped with a 20mm M61 Vulcan rotary cannon and AIM-9 missiles carrying a nuclear weapon internally for high-speed low-altitude visual penetration. A respectable T/W of 0.74 gave great energy advantages when clean and with a reasonably high W/L of 450Kg/m² it had good stability at low level and as a weapons platform but not sparkling agility.
Conventional FB interdiction operations were an option from the outset carrying several tonnes of ordnance externally on up to 4 underwing pylons and multi-carriers plus a centreline tank. The swept wing and powerful J75 engine concept was complemented by an area rule fuselage and forward swept variable-geometry intakes minimising transonic drag. All weather operations were enabled by the inclusion of NAASAR R-14A search and ranging monopulse radar and ASG-19 Thunderstick fire control system (FCS) in the ‘D’ model introduced in late 1960 although the mission was gradually changed from nuclear to conventional in Europe. Serviceability issues dogged both the ‘B’ and ‘D’ models initially and early offensive capabilities were described as ‘triple threat’ – it could bomb you, strafe you or fall on you. Despite this pessimism, straight line speed, a big gun and AIM-9s later produced many kills against MiG-17s in Vietnam justifying the design although ‘turning and burning’ with MiGs was not a recommended tactic despite the +8.67 g limits, especially if loaded out with bombs, so disengaging cleaning off and re-entering the fight at speed was popular.
Republic F-105B-6-RE (S/N 54-0111) take off. (U.S. Air Force photo)Front view of Republic F-105B with avionics layout. (U.S. Air Force photo)
Loss of control due to a spin from the complications of swept wing adverse yaw in manoeuvre required deliberate pilot recovery input but recovery would be immediate, assuming you had sufficient altitude which was generally not available in the European theatre but became the norm during medium level operations in Vietnam! Spin recovery was seen as the procedure to provide a “stable platform from which to ejectâ€
Perhaps it’s best not to investigate the F-105 flypast during a Vietnam dedication ceremony at the USAF Academy which cost a fortune in broken windows. The Thunderchief also flew six displays with the USAF Thunderbirds in 1964 but an over-stress accident forced a change back to F-100. Undoubtably an FB workhorse which pilots remember fondly, it put up quite a good performance against the MiG-21 during HAVE DOUGHNUT reinforcing mutual support and the saying ‘speed is life’ but not one to take into a turning fight.
7. Lockheed F-104A Starfighter
Formation of two Lockheed F-104A-15-LO (S/N 56-0769 and 56-0781). (U.S. Air Force photo)
Designed by Clarence ‘Kelly’ Johnson at Lockheed, Burbank, California the F-104 was planned to out-fly the MiG-15 and was marketed as ‘the missile with a man in it’. It was to be simple and lightweight with maximum climb and speed performance, in fairness it could achieve Mach 2.0 with a T/W of 0.76 loaded and a high W/L of 510Kg/M².
It entered service in 1958 equipped with a 20-mm M61 Vulcan cannon wingtip AIM-9B and was in action that year in the Second Taiwan Crisis. An earlier exchange that year between Taiwanese F-86s and Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) MiGs had lead to the loss of an AIM-9 which did not fuze but lodged in the fuselage of a MiG-17 allowing it to be recovered and reverse-engineered into a Soviet K-13 (Atoll). The USAF 83rd FIS was detached to support the Nationalist Chinese against the People’s Republic of China over the disputed Quemoy and Matsu islands. Very visible ‘flag waving or sabre rattling’ patrols were flown along the Taiwan Straits and also directly towards the Chinese mainland and by October a ceasefire had been signed and the F-104’s were withdrawn.
The aircraft was optimised for performance above Mach 1.2 at altitude and if used for surprise ‘hit and run’ attacks it could be a formidable opponent but dragged into a turning fight it was vulnerable. At low level and high indicated airspeed (600kts<) it was a very stable platform and as such a useful nuclear delivery vehicle. A large turn radius at low level despite 7g available, generated a humorous colloquialism from Edwards AFB Test Centre pilots ‘banking with intent to turn’. High ⺠stalling and pitch-up behaviour from 15°âº, which required constant attention if large excursions and rapid roll/yaw coupling was to be avoided, lead to the installation of a ‘stick shaker’ and a ‘stick pusher’.
Despite its startling interceptor performance and an AN/ASG-14T1 radar with 20 mile ranging and 10 mile tracking, it suffered from short range, obsolete avionics and an occasionally unreliable early J79-GE-3B afterburner. Even worse the early versions had the Stanley C-1 downward firing ejector seat and after several lives were lost the C-2 upward firing version was fitted.
Take-off speeds were high and close to nose wheel retraction limits, as were landing speeds with added increments for fuel, crosswind, stores and gusts. The boundary layer control system required a minimum power setting above 82% and therefore a shallow approach. Throttling back on the approach caused instant loss of lift, many undershoots and ejections. Powerful brakes and a drag chute reduced the landing roll-out but not by much hence the ‘standard’ NATO 3km runway in Europe.
But there was a ready NATO overseas market for an interceptor/nuclear fighter bomber under the Military Aid Program and Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Canada and Italy joined a consortium for licensed production (amid some unusual financing arrangements as it was later discovered) and the type flourished.
The USAF handed their ‘A’ models off to the Air National Guard (ANG) after less than a year in service opting for longer range fighters with heavier weapons payloads. Blinding speed, low conspicuity and missiles, things were looking up. It had been fun while it lasted and continued to be for various allies.
6. McDonnell F-101A/B Voodoo
McDonnell F-101A (S/N 53-2425) from Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas. (U.S. Air Force photo)
Originally designed to fulfil the bomber escort role for SAC, which was cancelled as the Korean war ended and the jet powered B-52 emerged, the elegant looking single seat ‘A’ model was rapidly re-invented as a long range nuclear capable fighter bomber for TAC and introduced to service in 1957 with two J57-P-13 engines. A T/W of 0.74 and a W/L of 610Kg/m² made it stable, reasonably manoeuvrable at 6.33g and quick at altitude with Mach 1.52 speed. A large internal fuel capacity allowed for 4 hours plus flight and it was fitted with the Low Altitude Bombing System for nuclear delivery, an FCS and four 20-mm M39 revolver type cannon. Offensive weapons included the Mk 28 nuclear bomb and other variants.
Like most swept wing fighters of its time it suffered from ‘pitch up’ at high ⺠which was never successfully eradicated and was described as a ‘monumental challenge’ to its pilot. Conversely it was also described as a ‘superlative’ aircraft by its pilots who called it the ‘One-Oh-Wonder’. General Robin Olds even created an F-101C display team of 5 aircraft at RAF Bentwaters in 1964 although it gained him a grounding for ‘not going through channels’. ‘A’ production was limited to 77 with a further 35 built as the sensibly two-seat RF-101A reconnaissance version.
Meanwhile the USAF search continued for an interceptor with range, speed and payload so the reworked ‘B’ model entered service with USAF Air Defence Command (ADC) in 1959 powered by the uprated and more reliable J57-P-55 as a response to the F-100’s operating difficulties in the day interceptor role, the F-102’s poor performance in the all weather role and the F-104’s short endurance and lack of weapons payload. A second seat and a Hughes MG-13 FCS previously employed in the F-102 were installed, the cannon were removed and a rotating belly door fitted with 4 x GAR-1 or 2 (AIM-4A or B) Falcons in optional SARH or IR modes, with the operational tactic of firing an IR first followed by an SARH missile. From 1961 some ‘B’ models could carry the AIR-2 Genie nuclear missile. A total of 479 ‘B’ were built including the Canadian version.
Success is relative but the F-101 continued in USAF air defence service for another 12 years followed by another 10 with the ANG. Continuous in-service modifications and weapons updates maintained the F-101 as the backbone of all weather supersonic defence, complimenting the F-106 in Air Defence Command. It was quick, all weather and heavily armed a quantum leap in fighter capability.
5. Convair F-106A Delta Dart
National air defence competed with SAC nuclear deterrence for budget and influence throughout the 50s (B-47 ISD 1951, B-52 ISD 1955) but the all-weather bomber interceptor kept rising to the top of the procurement chain and the frequent ‘failures’ along the line were relegated to the FB role with NATO, the Military Aid Program or politically expedient allies. So when the F-106 entered service in 1959 as a development of the F-102 there were sceptics especially as engine and avionic performance were poor in development. But Convair had done their research and with a T/W of 0.71 and a low W/L of 250Kg/m² it was quick and manoeuvrable with agility at low and medium speed coupled with light buffet warning of impending high ⺠oscillations.The fuselage was ‘area ruled’ for aerodynamic efficiency and with a J75-P-17 in excess of Mach 2 at altitude was achieved with ‘super cruise’ (supersonic cruise without AB) a reality. Vertical manoeuvring in visual combat was very effective as was the ‘blow thorough’ weapons pass. Eventually Convair built 277 ‘A’ models. Yet again during USAF procurement the pilot got the rough end of the stick and ejector seat design was woefully inadequate, pilots were most concerned about high and fast but designers with low and slow. Two early seats by Weber Aircraft Corporation (not BBQ fame) suited neither regime and 12 lives were lost until a rocket catapult ‘zero-zero’ seat was installed.
Doctrinally lacking guns or external weapons carriage, but with an internal weapons bay for four AIM-4 A or B (GAR1 or 2) Falcons or a mix with a nuclear AIR-2A Genie unguided rocket it was well armed for the role. Employing the Hughes MA-1 weapons control system in conjunction with the Semi-Autonomous Ground System (SAGE) intercepts were considerably simplified. The combat philosophy became ‘get there the firstest with the mostest’. Two supersonic 360 USGallon tanks could be carried underwing and a gun was fitted to later versions.
