The most beautiful machines in sporting history were the unforgiving brutes designed to win the Schneider Cup for seaplane racing. Dangerous, glamorous and with international pride at stake, the racers were fire-breathing monsters operating at the absolute limits of what was technologically possible. In the ten years from 1921, the Schneider record speed doubled, from 205mph to 470mph. The final figure of 470mph was also a staggering ten times faster than the first race winner of 1913. The world of racing seaplanes is a very limited one so when I was asked to put together a piece about the top 10, the first thing I did was bend the rules and include flying boats. Even so, this really only leaves Schneider Trophy (more properly ‘Schneider Cup’) contestants, with an oddball excursion thrown in for variety. First held in 1913, Schneider’s intent for his eponymous trophy was that it should encourage the development of reliable, safe, waterborne aircraft. This being seen as a more practical proposition in those early days of sparsely distributed random muddy airstrips for land-borne planes. The First World War arrived a year later immediately rendered the concept anachronistic, with surviving members of the air forces emerging from those dark days educated with all they needed for setting up a more formal land based aviation network, equipped by an industry that had developed from inspired geniuses and lunatics into fully mature and generally competent businesses. However, the Schneider Trophy carried on, and it developed into an arena for government funded racers. It was finally won in perpetuity by Great Britain in 1931. The selection of aircraft for this list could have simply been made based on the number of wins and increase in performance over previous winners, but where’s the fun in that? Instead I have made my selection based on historical significance, success, flair and aesthetics. 10. Savoia S21Â
This is a fictional aircraft but please bear with me. Porco Rosso is a film from that doyen of anime, Studio Ghibli, and although an animated fairytale of sorts it is multi-layered and well regarded by those who know about this sort of thing. The plot is based around 1930s ‘air pirates’ in a pseudo-Mediterranean setting with some of the aircraft being clearly based on Schneider Trophy competitors (in particular those of the two main protagonists). There are fictional aspects to suit the storyline but, even so, the aircraft maintain a close visual relationship to the source material. Porco Rosso’s S21 is obviously inspired by the Macchi M33 of 1924 and arch villain Donald Curtis flies a Curtiss R2C-2. As the hero’s mount it has to be the ‘S21’ that gets the vote for inclusion here. This film introduces this extremely appealing subject to a wider audience in a colourful and entertaining way. It’s clear that whoever drew these has a real love of the aircraft and as such it cannot help but encourage interest in this period of aviation history, and the Schneider Trophy in particular. If I’ve learnt anything about anime fans it’s that they can be a tad obsessive, so you can guarantee a fair number will dig deeper into what lies behind the designs. It’s the education of a wider public – almost through subterfuge – that earns this aircraft a place on the list and, if nothing else, it’s the best porcine aviation based animation you may never have seen!
9. Macchi M.39
America had shown the old countries the way with regard to what was required to win the Schneider Trophy in its later years, with the CR-3 in 1923. In 1926, the USA was on the cusp of winning it forever. The Italians retorted by showed how they had learned from the American success with the Macchi M.39. As the Curtiss had set the model for success before it, the M.39 refined this further and introduced the basic aircraft configuration that would be followed by all subsequent winners. Castoldi had studied the entrants in 1925 and applied what he’d learned to his new design, concentrating on attention to detail around the streamlining and packaging. The other aspect embraced was government backing; Il Duce’s regime funding it and creating the Reparto Alta Velocita (High Speed Unit) as the team to uphold Italy’s honour. The M.39, with its Fiat AS2 engine, was the first to hold the fuel in the floats and crystallised the classic late 20’s design (albeit as an all-wood construction)
The key features were a faired in cockpit with minimal height screen, low monoplane wing, surface radiators and minimal external bracing. There were problems at the start with the aircraft being difficult to handle, both on the water and in the air, but the initial development programme at least got these to a point where they were manageable. There were also problems with the inlet duct causing a reduction in engine power, something that would reoccur with a number of later aircraft as the limits of testing and knowledge were pushed further. In this case it was solved whilst out in America for the race where the M.39 was finally able to show its class and grab the win, vanquishing the biplane as victor to the history books forever.
8. Piaggio Pegna PC7
The Piaggio Pegna PC7 manages to clamber so far up the list simply by being so inherently audacious and, given it was such an ambitious design, having come so close to flying. Pegna had been creating various wild schemes for some time and in 1928 his persistence was rewarded with a contract from the Italian government for two examples of the PC7. Sadly there were too many novelties and too little time to develop them, but the PC7 wasn’t simply a madcap scheme. The overall driver for the design stems from the use of hydroplanes instead of floats or a conventional hull, an approach which required with numerous additional, and very complex, features. Pegna had been actively researching hydroplanes during the First World War and returned to them as a way of reducing weight and drag. The problem of creating a ‘vane design’ that would work well when on the water and in flight occupied quite a bit of time. There was also the matter of how you deal with the low lying propeller at the front. This was solved by installing a clutched variable pitch water propeller in the back and a clutched drive to the main prop up front. The latter also had a cunning device to ensure that when stopped it would always be with the propeller blades across the aircraft (the position shown in the photograph above).
All of which allowed for a slim, low-sitting, fuselage-hull without wing tip floats. The nose was extraordinarily long and the pilot located pilot well back toward the fin. Both PC7s were completed but an inherent instability during take-off, and the passing of the race itself, meant they never actually flew. Instead they simply became beautiful, visionary, and utterly glorious cul-de-sacs.
7. Gloster Napier VI
The Gloster Napier VI only came about because of the decision to change the Schneider Trophy into a biennial event after 1927. At the time, Gloster were shaping up to develop their series of good but not quite good enough biplane racers a little further. Meanwhile, the aero-engine manufacturer Napier were reconciled to the Lion engine finally being outclassed. However, an additional year of preparatory time was enough to spur both airframe and engine designers to greater ambition. The result was VI with its supercharged version of the W-12 engine. Two aircraft were built and, with their gold painted fuselages, the type soon became known as the ‘Golden Arrow.’ If nothing else the looks promised much. Even by Schneider Trophy standards, the new type had a small fuselage and highly polished finish. In fact many still view this as the most handsome aircraft ever to be built in pursuit of the trophy. The slim wings (with their hint of the elliptical) had a ‘kick up’ at the root to provide an aerodynamically efficient junction with the fuselage revealing the extreme care with which the type was designed. The supercharger, designed under contract by British Thomson-Houston, was fed by three carburettors which in turn were fed by air from three separate intakes. It is here that the key to the VI’s failure lay: the engines could not be made to run consistently under race conditions, a problem generally attributed to the related inlet ducting. The tendency to cut out during high speed turns was especially dangerous in the racing environment. The Gloster VI may never have competed because of this, but N249 momentarily snatched glory in 1929 when it set the world speed record at 336.3mph. Sadly for Gloster, the Supermarine S6 topped this a mere two days later, but at least it had earned its brief place in the sun – and validated Henry Folland’s masterly, but flawed, design.
6. Supermarine Sea Lion II
Supermarine first entered the Schneider Trophy in 1919 with the Sea Lion and, truth be told, it hadn’t gone at all well. They returned with the Sea Lion II in 1922 and this time they were far more successful, taking the win in Naples. Sea Lions I and II are related but its not quite so simple as one being a development of the other.
Supermarine had built and supplied three aircraft to the government in support of a bid to supply single-seat fighter flying boats during World War I. After the cessation of hostilities they bought them back, possibly with a view to selling them onto wealthy individuals for ‘sports’ flying. What two of them actually ended up being used for was forming the basis for the racers, the small single-seat hull being an ideal starting point. The Sea Lion II had the more convoluted evolution of the two, passing through an intermediate phase before emerging as the aircraft that would finally race. New wings and a new tail got it match fit, while swapping the engine for a development of the Napier Lion W-12 didn’t do any harm for its chances of success either. Whereas the Sea Lion looks a little ‘square rigged‘ to our eyes the Sea Lion II at least has the streamlined nose the modern eye expects. The latter aircraft makes it onto the list for one very special reason though, and that is by it being the last flying boat to win the trophy. There were flying boats that came later and flew faster but this was the last time an integral hull was proven as giving the best solution to building a waterborne racing aircraft. As such it is arguably both the last and the ultimate of its kind.