The aircraft acquitted itself well during Project HAVE DRILL versus MiG-17F Fresco (YF-114C) in the late 60s and during Project HAVE FERRY against a second MiG-17F (both originally made in Poland as Lim-5s and exported to Syria – procurement clue). It remained in ANG service until 1988. This may have been the ‘Last Starfighter’ that got away, it was very quick, it could turn, had interception assistance from the ground and a usable internal weapons menu.
“The engines were powerful enough to get you out of a bad situation and the acceleration they provided was excellent, especially with afterburners. “There were quite a few bad qualities but the worst, in my opinion, was the thick wing which made transonic speeds (just short of Mach 1) very rough to ride through and almost uncontrollable, although it employed ‘short arm’ and ‘long arm’ technology to cater for it. In three words: “Challenging – Powerful – Fun†– Wg. Cdr. Irfan Masum (Rtd), MiG-19 pilot (full interview here)
In the ‘P’ model the RP-1 Izumrud (NATO ScanFix) radar was fitted with a scan range of 7 km and no lock. RP-5 Izumrud was installed later increasing range to 12km with auto lock out to 4km using probably the first Track-While-Scan (TWS) mode hence NATO ScanOdd. Two wing root NR-23-mm 75 rounds per round cannon were installed initially then upgraded to NR-30mm 75 rounds per round with pylons for an unguided rocket pack and a ‘5g’ fuel tank under each wing, jettison-able for combat. This fit was hastily (for the Soviets) adjusted for the carriage of 2 Vympel NPO K-13 (AA-2 Atoll) missiles once the reverse engineering had been completed from the ‘Taiwan incident’ acquisition (see above).
Natural development into the MiG-19PM (NATO Farmer-E) occurred as the cannon were removed (mirroring a USAF trend or possibly because the SRD-3 Grad gun sight was so poor) and up to 4 Kaliningrad K-5M (NATO AA-1 Alkali) missiles fitted. Two underwing fuel tanks could replace missile on ‘wet’ pylons.
Multiple interceptions of NATO reconnaissance aircraft by PVO Strany (Anti-Air Defence of the Nation) occurred in the late 50s. The first U-2 sighting seems to have been in 1957 and at least one MiG-19 was involved, and possibly shot down inadvertently, during the ‘Gary Powers’ U-2 incident on 1 May 1960. The MiG-19 was gaining a bit of a ‘cavalier’ reputation, the pilots anyway, shooting down an RB-47H in International airspace over the Arctic in July the same year.
As an all-weather interceptor which could fight for its life with one eye on the fuel gauges, the MiG-19 was undoubtably a success with the combat experience and export orders to prove it. Never a flying member of the Tonopah Red Eagles, in 1970 a J-6 exploitation was carried out under Project ‘HAVE BOAT’ in Taiwan. Contemporary knowledge has it that against Western type opposition in Asia it was better than an F-100 with missiles, powerful and with a punch.
3. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21F-13 (NATO Fishbed C)
“The MiG-21 was the result of continuous Mikoyan-Gurevich OKB-155 development and research looking for a combination clear airmass point interceptor/air superiority fighter design in one airframe to compliment the MiG-19 series all-weather interceptor. The first generation MiG-21F (‘Forsirovannyy’ – uprated) was introduced to PVO Strany in 1959, and the F-13 model, signifying Vympel K-13 (NATO AA-2 ‘Atoll’) missile carriage, entered service a year later. This was an unusually fast Soviet air-to-air weapons philosophy change, airframe integration and missile manufacture, undoubtably driven by the ‘Taiwan incident’ (see above – there’s a lot for the USA to answer for in that fuzing failure).
The aircraft had mid-mounted delta wings with small square tips which was excellent for climb but an energy absorber in prolonged hard turns up to 7g (6g with C/L tank) causing speed ‘bleed off’ but reducing the turn radius. Small training edge high lift devices ( 3 position flaps – up, take-off, land) caused high landing and T/O speeds. A relatively low power Tumansky R11F (R-25)—300 turbojet with AB in the slim body, which had been a serious design consideration, was regulated for supersonic flight by an automatic 3 position inlet cone with manual back-up. It had a slow ‘spool up’ from low power (14 secs idle to full mil) and the AB only lit once 100% RPM was achieved. The fuselage has a small belly fin under the rear section to assist yaw stability and a large dorsal spine flush with the bubble canopy reducing rearward vision and limited vision over the relatively long nose. The tail fin sweeps back and is tapered with a square tip. This produced a T/W of 0.76 and W/L of 425Kg/m², a mid range combination similar to the F-101 or F-104 but of course T/W improved rapidly as fuel was used. Mach 2.05 was achieved up to 58,000ft but it was only supersonic above 15,000ft due transonic drag in thick air. Reports of the precise fuel capacity vary but the answer is ‘not much’, approx 2000kg (2500L) internal fuel in poorly placed tanks ahead of the CG caused handling problem and reduced airborne time to 45minutes. A C/L 400L or 490L tank was added to assist CG control and add endurance, attempting to resolve an inherent full flow issue exacerbated by manoeuvre and variable engine compressor tank pressurising air.
An SRD-5ND Kvant ranging radar was fitted, the ubiquitous Sirena-2 radar warning receiver (RWR) a Gorizont GCI link and an ASP-5ND optical ‘iron’ gunsight. Originally fitted with 1 x NR-30 and 2 x NR23 cannons with only 60rpg, the ‘F’ version dispensed with the 2 x NR 23s and gained 1 x K13 ‘Atoll’ on each inboard pylon. Hit and run or ‘blow through’ tactics soon became the norm but required GCI, clear airmass or ‘smokey’ target engines ( F-4 ).
An interesting and amusing ejection system was installed initially where the forward hinging canopy acted as a blast deflector for the final portion of the pilot’s departure up the seat rails, disengaging from the seat before parachute opening.
This early MiG-21 ‘does what is says on the tin’ was nimble, tight-turning, with a twenty minutes endurance with burner, small and very difficult to see or acquire on air-to-air radar. It had limited speed below 15,000ft and excellent operational capability above. Adequate ‘buffet warning’ was available at high ⺠and the best manoeuvre speed was 460-540kt. Described as ‘light, agile, beautiful to handle even at low speed’ it is the most built supersonic jet fighter ever – 11,496 a complete era in itself – the veritable Kalashnikov of fighters.
On 16 Aug 66 an Iraqi defector presented an aircraft to Israel and the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Foreign Technology Division, TAC Project ‘HAVE DOUGHNUT’ produced a Comparisons Report (unclass) covertly designating it the YF-110. Despite their confusion over whether they had assessed a 1962 MiG-21F-13 (Fishbed C – likely) or a MiG21-PF/PFS
(Fishbed E – unlikely), it concluded that the aircraft “has an excellent operational capability in all flight regimes†with minor caveats. It is undoubtably well worth a place on the podium.
“It’s completely a manual aeroplane, with very simple systems. If one masters it, this aircraft can manoeuvre better than most modern aircraft, provided it is flown by someone who has mastered the aircraft. Being a manual aircraft, safety needs to be observed as it is not ensured by inherent safety features and design features of a modern aircraft. In a MiG-21, being an older generation aircraft, sometimes this thin line has been transgressed by a few good men inadvertently and I lost some of my friends.” – Group Captain MJA Vinod, full interview here.
2. English Electric Lightning F1
Developed from a 1947 British Industry private initiative Mach 1.5 fighter design by ‘Teddy’ Petter (Canberra, Folland Gnat) then ’Freddie’ Page (TSR2) and Ray Creasey, it was first flown on 4 August 1954 by ‘Rolly’ Beaumont as the English Electric P1. The P.1 had a ‘stacked’ engine configuration producing twin-engined thrust for the drag equivalent of 1.5 engines. Named ‘Lightning’ in 1956 it was tasked with defending ‘V’ bomber bases against Soviet nuclear armed bombers. Performance emphasis was on rate-of-climb and speed rather than range in anticipation of very short radar detection to interception times. A range of 150nm from the airfields was specified and of course they were to be based towards the East coast of the UK. It survived the Duncan Sandys’ policy of an all missile defence of the UK in the Defence White Paper of 1957, perhaps because it was a fully integrated weapons delivery platform or it was just too much bother to cancel.
The ’small fin’ F1 had a T/W 0.78 < 1.1 at low fuel and W/L 350Kg/m² achieving 650kts<Mach 1.7 up to 60,000+ft with 2 x Avon-200R series engines with AB. 2500kg internal fuel (including the flaps) and 5.0g limit > 3.0g above Mach 1.6. A good combination of power and agility.
It was armed with two 30-mm Aden revolver cannon with 120 rounds per gun ahead of the cockpit, an optional interchangeable belly pack of 48 x 51mm (2 inch) unguided air-to-air rockets or an additional two Aden cannon, plus two Firestreak passive IR missiles on fuselage stub pylons. The radar was the Ferranti AI-23 ‘AIRPASS’ monopulse set with automatic tracking and ranging for all weapons and it had a gyro gunsight . The Firestreak was almost double the size of the AIM-9 Sidewinder/K-13 Atoll or AIM-4 Falcon as a result of a much larger warhead (22.7kg annular blast fragmentation) but with similar range and speed. All missile aerodynamics and engines were developing along very similar lines at this stage, although the Firestreak was a fairly maintenance unfriendly weapon with a toxic motor propellant and ammonia seeker head cooling bottles in the launch shoe. Acquisition and launch were constrained by many natural phenomena, cloud, sun, sea, OAT therefore target radar lock was no guarantee of missile success.