5. 1913 Deperdussin
The first Schneider Trophy was held in 1913 and the Deperdussin earns its place in the top 10 by being the first winner. However, the reason for inclusion does go a little deeper.
The intent of the race was to promote the reliability of seaplanes and flying boats, thereby improving the breed. This is why, right up to the end, competing aircraft still had to carry out sea worthiness and taxiing trials. It was never simply an outright speed contest. Deperdussin entered a number of slightly different aircraft in the inaugural competition although only one made it to the start line. With a wood ply monocoque forward fuselage to which were attached just the single set of wings, this was an aircraft far removed from the Wright Flyer of only a decade before. Up against a Morane-Saulnier and a couple of Nieuports, the surviving Deperdussin came in first due to various problems befalling the other competitors. 1914 saw a near doubling of the winning speed and a similar level of attrition before the clouds of war halted flying for sport (other than blood) in Europe for the following four years. By the time the contest resumed in 1919, the sustained – desperate – military funded development of aviation had brought a relatively high level of reliability with it.
The game had changed, and manufacturers were compromising a little too much for teh sake of outright speed, and the initial objective for the Schneider Trophy had been undeniably diluted. The Deperdussin and 1914’s Sopwith Tabloid stand then as the only winners that had to be designed as a complete package, to struggle to be superlative across the complete range of disciplines originally demanded by Jacques Schneider.
4. Supermarine S5
Italy well and truly established the way forward in 1926, and R. J. Mitchell, who would later create the Spitfire, responded with the audaciously sleek S5, designed for the 1927 Schneider Trophy contest in Venice. The gentle waters of Venice would reverberate to the fire-breathing majesty of the fastest and most beautiful machines in existence.
Conforming to the new norm for success, this was a design both supported by the government and benefiting from extensive testing in government funded institutions. In addition the RAF formed its own High Speed Flight to provide the team that would enter on Britain’s behalf. The S5 though took the principle of reducing drag to obsessive levels of detail. The radiators were of the surface-type mounted on the wings and the fuel was held in one of the floats, removing the need to find room for it in the fuselage. The oil was also cooled by surface radiators but this time mounted on the fuselage sides. Although this basic architecture had been a feature of the M.39, Mitchell saw beyond that design and realised it unlocked a potential for dropping the cross sectional area to minuscule proportions. Napier helped by cleaning up the Lion, and Mitchell packaged it so tightly that the cam covers formed the external surfaces of the aircraft. The fuselage behind this was tiny, the pilot only being able to get into it by half turning until his shoulders were below the cockpit edge. The overall result was that the S5 had a clear advantage over its opponents even before the propellers turned. The S5 seemed to fly well with no particular indication of vices but despite this Flight Lieutenant Kinkead lost his life while attempting to set a speed record in 1928. The S5 succeeded in 1927 and was so good that two years later it only lost second place to Italy’s M.52R by a trifling two mph.
3. Curtiss CR-3
Up to 1923 the development of racing water-borne aircraft had followed a process that veered between seaplanes and flying boats, but which was still a recognisably evolutionary path (excepting the leap forward in technology that came with WWI). The Curtiss CR-3 that won in 1923 indicated a step change from this and became the pattern for how people went about winning the Schneider Trophy from then until the competition’s conclusion in 1931. It is apparent from photos of the CR-3, when compared with its peers and predecessors, that it was a very clean design, reduced to what at the time must have seemed to be the smallest overall package. The others are obviously racing aircraft in that they are small with a large engine but this has the look of every aspect having been reviewed and pared down individually. The major mechanical components were similarly optimised in support of this. The engine, Curtiss’ own D-12, was superlative. Later, even Italy went on to source examples to power its own racers, and the Reed patent metal propeller also became the default fitment for serious contenders. It was the perfect storm to be faced by its fellow competitors.
The other key change the CR-3 brought with it was less obvious but equally important, it was ordered by the U.S. Navy to enter into the contest. This was now essentially a government backed endeavour and from here on a private venture would no longer have the money or resources to win the competition alone. It could be argued that up to this point companies had entered to promote themselves and also, perhaps, to fly the flag for their country. Now it was a straightforward matter of national prestige with all the hopes and pressures that brought with it.
2. Macchi-Castoldi M.C.72
Although conceived to contest the 1931 Schneider Trophy, the M.C.72 ruled itself out by being too late however it did go on to set an outright speed record that stood for five years. The journey to success wasn’t easy though, with Fiat’s A.S.6 24 cylinder engine being the main culprit. The A.S.6 is one of those pieces of engineering that seems half inspired and half insane: take two highly strung V12 race engines and bolt them back to back, having one drive one element of a contra-rotating prop and the other drive the second, with no direct link between the separate throttles for each half of the combined engine. Surprisingly, all this wasn’t the main source of the problem but rather it was the inlet tract, all the way from the carburettor inlets to the cylinder ports. The way the problem generally manifested itself was through backfires and these caused a number of failures which included the splitting of the supercharger casing. Ultimately this caused the deaths of two pilots, Monti and Bellini, and led to the M.C.72 being a no-show at the 1931 event. A protracted development programme, aided by advice on fuel mixtures by Britain’s Rod Banks, eventually brought just enough reliability to allow record attempts to be made. An ultimate speed of 440.68mph was set in 1933, only being bettered in 1939 (by a German landplane), and it’s still the case that no piston-engined seaplane has travelled faster. The proportions dictated by the long engine made it a magnificent looking aircraft. It may have failed in its original aim but the M.C.72 is a worthy runner -up.
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
1. Supermarine S6 Series
R.J. Mitchell realised that the S5, along with the Napier Lion, would not be competitive in the race of ’29. The replacement S6 was late to the starting gate, being delivered on August 5th with the competition starting on September 6th. This was partly down to prevarication by the government and RAF, something that would also blight the 1931 attempt, but mainly it was the difficulty in getting the new Rolls Royce R type engine to run reliably. Despite this, it stormed to victory in a 1929. When the S6 followed this with a second win in 1931 Britain got to keep the Trophy forever.
In a further flourish of glory, it achieved an ultimate speed record of 407.5 mph shortly thereafter. Admittedly there were no other competitors in 1931 – but before the race it was decided that a minimum increase in speed had to be met for a win. This was never simply a case of turning up and claiming the prize. There’s also the minor matter that when you enter a race you need to ensure you’re there at the start, having something faster later rather misses the point. Two wins, numerous records and a speed increase of 80mph over its short life are reason enough for the S6 to claim the top spot, but take a moment to look at it as well. There is a lean beauty that comes with the pursuit of aerodynamic cleanliness, the aeronautical equivalent of high cheekbones and in this case it’s perfectly accentuated by the blue and silver paint scheme. The legacy is rather important too, lessons from the S6 and R were applied to the Spitfire and Merlin. Simply sublime on all counts.