Formal entry into RAF service was May 1960 and No. 74 Sqn ‘The Tigers’ formed at RAF Coltishall in July. Further F1s with improved avionics, radar and in-flight refuelling provision were delivered to an additional 2 Squadrons later in the year as the F1A. Unfortunately ‘over and under’ engines were a recipe for leaks of all sorts onto the lower engine in a packed fuselage and many aircraft were lost to fires. It had short range but startling performance and was well armed for 1960, featuring a ridiculous rate of roll approaching that of the Folland Gnat (420°/sec), a great turning radius and acceleration, however, it was a fuel emergency from take-off!
Such was the success of the introduction, after some early engineering familiarisation issues, that in 1961 No. 74 Squadron was designated the Fighter Command aerobatic team with 9 aircraft performing displays around the UK including the SBAC Show at Farnborough that year.
Deke Slayton (USAF Test Pilot and Mercury Astronaut) flew it in 1958 and said “The P.1 was a terrific plane, with the easy handling of the F-86 and the performance of an F-104. Its only drawback was that it had no range at all. . . Looking back, however, I’d have to say that the P.1 was my favourite all-time plane.â€
Reliably described as flying like a Hunter with enormous power, although at 5g in manoeuvre it feels like constant pre-stall buffet. A contemporary manned rocket with weapons, well worthy of second place.
1. Saab J35A Draken
Avoiding a solely NATO versus Warsaw Pact competition, the No. 1 choice fighter is from a ‘neutral’ country and was created as a purely national self defence initiative. Designed in response to a Swedish Air Force 1949 requirement for an all-weather fighter to intercept the high altitude transonic nuclear-armed bomber and also engage fighters, Erik Bratt at SAAB led the team which proposed a single-pilot, single-engine delta wing aircraft with supersonic performance, capable of austere runway operations and servicing by conscripts (under the BASE90 dispersed airfield scheme). A top speed of Mach 1.7 was planned and a radical ‘double delta’ planform envisaged to provide the most effective solution to very high speed, required fuel and weapon load and short runway performance. The J35 (‘Jaktflygplan’ – pursuit aircraft) ‘Draken’ (Dragon or Kite – your choice) had a T/W of 0.7 and W/L of 230Kg/m² quite powerful, quite light (12T) and quite agile. Powered by one RB6B (a license built RR Avon 200 series) with an indigenous Ebk65 AB and 1,800 kg fuel carried internally. Later ‘Adam’ models were equipped with a more powerful and longer AB requiring ‘dolly wheels’ under the tail (differentiated as the Adam ‘kort’ short or ‘lÃ¥ng’ long). No conventional tailplane was fitted and elevons were installed inboard, manoeuvre was limited to 7.0g. and it entered service in March 1960 with Fighter Wing 13 at Norrköping. Export orders followed amongst the Scandahoovians and eventually second-hand to Austria.
The initial radar installation was an analogue PS-02 (Thomson-CSF Cyrano I) single pulse radar capable of target detection, tracking, weapons solution calculation including gun sight solutions with ground mapping by Ericsson. No auto ‘Stril 60’ GCI control link was fitted at this stage. 2 x 30mm Aden 90rpg in the wing roots, 2 x Rb 24 (licensed built AIM-9B) under each wing and a wet C/L pylon with 420kg tank was the standard fit.
High ⺠manoeuvring produced a form of ‘pitch-up’ or ‘super stall’ which was recognised as controllable and lead to a form of ‘Cobra’ manoeuvre (‘kort parad’- short parade but ‘short show’ is more descriptive) and is possibly the origin of the Top Gun airbrake/pitch up and opponent fly through manoeuvre. The airframe is always ⺠limited (15 ok, 22 critical) in manoeuvre rather than ‘g’ – structural limit +12g.
Despite the primary interceptor design it was more than adequate as a dogfighter and has been described as a tougher Mirage III with better radar and runway performance.
With overall excellent performance it is very stable and easy to fly, has a very good roll rate and good instantaneous turn, but like all swept wing aircraft speed bleeds off in continuous min radius turns. Mach 1.8 up to max 66,000ft has been demonstrated and â‰720kt at low level.
It is more capable, faster, has better avionics, gunsight and lookout, more armament and better endurance for its size than any contemporary airframe. In comparison the MiG-21F-13 was faster and possibly more agile at high altitude but had poor avionics and weapons and limited visibility.
As a tribute to its unusually benign but aggressive performance envelope the US National Test Pilot School (civilian) purchased six course curriculum aircraft (see picture below). It was described by an RAF pilot on an exchange tour with the RDAF as a ‘supersonic hunter with benefits’ and incidentally had a perfect combat record – as a neutral – therefore a very worthy winner in my view.
This selection has run the gamut from the gun-armed subsonic clear airmass day fighter Hunter through the ever evolving ‘Century Series’, the MiG Design Bureau’s top selling economy models and English Electric’s ‘Gentleman’s Fighter’ to the heavily armed supersonic all-weather dogfighting ‘Scandi’ Draken. A series of completely different designs and configurations all aiming to produce better combat performance in very varying geographical circumstances. The major constraints were invariably technology – aerodynamics, propulsion, avionics and missiles – very occasionally finance, politics or pilot interface, despite which all of these aircraft saw more than 20 years of service as the original or later marks and some are still being operated. Improvement is obvious through the list and although arguably not one of the greatest periods of fighter design the foundations were being laid for startling generational development. As capabilities increased or improved industrial espionage, reverse engineering, inspired development or pure experimentation drove manufacturers to build the next MiG and Tupolev killer or Peoples Air Defence Forces Defender of the Nation. These 10 set the standards for the next iteration of complete air defenders or specialist fighter bombers.
Suffix – Near Misses
There were a few fighters that came very close to selection which deserve exclusion explanations, so in alphabetical order:
Dassault Mirage IIIC
Mirage IIIC – the one that got away?
Designed as a radar equipped single seat interceptor with two guns, two missiles and pylons for air-to-ground weapons it entered service with the French Air Force in July 1961, remaining in service for 27 years and being very successfully exported. It was supersonic it could turn despite the ‘delta’ configuration and was all-weather with the Cyrano radar.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.
Originally designed for the USN all-weather carrier interceptor role it was issued to the USAF under a Defence Secretary unified fighter procurement decision with added FB capability. A re-working of the F-3H Demon design for more range, better performance and weapons carriage it reached the USN Fleet Replacement Air Group on 30 December 1960 – probably a paper transfer – and was on a deployable squadron by July 1961. A consummate performer it would go on to populate most ‘best of’ lists for years to come but not yet.
A carrier based air superiority fighter replacing the F-7U Cutlass in December 1956 through the ‘step improvement’ procurement method of the time. Single engine, revolutionary ‘variable-incidence’ wing to aid carrier landing, four unreliable guns and a belly tray of unguided rockets, soon to be deleted, it was hardly a success on arrival. Day clear airmass operations only with a considerable mishap record it needed continuous development with added fire control radar and missiles on stub pylons to make it a reasonable ‘bomb truck’ by the mid-60. Interview with Crusader pilot here.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes manuscript is now with the editor and it’s the Spitfire’s 85th birthday! Let’s talk Spitfires!
After flying Harrier and Typhoons for the Royal Air Force, fighter pilot Paul Godfrey took the equally enviable task of flying Spitfires for the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. We spoke to him to find out more.
Of the Spitfire variants you have flown which is your favourite and why?
“An easy answer. The BBMF Mk V, AB910. I guess this is because this was the first Spitfire that I flew that really felt like a Spitfire. It sounds strange, but MK356, the Mk IX, was the first I flew (AB was the second), but MK, although amazing (she was painted silver at the time and you really never get over seeing the classic elliptical wing out of the window) she didn’t feel overly different to the Hurricane. However, I got into AB and you could immediately feel the difference in balance on the controls – they were so light! As soon as I throttled up, the tail lifted (she is light) and we shot off. Unbelievably manoeuvrable, I displayed at 500 feet and then 100 feet and she flew like a dream.
However, as I came into land on the short cross-runway at Coningsby, I forced the tail down to try and get her slowing down and this caused an unexpected leap to the right (apparently, she went right on landing anyway). Before I knew it, the left wing had lifted and I arced majestically off the runway and almost hit the windsock! I eventually got her under control and made it back to the runway.
We had an understanding after that and I always gave her a kiss before we went flying. She never treated me badly again.
There was also a personal connection with a good friend of the flight and mine, Tony Cooper. Tony had flown Spitfires in WWII and had actually flown AB when she was at Hibbaldstow at the end of the war. I have never seen anything like it, when Tony came into the hangar and was reunited with her for the first time in 70 years.â€
How would you rate the cockpit for the following:
Erogomics
“I like the cockpit. Lots of room and a fantastic view with that canopy around you – much better than the Hurricane which feels like you are sat inside a greenhouse! The sitting position is comfortable and it is easy to reach the stick and pedals (the pedals are adjustable).â€
Pilot’s view
“Very good. It feels like you have strapped the aircraft to yourself (rather than sat inside it). The bubble canopy on the BBMF Mk XVI TE311 reminded me of the view in the F-16!â€
Comfort
“Very comfortable. Although it does get warm in the cockpit (clearly you can open the canopy for max air-con). The sitting position is good and the stick sits naturally in your hand. The spade grip is very comfortable and the controls are balanced differently depending on the mark and the individual aircraft!â€
Instrumentation
“Standard instrumentation you would expect in a warbird. A large Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, Turn and Slip and Airspeed Indicator as the main instruments, with smaller engine, fuel and oxygen gauges. The BBMF aircraft are relatively authentic, although none have working gunsights. They do all have modern radio and IFF fits, with a small GPS built into the radio. They also carry FLARM for collision avoidance.â€
You have flown both the Typhoon and Spitfire: Imagining a situation where a guns-only fighter between a Eurofighter Typhoon and a cannon-armed Spitfire took place — which aircraft would have the advantage and why?