By Actuarius
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
As the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said, “Berlin is the testicles of the West: every time I want to make the West scream, I squeeze on Berlin.”. In 1948 the Soviets wanted to castrate the West and take all of the city, isolated as it was 100 miles in the Soviet-occupied east of Germany. Taking west Berlin would have fortified already growing anti-US feeling in West Germany and could have led to a disaster for the US: all of Germany turning Communist. Whereas the Western powers envisioned a future Germany as vast industrial and military stalwart at the centre of Europe that needed to stay functional to avoid another Hitler, the Soviet Union feared a strong Germany and wanted to keep it weak and use it as a bulwark against the West. In an attempt to starve out West Berlin and force the population to look east, the Soviet Army blocked all roads and rivers. Effectively depriving its already desperate citizens of electricity and food. The battered city sat on the edge of catastrophe. Losing Berlin was a nightmare that President Truman could not bear to consider. While his military advisors suggested withdrawal, the British Royal Air Force suggested an exceptionally unlikely solution: supplying 4,000 tons of food and fuel a day to the beleaguered city. Truman agreed, and the West responded with the greatest humanitarian effort in history, the Berlin Airlift. Finding enough aircraft proved hard, and air forces looked everywhere to find suitable aeroplanes. A motley armada was assembled and against all odds succeeded. Here are the 14 most important aircraft in this titanic enterprise.Â
Whereas other nations had moved toward ever bigger and heavy fighters, the Soviets had gone in the opposite direction with the Yak-3; a loaded Supermarine Spitfire XIV weighed a whopping 2,500 pounds more than a similarly configured Yak-3. Every measure was made to keep the weight down to ensure it was the best-of class for power-to-weight ratio and wing loading, this included partial construction in laminated wood and the use of pneumatic systems in place of the more usual electrical/hydraulics.Â
Â
During the war, the Yak-3 had been found to be an outstanding dogfighter below 13,000 feet. Unarmed, fully laden transport aircraft would have been easy meat for the superb Yak-3. As it turned out, the Yak-3s did no more than buzz the transports. The world could have become a far worse place if the Yak pilots had been given more aggressive orders. Loaded weight: 2,697 kg / 5,946 lbs Favourite cargo: 150 rounds 20mm ShVAK cannon ammunition
The C-74 was a giant new airlifter in 1948. A single Globemaster aided the operation from the 14 August. Over the next six weeks, the Globemaster crew flew 24 missions delivering 1,234,000 lb (559,700 kg) of supplies. It once delivered 20 tons of flour in one mission, as well as delivering quarter of a million pounds of coal in a single day.Â
Favourite cargo: coal, rock crusher (in parts), flour
11. Short S.25 Sunderland/Hythe ‘The Flying Porcupine’Â
These big flying boats had been with RAF Coastal Command on the first and last day of the Second World War. Theirs had been a very busy war but yet more was to be asked from them. Taking advantage of their ability to take-off and land from water they were operated between the Elbe Estuary in Hamburg and Berlin’s Lake Havel. The Sunderlands and Hythes (the name for the unarmed civil version of the Sunderland) added capacity to the airlift without consuming space and resources at ground bases. The seaworthy paint on Sunderlands enabled them to carry sacks of salt without fear of corrosion.
Loaded weight: 27,200 kg / 60,000 lbs Favourite cargo: steam irons, rolls of newsprint, sacks of salt, children not feeling well, cardboard boxes with MADE IN CANADA printed on them.
10. Avro Lancaster/Lancastrian ‘Gert Lancaster’
To a wartime Lancaster crew, the seemingly innocuous word ‘cookie’ had a macabre meaning, it was another word for a ‘blockbuster’* bomb, so-called because it was big enough – sometimes weighing as much 12,000Ib – to destroy an entire block of streets. The aircraft went from dropping ‘cookies’* of death from 25,000 feet to bringing actual cookies to the people of Berlin. The most warlike aircraft on this top list is surely the Lancaster, working with its civilian sister, the Lancastrian. Good luck overstating the irony of seeing Bomber Command’s premier high explosives delivery platform in the role of humanitarian relief with a fuselage full of essentials. The very people subjected to the Lancaster’s nocturnal attentions during the war were, before they knew it, eating a warm dinner by the stove only thanks to the presence and capacity of this machine. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Either way, the Lancastrian would have about a decade of service on long-range air routes after the war until modern passenger airliners were available (ones that could carry more than nine people in side-facing chairs). Unconverted Lancasters, it can be noted, had repatriated prisoners of war back to the UK in another operation so the Berlin Blockade is not the only time this aggressive machine did more heart-warming, less people-burning, duties.
*It is from this we have the word to describe a successful film
9. Avro 688 Tudor ‘A Tudor rose’Â
The Tudor was a big plane, an ambitious design intended for long range civilian air travel. It had Lancaster DNA: the Tudor used the same wing as the Lincoln, which was essentially a stretched Lancaster. But it sported a new tail and circular fuselage and such comforts as kapok insulation and the first pressurised fuselage on a British airliner. Sales were slimmer than hoped due to what is looked back upon as a combined government and industrial failure to capitalise on post war opportunities and the fact that better quality or cheaper alternatives were available from American firms or in the form of war surplus. The air effort to supply Berlin was simply ramped up so fast it couldn’t help but suck in a few civil-registered Tudors to move liquid fuels, securing the type’s only real claim to fame. If we discount the Rolls-Royce Nene testbed VX158, that is.
Loaded weight: 34,473 kg / 76,000 lbs Favourite cargo: barbecue starter fluid, Ronson and Zippo lighter flints, gasoline, nylons.
8. Handley Page Halton/Halifax ‘ ‘Last cargo in Halifax’Â
Aircraft from the Second World War served in the Berlin Airlift in modified, civilianized forms and in their exact wartime configurations. Newer aircraft produced after the war were also present. Sometimes such aircraft were operated by civilian airlines (with, no doubt, demobilised service personnel in their crews) contracted to help military organisations. The most visually striking aircraft of the entire effort must be the red Halton freighters belonging to Eagle Aviation Limited. Four-engined bombers were among the top three or four strategic weapons of the war and they were nearly always a noisy and impressive sight in any numbers. In comparison to the Lancaster, the Halifax suffered from the kind of airplane sibling rivalry that assigns reputations sometimes unfairly in the manner of the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane. The demilitarised Halifax, the Halton, adds a thick layer of obscurity to that process. Either way, the mail brought in and out of Berlin by Haltons was probably cherished in a Europe still heartbroken by the worst war in human history.
Loaded weight: 25,000 kg / 54,400 lbs Favourite cargo: coal, flour, mail, Coke, dog food, prams, car engines, aquarium filters, feather pillows.
7. Bristol 170 Freighter ‘Lovely Bristols’
To many the Bristol 170 Freighter conjures up nostalgic thoughts of mid-century air travel. The idea of Triumph convertibles or Rolls-Royce Silver Wraiths disgorged onto French airfields from a giant aluminium nose now seems utterly exotic, and sadly they are gone for ever. Less glamorous but far more important was the Bristol Freighters role in Berlin, as part of the mixed collection of types operated by Silver City Airway.Â
Loaded weight: 34,473 kg / 76,000 lbs Favourite cargo: Leica cameras for export, Life magazine, tinned sardines, bricks, sewing pins, pianos.
A heavyweight champion of the airlift, with a physical resemblance to the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor, the Hastings was a massive tail-dragger with 6,700 horsepower turning a set of four-bladed props. Its service adoption was accelerated by the demands of the airlift, especially the need for coal. The three RAF squadrons operating the type delivered 55,000 tons of supplies.Â
Loaded weight: 80,000Â lb (36,287Â kg) Favourite cargo: coal, lumber, Mars bars, books, rope, anvils, printing presses, fabric swatches, cigars.
5. Fairchild C-82 Packet ‘The Boomers’
Three Fairchild C-82 Packet of the U.S. Air Force with their military passenger complement, troopers of the all-air Army. Note: All trucks, trailers and personnel shown in photo can not be transported in these three C-82s. Pope Field, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 1948
Like the Sunderlands, the Packets were given a specific job to do in support of Berlin. Graders, bulldozers and other machinery, sometimes partially disassembled, were loaded into these aircraft and sent over to Berlin’s airports. There to be employed building and maintaining the aprons, taxiways, cargo dumps, parking areas and runways. The twin-boom tail on the Packet, found later on the C-119 Flying Boxcar and the Nord Noratlas, allowed loading clearance for objects of almost any kind and for trucks to reverse directly up to the aircraft.