“Unsurprisingly the Typhoon – by a country mile. The context is important, but everything in the Typhoon is geared to give you situational awareness. Your radar and various sensors tell you what is around you (imagine how much they would have wanted a datalink with the air picture transmitted to them in WWII) and you have vital information and weapons solutions displayed in the visor in front of your eyes. WWII pilots were reliant on fighter controllers (over the UK) and their own eyes – Typhoon has a huge advantage in finding the enemy. This gives you a huge advantage.
The Typhoon pilot would know exactly where to find the Spitfire in our imaginary flight to ‘the merge’ (where the two come together and start fighting). I will assume that the ‘guns only’ point means that Typhoon would not shoot the Spitfire down at range, but it would have the advantage entering the fight. The pilot could fly the intercept to make use of environmental conditions to arrive behind the Spitfire unseen.
The radar on the Typhoon gives a highly accurate gun sight (it is constantly updating range aspect closure etc), so the pilot would just have to put ‘the pipper’ on and pull the trigger. No deflection shooting – aiming off as the pilots had to in WWII because their gunsights were fixed and the cannon ‘zeroed’ at a point about 150 yards away where the bullets would converge.
If the Spitfire did manage to get into a turning fight, the Typhoon would likely make the most of its enormous power advantage and use the vertical rather than turn. The Typhoon pilot would point straight up, light the burners, keep an eye on the Spitfire (probably the hardest thing so far given that the radar won’t be pointing at it) and look to come back down in a position of advantage (hopefully out of the sun to avoid a visual pick up).
If I was in the Spitfire, I would try and point at the Typhoon to close the range as quickly as possibly, but would be aware of the fact that if I pulled hard to turn, I would bleed a lot of my speed off and would probably have to point downhill to get it back…the Typhoon could roll in behind easily.â€
Which set-ups and altitudes would the Spitfire favour?
“If I was flying the Spitfire, I would take this down to ground level (at least treetop) and try to force the Typhoon pilot into a mistake or fool the radar. If I was ‘bounced’ at medium altitude, I would try and use clouds (although note that the radar is still going to see me).â€
How would the Spitfire pilot fight?
“Turning towards the Typhoon and then using altitude below me to get speed back up (to allow me to turn).â€
Who would you put your money on?
“The Typhoon.â€
— which qualities do the Typhoon and Spitfire share?
“A great view out of the cockpit. Very nice handling. A responsive engine(s).â€
What is the best thing about the Spitfire?
“Compared to the other fighters of the day, it was the turn performance and its ability to climb to altitude relatively quickly. The advantage of altitude (view, potential energy, fuel efficiency) cannot be overstated.â€
.…and the worst?
†Aircon. The cockpits would have been roasting in the summer and freezing in the winter.â€
Which of the Spitfire variants you have flown is the best in the following categories:
Instantaneous turn rates
“The Mk II and V because they were lighter.â€
Sustained turn rates
“The Mk XIX because it Is so powerful.â€
Weapons platform (informed guess)
“Later marks because they engines had more power, therefore they could carry more/better calibres.â€
Acceleration
“Early mark Spitfires, although the MkXIX is ridiculously powerful (but heavier). â€
Top speed
“Mk XIX.â€
Take-off characteristics
“Mk IX – not too powerful (where you need a large rudder to counter the gyro effect) and not too light which can be ‘skittish’.â€
Landing characteristics
“Mk IX. Certainly the BBMF Mk IX (MK356) was very docile on landing.â€
Climb rate
“Mk XIX – the 1945 equivalent of the Typhoon.â€
Range
“Mk XIX. Designed for long range high altitude flight.â€
What’s the biggest myth about flying the Spitfire?
“That you need to be a very experienced pilot to do it. It is just like flying any other aircraft. In 1939 and through the war, 18-20 year olds would fly it. The issue today is the cost of repairing should something go wrong…so it is better to use more experienced pilots. It was a war of national survival in 1939 and you could replace a pilot or aircraft.â€
What should I have asked you?
“Have I ever said ‘dagga dagga dagga’ whilst pretending to shoot down another aircraft? Clearly the answer is yes!â€
Describe your most memorable flight in a Spitfire?
“A tricky question as so many spring to mind. You never forget the first time you take off and see the legendary elliptical wing through the canopy, however I think the one that I talk about the most (and have mentioned on @pilotepisodepod) is flying from Goodwood on 16 Sep 2012. I’d been at Goodwood for the weekend, the first time I had visited the Revival. I had flown MK356 (the BBMF Mk IX) in on the Friday evening. I had last landed at Goodwood in 1989 on a solo cross country in a Cessna whilst 17 and doing my PPL) and so to land there in a Spitfire on a Friday evening, where you could see the blue flames in the exhaust stacks was a dream come true. On the Sunday I was tasked with a flypast of Westminster Abbey for the annual Battle of Britain Service and I was also flying my favourite aircraft AB910.
I took off out of Goodwood and the weather was amazing (the visibility was so good you could see the back of your head!) and headed up to the east end of London where I was due to meet Andy Millikin in the Hurricane. Unfortunately, he had a brake issue and so it was just me on my own. I could see the London eye and set off on time. Flypasts can be tricky to get the route and timing right and even Westminster Abbey is difficult to spot, but I knew if I could make it to the Eye, then I wold be ok. As I approached central London, I was ‘on track on time’ and began to relax and really take in the sights. I could actually see the people in the London Eye as I flew past clearly wondering what on earth a Spitfire was doing there. I found the Abbey and did a large wingover to change direction (a flypast wasn’t allowed) and could see the assembled masses, including many of the surviving Battle of Britain veterans down there watching. It honestly brought a lump to my throat.â€
I departed London to the South West, overflying Wimbledon Centre Court and then down to Goodwood and landed during a gap in the motor racing. As I taxied the Spitfire to a halt in the replica Battle of Britain dispersal, at a Battle of Britain airfield having flown over central London and seen Battle of Britain veterans looking up at me, I realised what a special trip that had been. I joined the RAF because I saw a Spitfire and Hurricane at the Kenley Airshow in 1978 as a 6 year old and became fascinated by the aircraft and pilots. To be able to honour them in that way 34 years later was truly amazing and made me realise how lucky I am.â€
ONE DAY ONLY: Support the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes and pre-order here. Use SPITFIRE20 on March 5th for a 20% discount
What is the biggest myth about the Typhoon? “Cost. It can be more cost-effective to own, maintain and operate than pretty much anything else in its class. The comparison data is in the public domain if you look in the right places.â€
Where? “The data is out there in the public domain. No further comment from Klax here.â€
What should I have asked you? “What is like to wear a business suit instead of a flying suit? But that’s a whole new interview.â€
“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blogâ€. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’
I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here
Spitfire versus Messerschmitt Bf 109: A comparison of the Spitfire and the Bf 109 in the early years of World War II
This is a question that often comes up in discussions on airpower in World War II: how did the two iconic fighters of the War—The British Supermarine Spitfire and the German Messerschmitt Bf 109—compare? Was either machine demonstrably better? In the following article, I evaluate the two on the basis of six rectally extracted parameters that I think are important in fighter-versus-fighter comparisons. The scope of the assessment has been limited to the period between 1939 and 1941, when these aircraft fought each other on roughly even terms. So we shall mostly stick to the variants that were in service in this timeframe: the Spitfire 1A/B and Spitfire V; the Bf 109E and F.
KINEMATIC PERFORMANCE
“…the Me 109F has a slightly superior performance to the Spitfire Vâ€
– Air Vice Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory, September 1941.
“I also thought the Bf 109F was slightly superior to the Spitfire Vâ€,
– Squadron Leader Douglas Bader, circa 1941.
The Bf 109, in its initial avatars, was generally regarded as marginally superior to contemporaneous variants of the Spitfire. At low to medium altitudes, where much of the air combat in the early war occurred, the Bf 109 had the upper hand. However, the Spitfire was superior at higher altitudes. This was chiefly because its Rolls Royce Merlin engine had a higher critical altitude (the altitude at which the supercharger is operating at full capacity, and beyond which engine power rapidly decreases) than the Messerschmitt’s Daimler-Benz DB 601.
The Bf 109 employed several advanced technologies that gave it an edge. For instance, its DB 601 engine was equipped with an automatic variable-speed supercharger that ensured better power delivery from the engine. The Bf 109E-3’s supercharger, for instance, gave it a 200 hp advantage over the Spitfire 1A at low altitude. The engine also utilised fuel-injection technology, which allowed the aircraft to pitch forward into a dive; the Merlin’s carburettor would stall the engine if this were attempted in a Spitfire. The Spitfire therefore had to roll over and dive, which cost precious seconds in combat. Yet another example would be automatic leading-edge slats that prevented the Bf 109 from going into a stall at low speeds or in high-G turns.
The Spitfire’s advantages were its tighter turning circle and faster turn rate, which allowed it to outmanoeuvre the Bf 109 in the horizontal plane. But the Bf 109, owing to its higher climb rate, could sustain climbing turns that the Spitfire was unable to keep up with. This gave German pilots more freedom to engage and disengage from dogfights with British fighters. Two quotes illustrate this advantage rather well:
“When it comes to fighter vs. fighter and the struggle for the altitude gauge, we must expect for the time being to be at a disadvantage as compared with the improved Me-109 [this is the Bf 109F, being compared to the Spitfire V] we are now meetingâ€
– Memo to Air Marshal Sholto Douglas, AOC-in-C Fighter Command, from the Senior Staff Air Officer, April 1941.