Loaded weight: 24,500 kg / 54,000 lbs Favourite cargo: earth-moving equipment, racks of bottled milk, evening wear, eggs
 4. Douglas C-47 Skytrain/DC-3 Dakota ‘Dakota spanning’
We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here
The C-47 was arguably the most important transport aircraft of the Allied nations in the 1940s. It had served at D-Day, Market Garden and the Burma-India theatres with aplomb and developed a reputation for rugged do-anything reliability. In the Berlin Airlift it performed thousands of sorties into Tempelhof and Gatow airports. Many Dakotas even remained in their wartime camouflage schemes while doing so. All ranks in the C-47 units must have felt as if the war days had come right seeing row upon roaring row of the beloved aircraft loaded and dispatched for Berlin. But the Skytrain’s day was over and it was time to make way for the bigger, more capable, C-54.
Into this list of butch utilitarian designs arrives the feminine triple-tailed Avro York. Churchill and Charles de Gaulle used one each during the war and whatever else those men got up to, you can’t blame them for wanting to be seen next to one of these silver Art Deco beauts. Not just a pretty thing with portholes*, no, the York had Merlin XXs and the same wings as the Lancaster. Still a fairly fresh design in 1948, Yorks performed sterling service during the airlift. Nearly half of the British contribution to supplying Berlin was carried by Yorks: a million tons, over 58,000 sorties.
(*Ed: This is bit ’70s and borderline sexist. Stephen, you have been warned)
Loaded weight: 29,500 kg / 65,000 lbs Favourite cargo: coal, flat-pack furniture, plaster-and-lathe supplies, bronze statues of classical musicians, shoes, umbrellas, Jazz LPs.
2. Vickers VC.1 Viking ‘Horny Vickers’Â
An evolution of the successful Wellington bomber, much was anticipated of the Viking as the world returned to peace. First flying in 1946, the Viking would go on to become a global success story. In 1948, a mid-air collision between a Soviet Yak-3 and a British European Airways Viking over Berlin killed 15 people. This incident would set the stage for the airlift, in which the Viking would participate and quickly prove itself. The controversy and tension created by the’ Gatow air disaster’ further soured the already hostile mess of Germany’s diplomatic, political and economic relationships to her former enemies, allies and subjects. This encouraged Stalin to isolate Berlin, and to further test western resolve. From such a dramatic and pivotal youth, the Viking enjoyed a happier later life and become a common sight at airports all over the world.
Loaded weight: 15,422 kg / 34,000 lbs Favourite cargo: machine tools, nail files, lead ingots, concrete blocks, mail, passengers.
1. Douglas C-54/R-5D ‘Candy Bomber’
Absolutely the icon of the entire operation and the immortal ‘candy bomber’, was an ocean-spanning, four-engined cousin of the DC-3. What a machine. After a respectable wartime career, the C-54 came into its own during the airlift. The famous photograph of a C-54 passing over German civilians gazing up with hearts full of democratic warmth illustrates the success of the operation in both humanitarian and public relations terms.
Few expected such a vast, complicated and dangerous operation could succeed in the face of abysmal winter weather. How could aircraft take over the daily mass bulk movement of goods like coal and flour normally handled by trucks, canal barges, and rail cars? The handsome C-54 would more than answer the doomsayers and Premier Stalin in equal measure.
Loaded weight: 33,100 kg / 73,000 lbs Favourite cargo: refrigerators, switchblade knives, juke boxes, chocolate bars, toys and raisins and the feeling that we all really cared and had something to stand up for.
Stephen Caulfield (with Joe Coles, Ed Ward and Thomas Newdick)
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
Who? English aircraft designer, William Edward Willoughby ‘Teddy’ Petter
Â
Who would play him in a film? Charles Hawtrey with a fake nose or  Phoebe Waller-Bridge
Â
Born: Highgate, London
Â
When? 1908
Â
Famous for: Lysander, Gnat, Canberra
Â
Estimated boxing weight class: Bantam
They should have listened to him:
He was an early proponent of Britain’s thwarted supersonic efforts.
He thought simple very light agile fighters were a good idea, the Gnat/Ajeet proved successful in India but was relegated to the trainer role in the UK.Â
The almost brilliant: Whirlwind.
Did he work on the Spitfire? Yes, he worked on the ‘Westland Elevator’ which produced a ‘remarkable’ improvement in longitudinal stability.
Petter was involved in the early stages of the development of the Lightning.Â
Didn’t know that he also worked on the: No surprises here I can find
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
Weird fact
In January 1960 Petter left the aircraft industry forever to become a holy man. He joined the religious commune of ‘Father Forget’ in Switzerland.
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
The JAS 39 Gripen entered service with the Swedish Air Force in June 1996 and is now the sole combat type in the Flygvapnet. Paul Stoddart compares this fourth generation aircraft with its ancestor, the portly yet effective, J 29 Tunnan which entered service 46 years earlier.Â
Saab began its J 29 work by considering a straight wing design but in November 1945 obtained some German swept wing research data. The benefits of sweep back prompted a very rapid re-evaluation of the project and by February 1946, a 25-degree swept wing design had been selected for development. Automatic leading edge slats were fitted to prevent the airflow over the wings from separating in high AOA manoeuvres. At the transonic speeds achieved by post-war jets, shockwaves forming on the tailplane would render conventional (ie trailing edge mounted) elevators, downstream of the shock, ineffective. Those speeds also moved the mainplane centre of pressure rearwards resulting in pitch-down that the ineffective elevators struggled to correct. The solution was the flying tail in which the entire horizontal tailplane could move in pitch. Shockwaves still formed on a flying tail but its area ahead of the shock front would remain an effective control surface. As stated earlier, the Tunnan was the first Western European jet fighter to have this system and it has become standard for transonic and supersonic aircraft of conventional tail layout. Fighter agility depends, inter alia, on a rapid roll rate.
The J 29 prototype featured full span ailerons but these produced an excessive rate of roll of 180 degrees per second. They were superseded by ailerons of around 65% span with the remaining inboard section replaced by flaps.
From March 1953, the J 29B became the standard Tunnan version. The major change was the installation of internal wing tanks that added 154 Imperial gallons (700 litres) of fuel taking the internal total to 462 Imperial gallons (2,100 litres), a 50% increase. Twin 99 Imperial gallon (450 litre) drop tanks could also be carried so offering a total load of 660 Imperial gallons (3,000 litres). The tanks were fitted at roughly mid-span on the outer of the two main pylons with the inboard hardpoints retained for weapons. The original Gripen uses a 242 Imperial gallon (1,100 litres) drop tank that can be fitted on the centreline and inboard underwing pylons. With three tanks in place, total fuel carried is 1,386 Imp gallons (6,300 litres); the internal load being 660 Imp gallons (3,000 litres).
The Tunnan’s wing was shoulder mounted, meeting the fuselage somewhat above the centreline. The wing was a one-piece structure and ran straight through the capacious fuselage passing just behind the cockpit rear pressure bulkhead and above the intake duct. Gripen also has a shoulder-mounted wing, which is set roughly at the centreline of the slim fuselage. This is slightly below the level of the canards that in turn are mounted just below the upper surface of the intakes. Fuel tanks are fitted in the upper part of the fuselage middle section with the intake duct(s) and main undercarriage bays placed below.
A one-piece wing could have been mounted level with the fuselage upper or lower surfaces as per the Jaguar and Phantom respectively. A low mounted wing on the diminutive Gripen would have offered insufficient ground clearance for loading underwing stores without a longer and heavier undercarriage. To achieve favourable interaction, the canards have to be set above the level of the mainplanes. Lack of suitable alternative mounting points for the canards would rule out the high wing location option. Furthermore, in order to reduce drag, it is best to avoid forming acute angles at wing-fuselage fairings. A mid wing configuration arguably offers the best overall solution in this and the other respects; it is therefore an entirely reasonable design choice.