“I preferred the 109F because it flew well at any altitude, was fast as most . . . had a superior rate of climb and could dive very well. Most of all, it instilled confidence in its pilot.â€
The Bf 109F-3 and F-4 models, introduced around mid-1941, improved on the E models with the help of the more powerful DB-601E engine. The new engine gave the aircraft a 30 km/h speed advantage over the Spitfire V. They also featured improved high-altitude performance; their critical altitude was 1,000 feet higher than that of the Bf 109Es.
RANGE
Combat ranges were comparable. Both designs were initially designed to defend airbases against enemy bombing, and that was reflected in their range figures on internal fuel—680 km for the Spitfire I A/B and about 660 km for the Bf 109E.
The Bf 109 was the first to be forced into an offensive role: first as a fighter that would provide top cover to an advancing German Army, and later as an escort for Luftwaffe bombers attacking Britain. The lack of range proved to be a major constraint in the second instance. It is well known by now that a Bf 109 taking off from Northern France had about 10 minutes of flying time over London, not nearly enough to battle it out with RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes. What isn’t so well known is that this was when the planes undertook independent fighter sweeps. When tasked with as bomber escorts, the need to fly at sub-optimal altitudes and speeds often increased fuel consumption to the point where the 109s were forced to return to France before the bombers had reached their objectives.
Spitfires tasked to carry out offensive fighter sweeps and raids over Northern France in 1941 faced the same issue. The reason Fighter Command didn’t suffer very heavy losses was that the Luftwaffe was by then fighting over Russia. The few fighters left to defend the western front seldom rose up to meet the RAF’s challenges.
ARMAMENT
Armament-wise, neither aircraft ever had a clear advantage over the other. But it is still useful to study how the initial designs started off, and how the rapidly changing requirements of a modern air war forced changes to the weapon fit.
Both machines where primarily designed with aerodynamic performance in mind, with armament being a secondary consideration. They therefore made use of thin, tapering wings. These were excellent for speed and turning performance, but bad for firepower. There simply wasn’t any space to mount machine guns (leave alone cannon) in the wings.
The Supermarine Type-300 (an early prototype of what would become the Spitfire) was initially designed to be armed with only two machine guns. The Bf 109 wasn’t very different. The German the aviation ministry (RLM) specified two rifle-calibre (7.92 mm) machine-guns that the biplanes of the mid-30s carried. These were easy enough to concentrate in the nose. Willy Messerschmitt always wanted his fighter to be “a true application of light construction principlesâ€. By mounting the guns in the nose and attaching the cantilever undercarriage to the fuselage rather than the wings, he could make use of a small, simple, low-drag wing that could be detached easily for maintenance and road transport.
However, this relevance on a mere two machine-guns was to change. The RAF’s requirements branch came to believe that two machine guns were inadequate to shoot down modern metal-skinned fighters, and in 1935, the RAF specified that it wanted eight machine guns on all new fighters. It was also asserted that this was an interim requirement. Follow-on designs would have to be armed with cannon. This was easy enough to accommodate in the Hurricane’s thick wings. But the Type-300’s thin, tapering wings had to be abandoned in favour of elliptical wings to house the increased armament. The Germans reached similar conclusions in combat over Spain. The Bf 109 would require cannon armament to damage metal airframes.
But this was easier said than done. The requirement for increased firepower led to persistent teething troubles with the armament of both aircraft well into their service lives. The Spitfire’s machine guns tended to freeze solid from the cold at high altitudes (this issue also affected Hurricanes). Initially, Fighter Command had Spitfires take off with adhesive tape covering the gunports in order to prevent the condensation from entering and icing the gun barrels. This did not always work. Later, a portion of the engine exhaust was ducted into the wing to heat the guns. This system proved to be mechanically complex and unreliable. It wasn’t until electric heating was introduced that the issue was fully resolved. Integrating 20mm cannon was also a great challenge. The belt that fed rounds to the weapon would frequently jam. The technical issues plaguing the Spitfire 1B proved so problematic that the type was withdrawn from service and replaced by the 1A.
Following feedback from pilots of the Condor Legion, Messerschmitt also modified the Bf 109 prototypes with a 20 mm cannon mounted between the engine cylinder banks, firing through the propeller hub. However, the vibration from the cannon was so severe that it proved to be unworkable. This problem was resolved much later in the war. In the meantime, several alternatives were trialled. The Bf 109B utilised an engine-mounted machine gun in place of the cannon. This, too, proved to be problematic. The Bf 109C featured a redesigned wing to accommodate two 7.92 mm machine guns, with ammunition boxes stored in the fuselage. The system worked in tests, but failed under the strain of air combat. The Bf 109D carried four guns – two in the nose and two under the wings. Bf 109E-1s carried the same armament. The E-3 models, though, were equipped with a 20 mm cannon under each wing, installed in two streamlined blisters along with a 60-round ammunition drum. Finally, the issues with the engine-mounted cannon were resolved in the F-4 model, which flew with a 20mm cannon that proved to be very accurate.
PILOT FRIENDLINESS AND HANDLING
In terms of ease of operation, there were advantages and shortcomings to both designs. The Spitfire’s bubble canopy and large mirrors offered excellent views and better situational awareness to the pilot. The Bf 109s angular canopy with its thick frame fell short. On the other hand, the Bf 109’s Revi gunsight was far ahead of the early Spitfire’s ring-and-bead type sight. It eliminated parallax errors and made deflection shots more accurate. The aircraft’s engine and propeller controls were also more automated, which reduced pilot workload.
On the flip side, the Bf 109’s small size made the cockpit very cramped. Not only was it uncomfortable, it also restricted the force that pilots could apply on the controls, with obvious effects on flight performance. Post-war testing by the RAF revealed that under certain conditions, the force that pilots could exert on the Bf 109’s control column was only 40% of what they could apply in the Spitfire. In an era when hydraulically boosted controls were not available, this was a serious deficiency. The Spitfire’s two-step rudder pedals also allowed the pilot to raise his feet high during high-G manoeuvring, delaying the onset of blackout. The Bf 109 had no such pedals.
The Bf 109 also suffered from handling challenges, both in the air as well as on the ground. The most critical one was the issue with its undercarriage. There were two major problems with the landing gear design that caused serious losses of Bf 109s on take-off and landing. One was the tendency to ground loop. The Bf 109’s canted undercarriage often caused aircraft on landing runs to suddenly spin around and suffer serious damage if one wheel lost traction. On rough airstrips that were cobbled together in the later stages of the war, this problem was particularly acute.
Secondly, Willy Messerschmitt wanted his aircraft structures to be as light as possible. That structure lacked the strength to endure hard landings. As the Bf 109’s received more powerful engines and armament, it got heavier, which led to increased wing loading and higher landing speeds. That put additional strains on the landing gear. The result was that quite often, even experienced pilots ended up collapsing the undercarriage. In 1939 alone, the Bf 109 fleet suffered 255 landing accidents that resulted in damage to the airframe. The Spitfire, Hurricane, and Fw-190, with their “vertical†landing gear and heavier structures, fared much better.
ABILITY TO UPGRADE
The changing nature of the air war over Europe drove a slew of upgrade programmes for both aircraft. But the Spitfire—with its larger airframe, stronger structure, and superior engine—was better able to support the installation of advanced engines, armour, and heavier armament.
The Spitfire IX, often seen as the ultimate evolution of the type, was able to outclass the Bf 109G as well as the newer Focke-Wulf Fw 190A in combat. Its superlative Merlin 61 engine (powered by 100-octane fuel of US origin) gave it a 110 hp advantage over the DB 605-powered Bf 109G at sea level. But it truly came into its own at high altitude: At 30,000 feet, its two-stage supercharger gave it a whopping 300 hp advantage over its German counterpart. Further, its armament of two 20mm cannon and four 0.303 inch machine guns packed a formidable punch against not just aircraft, but also ground targets.
The Bf 109’s simplicity and light weight, however, proved to be its Achilles heel. Accommodating a more powerful engine, increased armament, new radios, and armour plate within the Bf-109G’s tiny airframe was a major challenge. The aircraft’s small cowling was inadequate for heat dissipation, which made the DB 605 engine prone to overheating and catching fire. Its firepower was only about half of what the Spitfire IX carried: two nose-mounted 7.92mm machine guns in the G-1 variant (upgraded to 13mm guns in the G-5) and one 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
With the steady increase in weight, the Bf-109G’s handling qualities suffered. As the wing loading increased, so did the demands on brute muscle power to actuate the controls. Capt. Eric Brown, a Royal Navy test pilot who evaluated a captured Bf-109G, commented that “in a dive at 400 mph, the controls felt as though they had seized!†The addition of a water-methanol tank—whose contents were injected into the engine to provide a short burst of additional power—adversely affected the centre-of-gravity and made handing unpredictable in some portions of the flight envelope. The uparmed BF-109G-6, often equipped with 20mm or 30mm underwing cannon to attack Allied bombers, proved so sluggish in combat, that its pilots nicknamed it the Kanonenboot (Gunboat).
The larger, structurally stronger Spitfire IX suffered no such problems. Indeed, the powerful Merlin 61 and four-bladed propeller allowed it to outrun, out-turn, and out-climb the Bf-109G. The ‘quantum leap’ in performance that the Spitfire IX achieved over the Bf-109G was never reversed.
Ease of manufacture
This is one area where the Bf 109 comes out the clear winner. The Spitfire’s complex design, coupled with Supermarine’s utter lack of experience with modern production line techniques made Spitfire production problematic. Its elliptical wing proved to be difficult to fabricate. Delays in transferring knowledge and drawings to various subcontractors slowed down production. And the fine tolerances demanded by the design team—not something that British industry was used to—led to quality issues. The company faced major schedule slippages in delivering the initial batch of 310 fighters, and the RAF at one point considered cancelling the order outright. The Bf 109’s transition to production, on the other hand, was very smooth. The RLM was able to have it mass-manufactured without much of a hassle.