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
The Tunnan was of monocoque structure built from aluminium alloy. High strength and stiffness were required to withstand the loadings imposed by transonic flight and a very fine standard of surface finish was also achieved in order to reduce skin drag. In structural terms, the Gripen marked a major change for Saab with composite materials (carbon fibre, glass fibre and Aramid) accounting for 20% of the structure by weight. Fatigue life consumption is reduced by a gust alleviation system. Aircraft disturbance is sensed by the flight control system, which prompts control surface reaction to alleviate the loads imposed.
The most obvious difference between these aircraft is in their lifting and control surfaces. Although radical at its inception for its swept wing and flying tail, the J 29 was standard in being longitudinally stable with a conventionally sited tailplane. Such tailplanes apply a download to balance the mainplane’s lift (the mainplane’s centre of pressure being behind the centre of gravity). In turn, the mainplane must generate additional lift to counter the tail’s down force and as a result lift-induced drag is increased. The Tunnan’s primary flying controls were the tailplane for pitch and the ailerons for roll. By contrast, the Gripen controls pitch by the canard while the inboard and outboard elevons on the delta wing act in both pitch and roll. The canard applies a lifting force to balance the mainplane and this co-operative interaction reduces the overall lift-induced drag.
Saab originally reversed the traditional arrangement with the Viggen and adopted a tail-first or canard design although it retained natural longitudinal stability. With the JAS 39, the full potential of the canard was realised. Full time, full authority, digital, fly by wire flight control system (FCS) allowed the adoption of artificial stability in pitch with attendant gains in agility and aerodynamic efficiency. At supersonic speeds the centre of lift on all wings moves aft promoting a nose down moment. A conventional aircraft trims this by increasing the tailplane download whereas the opposite applies with the canard, a more efficient solution. An unstable canard design offers more lift during take-off and landing, better supersonic turning performance and lower supersonic drag. The FCS keeps the Gripen’s instability in check and allows the full envelope to be exploited without the risk of overstress or departure from controlled flight. This carefree handling facility enables the pilot to concentrate on the mission while the FCS controls the load factor, AOA, angle of sideslip and roll rate. Another function unavailable to the Tunnan is CG control. The fuel control system not only monitors the fuel remaining but also balances the amounts drawn from the various tanks to keep the CG within limits.
Weapons and Systems
The early swept wing combat aircraft were designed as gun-fighters and the Tunnan was no exception. Its original standard armament was a battery of four 20 mm Hispano cannons with 180 rounds per gun. Stemming from an original design of the early 1930s, the Hispano weighed 84 lb (34 kg) and fired a 4.88 oz (138 gram) round with a muzzle velocity of 2,880 ft/sec (878 m/sec). The muzzles were spaced circumferentially on the underside of the nose, a short distance back from the intake. Some jet fighters (eg the Hunter F.1 with its axial Rolls Royce Avon 100 series) experienced considerable engine problems through the ingestion of the shock waves of their cannon shells. A centrifugal compressor may be broader than its axial flow equivalent but it is inherently more tolerant of disturbed airflow. Cannon blast ingestion was inevitable on the Tunnan but no engine surge problems appear to have been experienced.
Two factors combined to make cannons alone an insufficient armament for air combat. The speed of jet fighters made for only fleeting firing opportunities while their stronger structures (for the high aerodynamic loads) could withstand cannon shell damage – up to a point. Cannons therefore required both a high rate of fire and a heavy high velocity round but these features tended to oppose each other. The more powerful cannons had a slow rate of fire and the faster models had less punch. One attempted solution to this problem was to fit fighters with batteries of unguided air-to-air rockets that would be fired in a barrage of a dozen or more in the hope of at least one hitting a fighter target or several hitting a bomber. The Tunnan was fitted with twenty-four 75 mm (2.95 in) diameter rockets carried in vertical stacks of four on three close-set hardpoints inboard of each wing drop tank. In the event, such rockets were to prove a blind alley and although adopted by several air forces they were superseded by guided missiles. From 1963, the J 29E could carry a pair of Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (AAM) termed Rb 24 in the Flygvapnet inventory. This addition helped keep the Tunnan viable until it went out of service in May 1967, the Saab Draken having progressively taken over the fighter role from 1959.
Proving to be a fine weapons platform during testing, the Tunnan J 29B was applied to the ground attack role with the new designation A 29B. The four Hispanos were retained and either fourteen 14.5 cm (5.7 in) anti-armour rockets or four 18 cm (7.1 in) rockets for hard, fixed targets could be carried. As mentioned above, the drop tanks were fitted to the outboard main pylons where they would have helped relieve the wing bending moment. Inboard of the tanks, there were up to four hardpoints under each wing. The 14.5 cm rockets were carried in six vertical pairs plus a single rocket on the furthest inboard position to avoid a clash with the undercarriage door. The 18 cm rockets had individual pylon mountings. All the Tunnan’s weapons bar the Rb 24 Sidewinder were unguided whereas the opposite obtains with the majority of the Gripen’s armament. Although guided weapon unit cost is greater than the ballistic equivalent, their higher accuracy makes for better cost-effectiveness. As fewer rounds and aircraft sorties are needed to destroy a target, the result is a lower overall cost in weapons plus likely lower aircraft and aircrew losses.
The USAF had expended time, effort and lives but the B-36 was still just as v
The JAS 39’s interceptor predecessor, the JA 37 Viggen was equipped with the 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon, a weapon of exceptional performance. With the high muzzle velocity of 3,937 ft/sec (1,200 m/sec), it could engage targets at 1.25 miles (2 km). The KCA was simply too bulky for the diminutive Gripen and instead it has a single 27 mm Mauser BK27 cannon (as used in Eurofighter Typhoon) with 120 rounds. It is fitted in a semi-scabbed arrangement in the port lower fuselage behind the cockpit and with the muzzle emerging about 0.5 m ahead of the intake. Although a lighter weapon than the Oerlikon, it has a higher rate of fire, 1,700 rounds per minute compared to 1,320, so putting out 28% more shells in any burst. It fires the 9.2 ounce (260 gram) rounds at a muzzle velocity greater than 3,280 ft/sec (1,000 m/sec). There is a 300 rounds per minute option for air-to-surface targets; barrel life is extended in this mode. The cannon is deleted from the trainer in order to free internal volume for the second seat.
In the air-to-air role, the Gripen’s main weapons were originally the Rb 74 Sidewinder (the AIM-9L variant) and the RB 72 AIM-120 AMRAAM. Later, the IRIS-T (Rb. 98), A-Darter and MICA were cleared. One Rb 74 is carried on each wingtip; the four underwing hardpoints can each carry an Rb 72 although a typical fit might see the two inboard missiles replaced by drop tanks. The integration of radar guided AAMs in Saab aircraft began with the Draken, the Tunnan never gaining such a weapon. In the Gripen, the core of the system is the Ericsson Microwave Systems PS-05 pulse-Doppler radar that has look-down, shoot-down capability for the air defence mission. Moreover, it is a multi-mode radar with full, rather than secondary, attack and reconnaissance functions available in the one package. The PS-05 was based on the GEC-Marconi Blue Vixen (also the basis of the Typhoon’s CAPTOR radar) and was regarded as having similar performance to the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-66(V)2 radar of the F-16AM.
For air-to-surface, the Saab-Bofors Rbs 15F radar homing missile is the main anti-ship weapon with the infra-red imaging Rb 75 employed for high value land targets. The latter is the Swedish designation for the Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick; it is a fire-and-forget weapon with its own seeker image displayed in the cockpit before launch to allow target selection. For anti-ship missions, the radar is operated in search mode while the Rbs 15F has its own radar allowing the Gripen to turn away after launch. It is also fitted with a jet engine rather than a rocket motor so conferring greater range for a given size; rockets are not efficient at low altitude. The precision, long-range, Taurus KEPD 350 stand-off weapon has also been flown on the aircraft.