This disparity is clearly visible when you look at the numbers. In January 1940, it took 15,000 man-hours to build a Spitfire 1A and 9,000 to build a Bf 109E. By 1942, that gap had only widened. The Bf 109F needed only 4,000 man-hours to build whereas the Spitfire Mk V required 13,000.
In a Wehrmacht that had increasingly begun to equip itself with poorly conceived, overly-complicated weapons whose paper performance was never quite realised in the field (*cough* Me-262 *cough*), the Bf 109 stood out as a rare example of German engineering that was cheap, reliable, maintainable, and easy to manufacture—all while delivering superb performance on the battlefield. There’s a reason that more than 34,000 were built despite the Germans’ severe mismanagement of production resources at the strategic level. It remains to this day the third most produced aircraft in the world.
My favourite Spitfire #1 – Spitfire Mk XIV by Paul Beaver
For some time, I have trying to decide which is my favourite of the 73 variants or sub-variants of that most iconic of fighter aeroplanes, the Spitfire. Now I have the opportunity to put my thoughts on paper and it has been most rewarding.
Like many pilots, the first thought is to the aeroplane of which one has personal experience. That would be the Mk IX with both Merlin 66 and Packard-Merlin 266 engines. But what about the Mk V with floats? As a seaplane pilot, I love the challenge of operating off water in such a powerful machine. Then, my thoughts went to those young men who were the spear tip of the Battle of Britain defence of the country, so the Spitfire Mk IIa. The high flying and super-fast PR Mk XI perhaps whose pilots showed another type of courage to go unarmed deep over enemy territory. There’s event the Seafire FR Mk 47 from the Korean war, surely the ultimate warbird of the whole family.
But in the end, it was the Spitfire Mk XIV which won out. I am not alone in thinking the Griffon-powered, bubble-canopy fighter is a favourite. Captain Eric (Winkle) Brown thought so too. Whenever the Spitfire was mentioned, he would talk about low level trials in the Mk VIII or flying high over France in a Mk IX with the Canadians. I have not had those privileges but I am now sure the Mk XIV is the one and as Eric would say “it was the best fighter of the Second World Warâ€.
Paul Beaver FRAeSAuthor of SPITFIRE PEOPLEThe Men & Women who made the Spitfire the Aviation Icon
My favourite Spitfire #2: Like a Duck to Weightlifting, the Seafire LIII
The Spitfire wasn’t a natural carrier aircraft, the undercarriage was weak and narrow, and the fuselage was fragile; the endurance made a permanent combat air patrol impossible if the carrier had to be somewhere other than where the wind was coming from. Fortunately, by the time the Mk III was released to service most of these flaws had been addressed…in the same way credit card debt can be addressed by getting more credit cards. The extra metal of the tail hook, and reinforced fuselage, put the Centre of Gravity right at the aft limit of acceptability. The fix was a 3-lb mass added to the control column that pulled it forwards under g, preventing the pilot pulling too tight a turn (which could make the wings fall off). But by putting the Merlin 55M into the LIII, Supermarine also created the fastest naval fighter of the war below 10,000 feet – where the majority of naval interceptions took place (presumably because that’s where most of the ships were). Around 20mph faster than the Hellcat or Corsair at 6000’, both of which were at least 40mph faster than the Zero, it was also the only one that could out-climb the Zero. In the final days of the war the Seafire LIII flew low level combat air patrols over the fleet as the last layer of defence against the Kamikaze threat, as well as escorting strike missions leading it to claim the last aerial victory of the war over Tokyo Bay. The Griffon Seafires may have had more power, which caused its own problems, but none would be as iconic as an LIII in British Pacific Fleet markings screaming over the waves at low level.
Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer, current Air Safety Officer and struggling Naval History MA student. He also has some great offers on his internal organs now Seafire PP972 is up for sale.
My Favourite Spitfire #3 – the Mk.XIV
Instead of the dainty archetypal Merlin Spitfires, I have always preferred the Griffon powered variants and my favourite is probably the Mk XIV. I love the brutish quality it has when compared to earlier marks with that long, long nose topped off with a five-bladed propeller, the most aesthetically pleasing number of blades. I like its relative obscurity: no Battle of Britain, no Douglas Bader. I love that it was available as a FROG kit complete with a V-1 for it to chase. Like nearly all the most successful Spitfire variants, it was an ad-hoc lash-up, a 2035 hp Griffon 65 bolted onto a barely modified Mk VIII airframe with a potentially dangerous swing on take-off replacing the totally innocuous handling of the Merlin Spitfires.
It was an outstanding aircraft. First combat occurred on 7 March 1944, three months before the showoff P-51D, an aircraft offering 600 less horsepower than the Spitfire and unable to best it it in any performance parameter with the sole exception (critically) of range. In RAF comparative trials against a Mustang III, Tempest V, Me 109G and Fw 190, the Mk XIV possessed “the best all-round performance of any present-day fighterâ€. But the main appeal for me remains aesthetic, I prefer the high-back non-bubble canopy version coupled with the clipped wingtips that seem almost crude in their abruptness. The whole thing exudes a murderous sense of purpose when compared to the early marks, and finally made the Spitfire look like what it is: a weapon.
— Edward Ward
My Favourite Spitfire #4 by The Aviationist’s David Cenciotti
Few things say ‘Britain’ and ‘aviation’ more than the Supermarine Spitfire. This aircraft has become the icon of a time. Its fame has crossed well beyond the borders of the British Isles and Europe reaching people in different continents and times. Nowadays, the aircraft is part of popular culture. ‘Spitfire’ has become a synonym for World War II fighter aircraft in a similar way to that has made Cessna the generic name for every small, single engine piston-powered aircraft, no matter the actual type or manufacturer. I’m pretty sure I can ask my father or my son “have you ever seen a Spitfire?†and get a “yes†as an answer. Indeed, everyone knows the ‘Spit’.
Although I’m not particularly keen on World War II aircraft (to be honest I’m a technology geek and tend to focus on modern fighters from Generation three onwards) the Spitfire is surely the foreign aircraft from World War II that I love the most. Neither the fastest, not even the most manoeuvrable, nor the sturdiest aircraft of the War — the Spitfire is to my eyes one of the most beautiful. Her gentle curves, attractive aerodynamic shape and signature wing have even contributed to her success because, you know, ‘beautiful aircraft fly better’. I can’t exactly remember when I first saw the iconic aircraft. It must have been at an airshow in the UK or at her ‘home’ at Duxford. Still, I’m sure about the last time I saw one — it was not too long ago, when I once again visited the marvellous Italian Air Force Museum in Vigna di Valle near Rome that hosts a restored —and controversial – because of the slightly modified camouflaged colour scheme — Spitfire Mk. IX in the markings of the 5° Stormo (Wing) of the Aeronautica Militare. What an amazing plane!
My favourite Spitfire #5 – Supermarine Spitfire P.R. Mk. XI
In World War II, aerial photo reconnaissance was scientific — a rigorous and methodical observation of the enemy’s strength. The Photo Reconnaissance Spitfire became the chief Allied tool of this undertaking, alongside the de Havilland Mosquito. Allied aerial reconnaissance gave the Manhattan Project and Bletchley Park a run for their war-winning money for its scale and cleverness. Within this effort, the Supermarine Spitfire excelled as an intelligence-gathering machine whose pilots had a secretive, heroic job performed alone over enemy territory.
The Spitfire, born as a fighter, roared into this new role with alacrity. Before even the Battle of Britain it was serving the PR mission with aplomb. Cameras, with lenses wider than our heads, displaced guns. This brought extra capacity for missions eventually to Norwegian fjords, radar sites in occupied France, German industrial cities. Never glamorous in appearance, the P.R. Spits wore mostly grey-blue or dull pink paint schemes, like something from our stealthy era.
Pride of the Kriegsmarine, the battleship Bismarck, was spotted readying for her fatal high seas debut by a P.R. Spitfire pilot. The very last Royal Air Force operational flight by a Spitfire utilised a P.R. Version, in 1954! All the milestone editions of the Spitfire included camera-equipped versions. The P.R. Mark XI, in the very middle of the Spitfire line, is a wonderful thing. Look for camera ports, pointy fin and rudder and an enlargement to the underside of the nose for the bigger engine oil tank needed on those long, cold flights that helped win a war.
Stephen Caulfield is a civilian employee of the Salvation Army “stationed†on the frontlines of North American consumer insanity in a modern recycling plant where he finds the occasional Spitfire.
My Favourite Spitfire #6 the Mk.VIII
Colour photos: Jim Smith
“My favourite fighter was the Spitfire VIII with clipped wings. It had power and good armament. It could roll quickly and out-turn any enemy fighter we encountered.â€
— Robert Bracken, Spitfire, The Canadians
“The Mk VIII lacks the fame of its relatives. It did not fight in the Battle of Britain as did the Mk I and II. It was not built in the greatest numbers; that was the 6,787-fold Mk V. It did not reset the balance against the Focke-Wulf 190 in 1942; that was the immortal Mk IX’s achievement. Yet the Mk VIII deserves attention. As was not uncommon in the tangled Spitfire family, the Mk VIII entered service 13 months after the Mk IX. It was the intended successor to the (rather out performed) Mk V but necessity prompted the very successful interim option of the Mk IX that remained competitive from its introduction in mid 1942 to the end of the war.