Other than its radar, Gripen also has several systems that were simply not available in the Tunnan’s day. Through its encrypted tactical datalink, a JAS 39 can receive updates on the battlespace from a ground controller, airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft or other Gripens. Its navigation suite is based on a ring-laser gyro integrated with GPS (global positioning system) satellite navigation. Head down information is presented on three screen displays while a head up display (HUD) provides the essential flight and aiming cues. By contrast, the Tunnan pilot had a map, compass and stopwatch for navigation and his head-up information was limited to a gyro gunsight. The main JAS 39 system and weapon functions are selected through HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick). Weapon selection is through stick-mounted switches. The throttle has two pistol grips; sensor controls (radar range and scan angle) are on the upper with the lower switches providing airbrake selection and certain navigation functions. The Litening G111 FLIR/LDP (forward looking infra-red/laser designator pod) has been integrated to support the use of the GBU-12 and GBU-16 LGB (laser guided bombs). Systems integration is achieved on Gripen through a MIL-STD 1553 databus, a massively more advanced technology than that of the J 29. The Swedish developed datalink of the JAS 39 A/B is not compatible with any NATO datalink, nor was the Swedish Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) compatible with the NATO equivalent. By contrast, the Gripen C/D is NATO compatible featuring a Link 16 datalink (essential for operating alongside US aircraft) and NATO IFF Mode 1-4.
This article is Paul’s personal view of the development of the Tunnan in comparison with the Gripen A. It contains no implication of Ministry of Defence policy nor should any be inferred.
If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.Â
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
The ‘neanderthal B-1B’People often call aircraft beautiful. There’s no disputing that the act of flight itself is a thing of beauty. Breaking the shackles of gravity, reaching for the freedom that only the sky allows, that is a truly wondrous thing, but it’s a much more intangible thing to discuss the actual looks of the aircraft that do it themselves.
By Sam Wise
No doubt there have been hideous aircraft, this website alone is testament to that. Which aircraft are actually beautiful, which evoke a sense of aesthetic pleasure, is a different matter. On the face of it, it’s a very subjective subject – beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. This oft-repeated phrase is always trotted out when someone is called out on a claim that an objectively ugly plane is good-looking – see, for example, the mistaken belief that the neanderthal-looking B-1B is the aesthetic superior to the heart-achingly beautiful Tu-160.
 The heart-achingly beautiful Tu-160.
So people will debate for hours on the subject of which of their favourite aircraft is beautiful and which aren’t, often confusing capability with looks and almost always leaving people scratching their heads wondering how on earth ​that​ could be called good-looking.
“It is unlikely that Keats knew much of Cold War bomber aircraft (probably) but his famous line “Beauty is truth, truth beauty†rings just as true for Mach 2.2-capable commercial airliners as it does for Greek pots.”
If we want to take a firmer, more definitive approach to the matter, as with all things in aviation we must turn to the wisdom of our forebears and of the ancients. It’s evident that the physical appearance of the aircraft plays a role in producing its beauty. As Aristotle describes in his ​Poetics​, “to be beautiful, a living creature, and every whole made up of parts, must … present a certain order in its arrangement of partsâ€. There is a clear “look†that lends itself to this evocation, something organic. Note the moth-like planform of the Avro Vulcan or the curves and symmetry of the Spitfire vs the angular and brutish lack of appeal of the likes of the F-22 and F-35. Certainly Aristotle could think of beauty as something calculable and mathematic, something you could take in a vacuum, apply a formula to and see if it checks all the boxes. But beauty is an inherently emotional response to an object or vision, and there’s plenty of emotion in aviation.
The Mirage 2000 is the platonic ideal of a delta-winged fighter.Â
Plato disagreed with Aristotle’s views. For Plato, beauty was an inherently spiritual concept. Taking his concept of beauty from the ​Symposium​, we cannot understand the beauty of an aircraft based purely on its lines, its form, its shape, rather it has to be part of the Form of beauty, an unchanging and eternal truth that defines whether something is beautiful or not. Plato describes the advancement through the realisation of beauty – from love of the physical object, through the to the love of the soul, transcending to the love of knowledge, of laws, to a final understanding and love of Beauty itself, an appreciation of the actual existence of that concept.
We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here“Man that Typhoon has an ugly intake!”Â
It is unlikely that Keats knew much of Cold War bomber aircraft (probably) but his famous line “Beauty is truth, truth beauty†rings just as true for Mach 2.2-capable commercial airliners as it does for Greek pots. I’m not talking about the plainly untrue line “if it looks right it flies rightâ€, but a far more metaphysical concept of aviation truth. This truth isn’t some capability stat, or top speed, or record broken, it’s a moment of aviation that is evoked across the ages, a representation of the ‘truth’ of the beauty of flight itself. Much like Keats’ Peloponesian vase, it is not so easily defined in terms of this line or that curve but the feeling it creates within us, when we look at a beautiful aircraft and ​understand​ the beauty of flight. This, in aviation, is the Form of beauty that Plato proposes.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
An aircraft’s looks and the feeling of the freedom that flight offers earthbound humans are one and the same. An ugly aircraft cannot offer us that dream of flight in the same way that a beautiful one can but at the same time that beauty is only derived from that feeling. This could be perfectly encapsulated in the Mirage IV. On the face of it, there are several things that you could say make it less than stunning – the poor positioning of the probe, the harshness of the canopy, the size of the tail. And yet, it is a beautiful aeroplane. Something about the jet scream ‘flight.’ It speaks to us of the joy of riding the clouds, of looking down on the Earth from above, the unbound liberty of taking to the air. The Mirage IV is a beautiful aircraft.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
Space Shuttle Enterprise, mounted atop a NASA 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft flies over the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York. Is it our number one? (NASA/Robert Markowitz)Albert Robida drew this transatlantic airship with attendant parasite airships in the late 19th century. This fantastical concept became a reality of sorts in the early 20th.
Since well before heavier than air flight was even possible, parasite aircraft have held a curious attraction. There is something compelling about the idea of a smaller flying machine being launched from a larger one, even more so if that aircraft can be recovered too. Parasite aircraft sometimes make a good deal of sense but on the whole their disadvantages outweigh any practical benefit to be had from parasitism. Here are the best of this scarce but brilliant breed.
11. Bristol Scout and Felixstowe Porte Baby
Porte’s three-engine flying boat was enormous by the standards of late 1915. The parasite concept worked but was not taken up. (Imperial War Museum photo)
This massive flying boat designed by John Cyril Porte and named with lazy irony ‘Baby’ was designed and used as a maritime patrol aircraft. First flown in late 1915, 11 were built and remained in service until the armistice in 1918, a remarkable longevity of service for an aircraft of this generation. For its entire operational life the Baby was the largest flying boat built in the UK. The appearance of the Baby also happened to coincide with the high point of the Zeppelin raids on Britain. This bombing campaign inspired an almost hysterical response, not least because there was simply no effective defence in 1916 and the enormous airships seemed to be able to operate over Britain with impunity.
One of the many schemes proposed to counter the Zeppelin menace was to mount a small fighter aircraft onto the long-ranged Baby which would then patrol over the North Sea, east of the British Isles. If a Zeppelin were encountered, the fighter would be released to effect an interception and then fly back to land if near enough or ditch in the sea. The flying boat could then pick up the (hopefully) victorious pilot and everyone would fly back for tea and medals. Thus the prototype Porte Baby was modified as the mothership for a standard Bristol Scout. Fairly obscure history was made when Bristol Scout number 3028 piloted by Flight Lieutenant MJ Day successfully separated in flight from the Baby (flown on this momentous occasion by Porte himself) at a height of 1000 feet over Felixstowe. Despite the project ultimately going nowhere, the Admiralty deciding (prophetically) that it was too clumsy and dangerous to pursue further, the Bristol Scout had become the first parasite aircraft in history.
Â
Â
10. Messerschmitt Me 328 and Dornier Do 217
Not as insane a project as many late-war German schemes, the Me 328 was a decent little aircraft stymied by the lack of a viable engine.
Given the somewhat fantastical nature of the parasite fighter as a concept, it should come as no surprise that Nazi Germany (ever willing to try something crazy) spent a lot of money and time on the idea. It should also come as no surprise that the German entry in this select field was ill-conceived, dangerous, built on the cheap, and ultimately contributed nothing to the German war effort. It all started in the standard fashion, massive Luftwaffe bombers were being designed and an effective means of defence for them was sought. The idea that they could take along their own escort fighter was an attractive one. Messerschmitt started work on such a design in 1941, envisioning an aircraft towed aloft by an He 177 or Ju 388 on the end of a flexibly-mounted rigid bar, or carried on the back of their own giant Me 264 bomber. From the outset the concept was muddled, both a fighter (Me 328A) and bomber (Me 328B) were proposed and the emphasis of development would flit back and forth between the two, before all manner of different schemes of varying levels of impracticality would be proposed. None came to fruition.
The Me 328 first flew as a glider. No powerplant at all turned out to be the most effective for the Me 328.
Despite being regarded as a semi-disposable aeroplane, the Me 328 as it emerged was impressive on paper: costing about a quarter of the price of a conventional fighter such as the Fw 190, it was intended to have a top speed of around 500 mph. The fighter version was to be armed with two 20-mm cannon. As a bomber the aircraft was intended to be flown to the East coast of the US and then released to deliver a 500 kg bomb at a speed rendering it effectively beyond interception. The pilot was to ditch at sea and be rescued by a U-boat. Construction was mostly of wood but the most radical aspect of the design was its engines – the Me 328 was to be powered by two Argus pulse jets, identical to those that powered the V-1 flying bomb. Ultimately it would be the engines that doomed the programme.
Despite looking like a rusty old length of drainpipe, the Argus pulse jet was simple and powerful but also incredibly noisy and vibratory
It started well enough though, two prototypes were built and glider flights were made from a Do 217 carrier aircraft. In unpowered flight the aircraft was promising and seven powered prototypes were built. Unfortunately the pulse jets caused such appalling vibration (as well as being deafeningly loud) that the Me 328 was virtually uncontrollable. The pulse jets were tried fitted to the rear fuselage and under the wings but nothing could stop the shakes, there is an unconfirmed report that one of the prototypes actually vibrated itself apart in flight. Whether or not that actually happened, flights ceased and the programme was effectively over by mid 1944.
Despite the fact that the aircraft was totally unsatisfactory, the Me 328 popped up in countless other proposals right up to the end of hostilities. Me 328s were envisioned to be fired from rails and fired from U-boats and used as a suicide weapon (probably – it is unclear if the pilot was definitely intended to die, it would have been exceptionally difficult to get out). The proposed Me 328C was to be powered by a turbojet which should have cured the vibrations but construction never began.
9. Mcdonnell XF-85 Goblin and Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Trapezes are best left in circuses. They should not be extended from the bomb bay of a B-29. The looped structure under the XF-85 Goblin is its ’emergency’ landing skid – it made seven free flights, landing on the skid on four of them. (USAF photo)
In the Convair B-36 the USAF had a bomber of hitherto unprecedented size. Impressive though it undoubtedly was, doubts were tacitly admitted as to its ability to defend itself even with the prodigious armament of sixteen 20-mm cannon lavishly distributed amongst nose and tail turrets along with six remotely controlled retractable turrets. The B-36 was possessed of such enormous range that a conventional escort fighter would be impractical, however taking along a parasite fighter to chase off any hostile aircraft impertinent enough to attempt an interception was an entirely different matter. Hence the existence of the XF-85 Goblin, by a considerable margin the smallest jet fighter ever to fly.
“Ain’t no fancy golden helmet gonna stop you looking like a jerk in this tin barrel son. Stare into the middle distance long as you like, I ain’t going nowhere” (USAF photo)
Opinions were, and remain, divided as to the practicality of the F-85/B-36 combination. Designed by a team led by Herman D. Barkey, who would later oversee the development of McDonnell’s slightly more successful F-4 Phantom, the tiny McDonnell, despite its comical appearance, was an extremely well executed response to the parasite requirement. Nonetheless its ability to adequately defend its mothership, or even itself, is open to question. The cuddly Goblin first flew some eight months after the rather more imposing MiG-15 and although the XF-85 apparently handled well, its projected top speed was slower than the Soviet aircraft (and the projection turned out to be rather optimistic) and it was armed with a mere four .50 cal machine guns. Furthermore, given that the Goblin’s dimensions were precisely tailored to the size of the B-36 bomb bay development potential was necessarily limited. Having said that, the Goblin’s projected performance was generally up to the standards of the day and the USAF was very keen on the parasite fighter. It was planned at one stage for every tenth B-36 to be a dedicated fighter carrier with provision for three or four Goblins although all B-36s would have the provision to carry at least one.
Goblin mock-up demonstrates the design’s folding wings while the pilot attempts to look serious.
In the absence of a B-36 with trapeze equipment fitted, initial flight tests were to be handled by a suitably modified B-29, nicknamed ‘Monstro’. After a few tests to check the flying characteristics of the combined B-29/XF-85 combination, the Goblin made its first free flight on 23rd August 1948. Released from 20,000 feet, test pilot Edwin Schoch flew the aircraft for about ten minutes before attempting to hook back on to the trapeze. This was expected to be the trickiest aspect of parasite fighter operation and so it proved. Turbulence around the underside of Monstro was more severe than expected and the tiny jet collided hard with the trapeze, smashing the canopy and tearing off Schoch’s oxygen mask and helmet. An observer on the B-29 saw the helmet fall away and thought it was Schoch’s head. He succeeded in landing the aircraft conventionally (with head still attached) though the XF-85 was damaged in the process and seven weeks would elapse while repairs and modifications took place.
Crash bang wallop: at left, the moment of impact as test pilot Schoch smashes into the trapeze, leading to the battered but mostly intact aircraft on the right. Note absence of glass in the canopy frame. (USAF)
Further attempts were a mixed bag. Schoch succeeded in engaging with the trapeze on the second free flight in October 1948. However when the definitive retractable hook was fitted, severe aerodynamic buffeting added to the difficulty of the hooking process. In seven flights the XF-85 managed to re-engage the trapeze on only three occasions. The last (unsuccessful) attempt was made by Schoch in April 1949 and ended with a landing on the skid at Muroc field. The tubby Goblin flew for a total of two hours 19 minutes during its short life and had proved that the concept was at least possible, though apparently difficult. To further muddy the waters, some years later no less a personage than Chuck Yeager stated that he thought the XF-85 a good idea and that the reason for its failure was the lack of flying skill of Edwin Schoch. However poor Schoch was unable to answer this accusation having been killed in a flying accident in 1951. To be fair, over the years Yeager seems to have had an extremely poor opinion of virtually everyone’s flying skill except his own.
It’s tight in there: note pilot’s hand visible through windscreen. Wingtip fins were added in an attempt to improve control and stability when hooking on. (USAF)
McDonnell proposed a swathe of changes to improve the ability of the aircraft to engage the trapeze, most significantly a telescopic trapeze structure extending beyond the turbulent air below the carrier aircraft. But it was not to be, Air Force command, under pressure to curtail spending (as usual), cancelled the XF-85 project citing its relatively modest performance and the high level of pilot skill required to reattach the aircraft to its carrier. This was the end for the egg-like Goblin but did not spell the end of USAF interest in other parasite aircraft, as we shall see…
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
8. Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne and White Knight
Whether you like it or not, it is hard to disagree that the SpaceShipOne/White Knight combination is aesthetically ‘striking’. (NASA)
Winner of the $10 million Ansari X prize for for the first non-governmental organisation to launch a reusable crewed spacecraft into space twice within two weeks, SpaceShipOne achieved its design goals in a mere six powered flights. The project was first considered in 1994 and schemed by Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites, the announcement of the Ansari prize the following year adding impetus to its development. However it should be noted that although it did indeed win the $10 million, the whole program cost about $25 million. The project would never have seen the light of day of it weren’t for the support of billionaire and aviation enthusiast Paul Allen who completely funded the project.