The Mk VIII was the most advanced Merlin powered Spitfire. It was designed from the start for the two-stage 60-series engine and had a beefed up fuselage structure to handle the increased weight and power. It carried more fuel (leading edge tanks) and had the retractable tail wheel (designed for the Mk III) that cut drag and cleaned up the aft lines.
Later versions featured the bigger fin and rudder (for lateral stability) with a better proportioned outline that the original, rather minimal design. In short, it had the performance of the Mk IX and the best looks of any Spitfire, Merlin or Griffon powered. It was suave, refined and very effective; the finest of the Merlin generation.
Paul Stoddart served in the Royal Air Force as an aerosystems engineer officer and now works for the Ministry of Defence. His interests include air power and military aircraft from the 1940s onward. He is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
How to draw a Spitfire
One of the hardest aeroplanes to draw well is the Spitfire. We turned to WestlandWyvernophile and aeroplane drawerer par excellence Ted Ward to show us the way.
“Don’t bother, they’re impossibly difficult, that’s my advice.
Actually, although everyone always goes on about the wings, beautiful though they are, they are not an overly complicated shape to render convincingly. The main stumbling block in my opinion is the fin and rudder on the early models. It’s a really odd shape. Griffon marks are easier to draw.The other thing I think that people should take into account is that the Spitfire has a quite pronounced dihedral angle on the wing and there is a tendency amongst some to flatten them. You see it a lot on built model kits. And in the less well-drawn Commando picture libraries. Here’s a good example:
To be fair virtually everything is wrong with that image but dihedral is one of those things.However one of the Fleetway artists (no idea of name – they never get credited) drew some of the most consistently pleasing Spitfire drawings I have ever seen.
Perhaps the most useful resource I have for you though is Frank Wootton’s splendid little 1941 volume How to Draw ‘Planes. Scans depict how to draw a Spitfire.
And ‘Spitfires against Alto-Cirrus’ which is a painting. No idea where this painting might actually be though. Furthermore I contend that it is a lot more difficult to draw alto-cirrus than any aircraft from the 1939-45 period.
It’s funny, since writing that about the Fleetway artist doing consistently good Spitfires, I have noticed that on the one on the left he (I’m guessing it’s a man, but I’m not sure) has put the tailwheel in completely the wrong place. Huh. He still shits all over the competition though. Apparently he just wanted to fuck and burn!â€
The British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 was the most advanced combat aircraft in the world when it clawed its way into the sky in 1964. Yet this British masterpiece was axed in 1965 – a savage misjudgement that had knock-on effects still felt to this day. We look at some of the pivotal moments in world history that could have been radically different had the ‘Wailing Martyr of Wiltshire’ been saved.
The TSR-2, the culmination of almost sixty years of British aviation know-how was crucified on a crucifix hewn from socialist lies nailed with the myopic hammer of pacifism and burned on a pyre of ragged post-Colonial national euthanasia. Had things been different and this magnificent nuclear totem been erected how might history have changed? We ask Sir Neville Shaman-Squalane, author of Bombed Out: How Britain was destroyed by Ghost Bombers & the Beast of Bodmin Moor& Sexualised Morris dancers to consider a world in which the TSR-2 had survived.
The Three-Day Week
The Three-Day Week was one of several measures introduced in the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in the mid-1970s to conserve electricity – the generation of which was restricted severely thanks to industrial action by coal miners. If the RAF had a fleet of 100 TSR-2s at the time, their turbine powerplant could have been used to generate up to 5400 gigawatts a week, enough to light every home in Great Britain and up to ten discos per town. An example of the Avon engine, not dissimilar to the TSR-2’s Olympus, can be found at Didcot Power Station in the United Kingdom, where four Avon generators are used to provide Black start services to help restart the National Grid in the event of a system-wide failure – or to provide additional generating capacity in periods of very high demand.
The sinking of the Titanic
The sinking of the passenger ship RMS Titanic cost the lives of some 1,500 people and many millions of hours of cinema-goers’ time. The ship sank as a result of hitting an iceberg. Had this iceberg been attacked by a four-ship of TSR-2s armed with free-fall nuclear bombs, the Titanic would still be operating today… perhaps, by now, as an airliner. But sadly this did not happen. Another victim of the foolish Labour Government that peed on the last vestige of Britain’s great aerospace industry, a great multi-headed edifice that had created the immortal Brabazon, indomitable Firebrand and unimpeachable Wyvern.
The death of Princess of Hearts Diana
In the early hours of 31 August 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, died in hospital after being injured in a car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris. Her partner, Dodi Fayed, and the driver of the Mercedes-Benz W140, Henri Paul, were pronounced dead at the scene. This tragic loss was felt by a nation, but could have been avoided. The crash was largely caused by paparazzi photographers on mopeds and in unarmoured cars. A force of RAF TSR-2s based at RAF Marham would have had the range to reach Paris and neutralise this threat within 24 minutes. Low-yield precision guided bombs, or even a ‘show of force’, could have deterred the photographers and prevented this national tragedy. A top speed of mach 1.1 at low level, advanced electronic counter-measures and terrain-following radar, could have allowed this force to penetrate French airspace safely and carry Diana back to the up-lit pastures of England.
Eurovision humiliation
In the 2003 Eurovision Song Contest, the UK-entry Jemini’s excellent ‘Cry Baby’ crawled in at a humiliating 26th place. The event took place in Riga, Latvia – well within the striking range of the TSR-2’s 2,550 nautical-mile range. Terry Wogan, long-time commentator on the contest for the BBC, said that the UK was suffering from a “post-Iraq backlash” which affected its low score. Perhaps if Kuwait had been defended by a large force of TSR-2s, it could have defended itself from the 1990 Iraq invasion, killing Hussein and freeing the UK from the woeful mire of the later Iraq invasion and occupation. Perhaps the Baghdad air defences would have scored ‘nul points’ when faced with the might of a low-level interdiction attack by 12 TSR-2s armed with retarded 1000-bombs. It was Britain’s failure to preserve an indigenous military aircraft capability that allowed us to be mocked at Eurovision, proof of which can be seen readily in the scandalously high scores of France and Sweden across the years of this extremely important competition.
As we have seen, TSR-2’s short-sighted cancellation had devastating consequences.
Join us for the solstice on Bodmin Moor where we will be performing a crystal energy ritual that we hope will bring the superbomber back to life and start a grand new age.
Information overload in a very small space. All text is small, difficult to read and so many dials and switches! You can introduce mirrors to make smaller spaces appear bigger but in this case that would only add to the problem. Is this where Bell & Ross get their watch inspiration from?
Grumman F-14A Tomcat
As above but slightly less cluttered due to one joy stick however the seat material both in colour and fabric adds a little warmth. While the dominant, black half moon window frame is a serious ‘statement piece’ (Kelly Hoppen speak) it’s no Gulfstream G550.
General Dynamics F-16A Fighting Falcon
SONY DSC
Modernity is starting to appear along with greater user functionality and the side stick gives an impression of more central space. Thought should be given in how best to use the extra space with the integration of perhaps a foldout tray table and wireless device charging. The seat design is very Bauhaus, simple yet effective and very much form following function. The battleship grey interior paint against the black wool (cashmere, angora?) seat is a challenging cmf (colour material finish) palette and desperately in need of some warmth perhaps inspired by a falcon’s plumage and colouring.
Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here
Sukhoi Su-27 ‘Flanker B’
The Trabant blue colour for such a small space is commanding on the eye, one wall/surface only in blue, to set the interior design tone would be on trend. The interior does not look very solid, flimsy almost but not cluttered and overfilled unlike the others.
Why use MDF when oak is available? The layout has a simplistic yet functional Soviet era charm and design pieces from this period are very both praised and collectible. This is certainly a stand out piece of interior design.
Panavia Tornado F3
Finally, elements of symmetry in the cockpit. Period industrial design aesthetic with a less is more philosophy, the dominating angular design really dominates the space with 1980’s electronic Tomy games and Casio watches for inspiration. The heads up display makes for a great statement piece.
Somewhat of an arcade game aesthetic for a young bachelor pad perhaps or games room.
Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet
Great, modern and ordered industrial design aesthetic with glorious mood night lighting offering a calm environment and cozy feel. Definitely somewhere one might want to relax in after a long day and especially on a cold night. The heads up display makes for a great statement piece and really grounds yet balances the space much like a central, crystal chandelier. In terms of a pleasing piece of aesthetic interior design this is the best in the article.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
Very modern aesthetic with the Tesla inspired screen but somewhat of a brutal and cold aesthetic. Not a very elegant interior design like the F/A-18E Super Hornet, and getting Blaupunkt in car radio vibe coming too… There is no sense of harmony or flow from the brutal interior to sublime exterior. While the two-tone exterior matte grey painting creates visual interest, it could have been used in the interior sensitively. Budget problems? Plus side is the large fan intake for cockpit air conditioning I assume. Any A/C interior grilles should be painted in the same exterior grey matte paint.
The Aeralis Modular Training Study – Platform and System Aspects
Jim Smith, who spent much of his career close to the world of military aircraft acquisition, reflects on the radical new Aeralistraining system
Hush-Kit have asked me to look at the Aeralis modular training family of aircraft and systems, recently reported in the media following the award of a research contract by the Royal Air Force. The intent is to provide a family of aircraft which are enabled to address a range of requirements in the general area spanning basic trainer to light combat aircraft, through the use of an innovative modular design approach. A common forward and centre fuselage module is used, and, with the use of alternative wing, propulsion system, cockpit and empennage modules, variants can be generated to meet this broad range of requirements.
The modular configuration bears interesting comparison with the Rockwell HiMAT (Highly Manoeuvrable Aircraft Technology) remotely piloted test aircraft of the late 1970s. It was planned that it could be fitted with different wings, control surfaces and exhaust nozzles.
While, in all cases, the aircraft are subsonic, a larger and less-swept wing discriminates the elementary trainer from the advanced trainer and light combat variants. Three propulsion modules are envisaged – a lower and a higher-thrust single-engine configuration, and a twin-engine variant. Two crew and single seat versions would be available to meet the differing needs of training and air combat, but these would retain the same external lines for commonality of structure and aerodynamics, with the freed-up volume of the single-seater being available for additional fuel.
Systems aspects are enabled by exploiting the flexibility and commonality of digital systems, providing not only the capability to vary the displays as required, but also the ability to synthesise targets for training; to integrate with different external sensors and stores; and a comprehensive ability to monitor and manage airframe, engine, and system usage and maintenance requirements.
Aspects to consider Given the attractive sounding capabilities described above, what are the issues to look out for? I’ll try and group these under Technical, Marketing, and Decision-making, and I must state from the outset that my comments are based on general analysis of the problem. My list is absolutely not intended to imply that these issues are not being addressed. Its rather to indicate to the Hush-Kit readership, those areas which are likely to be important for anyone proposing a modular aircraft solution to fit a range of roles from training to combat. And, as usual, this represents my opinion, which has no connection with, or influence on, any serious decision making about modular training platforms and systems.
Key technical issues: • Potential weight or other penalties in achieving commonality In order to achieve the desired modularity, production breaks have to be introduced to the airframe. These are the structural joints where, for example, the alternative outer wings are attached to the common centre fuselage. Other breaks in the structure will be required at the join between the rear fuselage and the centre fuselage, and at the junctions between the propulsion module, the centre fuselage and the rear fuselage.
Credit: Aeralis
In addition to these structural joints, some elements of the structure for the lower performance variants may have to be ‘over-engineered’, as they will have to sustain the higher loads generated by higher weight or higher performance variants. As an example, if the basic trainer were stressed to 6g, and the combat aircraft variant to either a higher weight or higher g limit, the centre fuselage wing carry through structure used by the trainer would need to be stressed to the higher loads experienced in the combat variant
Because of the desire to be able to fit alternative engines, in different configurations, alternative propulsion modules are required. As a result, and to also allow alternative outer wing planforms, it is proposed to stow the undercarriage in external pods at the trailing edge of the common fuselage/inner wing structure. While this makes a lot of sense as an enabler to the modular design approach, there will be a drag penalty, and possibly a weight penalty, compared to a fuselage mounted main undercarriage, like that used for the Alpha Jet.
• Ability to integrate diverse systems for the differing variants This is an area where a well thought through and well-executed approach is central to much of the operational flexibility being sought in this modular design approach. An advanced jet trainer should be able to replicate the look, feel and function of the operational systems to which the trainees will graduate. It will be desirable to configure the cockpit displays to represent differing graduation options – for example in the UK, future trainees might graduate to the Tempest or F-35B. But if other Nations adopt the trainer variant, their operational aircraft might be, for example, the Tejas and the TEDBF.
As well as being able to represent differing cockpits, there are significant differences in equipment that may be required by the differing variants. While all variants will require flight and engine control systems, utility systems like undercarriage, oxygen, pressurisation, electrical and communications, and health and usage monitoring systems, some will require additional capabilities. For example, an advanced trainer, or dissimilar combat aggressor would require the ability to simulate radar and IRST systems, and to have simulated targets or cooperating manned or unmanned assets injected into those systems so as to stimulate required training responses. Air combat replay and recording facilities such as ACMI or RAIDS pods would be required, and there might also be a need to at least simulate some ground targeting and practice weapon capabilities
The architecture for these system capabilities is likely to become quite complex, given the alternative requirements of differing potential customers as well as the diverse capabilities required for the various roles. Particular attention will be needed to ensure physical, electrical, network, software and hardware interfaces are well understood and specified for all the various systems.
• Propulsion system matching Three different engine configurations are proposed: a low-power and a high-power single-engine installation; and a twin-engine solution. Considering the twin-engine solution, it is evident that this will come with differing system requirements than a single-engine solution. For example, consideration will have to be given throughout to the implications of an engine failure, shutdown or fire. This sort of event will require a fuel system capable of supplying either engine separately, or both together. Similar considerations will apply to the implications of single-engine failure on the electrical, system management, hydraulics and other aircraft systems.
The high-power variant appears to have a variable nozzle, suggesting use of an afterburner – while this seems unlikely in a subsonic aircraft, additional power, coupled with a slightly more swept wing, will result in different ability to accelerate and potentially different handling qualities, particularly at high subsonic speeds. Consequently, the philosophy for control law development will require careful thought. One option would be to minimise changes so that the trainee has to accommodate to the greater system capability and performance of the advanced trainer and air combat variants. Alternatively, the control laws for each variant could be tweaked so as to minimise the change in feel and behaviour.
• Certification The discussion above shows the criticality of system integration across the variants proposed, and also provides some indication of the opportunities presented by such a software-enabled training system. A difficulty lurking in the wings behind all of these capabilities is certification. Given the options include two wing configurations, three engine options and two cockpit layouts, I think it is safe to say that the approach to certification will be a key area to be managed. Aspects will include the certification of the necessary software, and the variations required for the differing versions, or for optimising individual variants for different customers. Additionally, the differing wing planforms will have differing aerodynamics, differing loads and may require differing control laws. The weights, and potentially centre of gravity, of the variants will differ and the impact of this on certification will be compounded should there be a desire, or a requirement, to offer differing g-capability.
In addition, the twin-engine variant will need to demonstrate how engine failure cases can be safely managed, and any variants able to carry and/or release weapons will need to show that this can be done safely. Similarly, variations in the fuel system for the twin-engine and for the single-seat variants will need to be assessed and certified.
Possible marketing issues: • Differentiation from existing highly capable and competitively priced alternatives
Qinetiq
Having once been dominated by the Hawk, the Aero 39 and its developments, and the Alpha Jet, the range of capable and effective jet trainers, light combat and strike aircraft has burgeoned in recent years. While this may seem a harsh question, I think it is fair to ask what this family of aircraft could do, that could not be done as well by the latest two-seat Hawk, working in tandem with a new generation Hawk 200 single seater. Or, indeed single and two seat variants of other recently produced designs such as the Leonardo M346 Master.
There are answers to this question available in the advanced, integrated and flexible software-driven systems capabilities proposed, which are indeed a key feature enabling this modular approach. But these systems are also a key risk. They have to be right, they have to be timely, they have to be sustainable, and they have to be certified. And, of course, the digital-capable single-seat variants to operate as partners generally do not exist
• Dealing with the related question – why not a supersonic version like the Boeing/Saab T-7A Red Hawk?
There is a different niche in the market, spanning the advanced supersonic trainer, the air combat trainer and operational light combat aircraft. The Boeing/Saab T-7A sits in this general area as a T-38 replacement, but perhaps the Korean KAI T-50, TA-50 and FA-50 is a better exemplar. In essence, this aircraft shows an alternative vision, where a relatively simple trainer can bring pilots up to the capability to take on the advanced trainer T-50, and move up from there to an aircraft capable of taking on substantial air combat and strike training, and indeed limited operational capability.
Such an approach offers the prospect of downloading more training hours from the really expensive and capable operational fast jets, albeit at the expense of itself being a much more complex and expensive offering than a modular aircraft covering the flying training, advanced training and initial combat capability spectrum.
Decision-making aspects: • Convincing decision makers that 3 variants, optimised for Basic Training, Advanced Training, and Light Combat, is a more cost-effective solution than either a single fleet, or a two-type solution This is the nub of the issue in marketing to, for example, the UK Government. Delivery of the indicated capability through a number of modular variants based around the same common fuselage module will need very persuasive analysis. The basis of that analysis should be the demonstration that the proposed solution represents best value-for-money based on whole-of-life costs, discounted to net present value. There are a lot of technical terms there, but really, what is being asked is how much would it cost to deliver (for example) 30 years of the capability, where the costs have to include development, manufacture, certification, introduction to service, operation, maintenance, and an upgrade cycle (probably). The costs would also cover ground equipment, simulation, training material and differences (positive or negative) in manpower costs to run the system. Net present value means ‘in today’s money’.
BAE Systems Lead-in fighter diagram
To answer my question, you would have to examine the costs, not only of the Aeralis system, but also the cost of, for example, rival systems based around my suggested Hawk plus new generation Hawk 200, and perhaps even consider the alternative of moving to a more capable Boeing/Saab T-7A or KAI T-50 approach, aimed at saving money by downloading more training from Tempest/F-35B.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:
• To achieve the required flexibility, the training/weapon system of the modular solutions will need to be heavily software-dependent, and developing an approach to convince acquisition agencies that the risks in developing, integrating and certifying the necessary software are being well managed will be vital. This reflects the integration and certification issues I pointed to as key technical issues, but seen through the risk management lens likely to be used by Government.
If you think about the development program for JSF, you can see that it’s really difficult to design a supersonic stealthy fighter, capable (in different variants) of meeting the needs of the Marines for STOVL, the Navy for Carrier operations, and the Air Force for Strike ‘On the First Day of the War’.
Well, actually, no – most of that was at least partially demonstrated in the SDD phase. What’s really difficult is getting the systems integrated, every aspect of the software, the sensors, the displays, the EW and defensive aids – the whole weapon system, qualified, accepted and certified for operational use.
The more complex, the more flexible, the more software-driven, and the more capable your system is, the more difficult it will be to certify, even if your platform has all the attractive modular capabilities proposed by Aeralis. The opportunity exists to do this, and do it right, but the emphasis on the integration of the digital system must be at least as great, if not greater than the attention paid to platform modularity.