Rutan has a history of designing aircraft that feature unusual structures or layouts and the White Knight/SpaceShipOne was no exception. The twin booms, high engine placement, and flattened ‘W’ shape of White Knight are all features epitomising it for its role as a mothership. So far, so strange looking but the real icing on the cake is its crazed forward fuselage design sporting a profusion of small circular windows scattered seemingly at random around its nose. The same forward fuselage design with 16 portholes is shared by both aircraft. The small, thick windows are arranged so as to give a clear view of the horizon in all of the standard flight attitudes and were as large as engineers would allow for the immense pressure differences they would need to handle at the edge of space. This makes perfect sense for SpaceShipOne but why apply the same configuration to White Knight? The answer is twofold, firstly replicating the forward fuselage for both aircraft helped keep costs down. But intriguingly the second reason is that White Knight was designed as a ‘flying simulator’ to act as a training vehicle for SpaceShipOne pilots and be able to mimic the flight characteristics of the spaceplane. The cockpits of the two aircraft are basically identical. Of the tiny windows Doug Shane, the project’s operations director and one of its four test pilots said that “While it’s certainly not the best visibility of any airplane, it’s more than adequateâ€
Not “a half-assed job”. Mike Melvill in SpaceShipOne returns to Earth after its second powered flight.
SpaceShipOne seems to have a more conventional layout than White Knight but it has one particular trick that is not at first apparent in the form of its ability to ‘feather’. This entails the entire rear section of the aircraft swinging upwards, transforming it into an aerodynamically stable shape with very high drag. As such it descends relatively slowly back down to Earth after its short sharp Mach 3 scramble up and out of the atmosphere. Despite the high ground speed, indicated airspeed never exceeds about 270 knots due to the very thin air at the altitudes it travels through – topping out at the Kármán line, internationally regarded as the edge of space, which equates to an altitude of 100 km (or 328000 ft, reflected in SpaceShipOne’s N328KF registration). Perhaps surprisingly, given the nature of most 21st century craft, the spaceplane is manually controlled and there is no autopilot. “If you get in there and do a half-assed job, you’ll go to only 200,000 feet.†said Mike Melvill, one of the other test pilots and the first to take SpaceShipOne to the 100 km design altitude on July 21st 2004.
SpaceShipOne demonstrates its ‘feather’ mode with its pilot, X-Prize winning commercial astronaut Brian Binnie making sure it stays on the ground. (X-Prize photo)
Ultimately SpaceShipOne first achieved its goal and won the prize on October 4th 2004 in the hands of Brian Binnie. further flights were planned but Rutan made the decision not to risk the craft now that it had made history and all future flights were cancelled. SpaceShipOne now resides at the Smithsonian Institute’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. and is currently displayed with the Bell X-1 and Linbergh’s transatlantic Ryan NYP. Meanwhile White Knight was utilised as a carrier aircraft for drop tests of Boeing’s unmanned X-37 spaceplane. In 2014 White Knight flew for the last time, to Everett field and retirement as part of Paul Allen’s Flying Heritage Collection. Since then a developed version designed for six passengers and two crew, the imaginatively named SpaceShipTwo, carried by White Knight Two, has been developed. The first example tragically broke up killing one of its two crew in 2014. A second example is undergoing testing at the time of writing.
We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts hereWhite Knight Two carries SpaceShipTwo aloft. SpaceShipTwo made its first spaceflight in December 2018.
7. Short Mayo Composite: Short S.20 ‘Mercury’ and S.21 ‘Maia’
This view shows the modifications required to transform the Short C-class into the lower half of the composite. The hull was flared outwards to increase buoyancy and engines mounted further away from the fuselage to allow clearance for Mercury’s floats.Imperial Airways were proud of their composite. The cover of the March 1938 issue of the Imperial Airways Gazette shows the first successful separation on February 6th.
Throughout the 1930s, the Atlantic mesmerised airlines. A potentially exceptionally lucrative market, it was known that it could be crossed since 1919, Lindbergh emphatically reinforcing the point in 1927 but it remained tantalising just out of reach, in a practical sense at least, until the very last weeks before war erupted in September 1939. The big problem was that the amount of fuel required to get an aircraft from London to New York for example, was so great that the aircraft could carry no passengers or cargo. In the absence of a suitable aircraft, means were sought to cheat the problem. Imperial Airways spent a great deal of time and effort developing in-flight refuelling (with some success) but also pinned their hopes on parasitism, with this: the Short Mayo Composite.
To be strictly accurate of course, two commercial aircraft had crossed the Atlantic several times with fare-paying passengers aboard in the form of the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg. The latter’s fiery demise rather put people off the prospect of crossing the Atlantic suspended under a massive inflammable gasbag however and emphasis shifted to making the journey in a conventional heavier-than-air machine. Lacking an aircraft with sufficient endurance, Robert Mayo, Imperial Airways’ Technical General Manager proposed a system wherein a small, long-range seaplane on top of a larger carrier aircraft, using the combined power of both to bring the smaller aircraft to operational height, at which time the two aircraft would separate, the carrier aircraft returning to base while the other flew on to its destination. The upper component aircraft was not intended to carry passengers but air mail.
The Mayo composite entered British popular culture to an unprecedented degree. Curiously this Dinky toy version is suffering from the great curse of later British airliners – metal fatigue.
The aircraft that emerged was undeniably spectacular, consisting of a fairly heavily modified Short C-Class ‘Empire’ flying boat named ‘Maia’ and designated S.21, and a totally new design, the Short S.20 named ‘Mercury’, the messenger of the Gods – though its not clear that the Romans had the delivery of air mail in mind for him originally. Maia flew first in July 1937 with Mercury following it into the air a couple of months later. The connecting mechanism was ingenious, allowing for limited movement of both components relative to each other. When release was imminent, the flying trim of Mercury could be checked before the pilots released one lock each. The final lock holding the craft together was automatic, releasing Mercury when it achieved 3000 pounds-force (13 Kn). This meant that Mercury was effectively straining upwards and the effect was that on release Maia would tend to drop away whilst Mercury climbed sharply, minimising any chance of collision. The first separation was achieved in February 1938. This was followed up by the first transatlantic flight on July 21st. After the Composite took off from Southampton, Mercury was released over Shannon in Ireland and continued alone to Boucherville, near Montreal in Canada. This represented the first commercial crossing of the Atlantic by a heavier-than-air aircraft. This was followed up by a record-breaking flight of 6,045 miles (9,728 km) from Dundee in Scotland to Alexander Bay in South Africa, between 6 and 8 October 1938. This remains the longest flight ever achieved by a seaplane.
As an obviously spectacular civil project the Mayo Composite was much photographed. It was a success in that it achieved everything that was expected of it but simpler concepts prevailed.
Ultimately aircraft development caught up with the Mayo composite. Although it achieved its design goal with aplomb, it seemed an excessively complicated way to carry 1000 lbs of mail to America. A year to the day after Mercury’s transatlantic flight the Short S.26 G-Class flying boat flew for the first time. The G-Class had non-stop transatlantic ability effectively rendering the Mayo concept obsolete at a stroke. One month later in August 1939 Imperial Airways began a scheduled transatlantic mail service, utilising a regular C-Class flying boat, refuelled in flight to enable it to make the crossing non-stop. Sadly the outbreak of war prevented the G-Class ever seeing service on its designed route and caused the air-refuelled service to cease less than a month after it began. Maia was destroyed by German bombers in Poole Harbour in May 1941 and Mercury was used by 320 Squadron RAF for a time before being broken up for scrap in August 1941. An ignominious end for a briefly glorious seaplane.
6. Rockwell International Space Shuttle Orbiter and Boeing 747 SCA
Endeavour and Shuttle Carrier over the Mojave desert in 2008 (Nasa photo)
Taking parasitism to a new level, the world’s first flying spaceship needed to be tested before being fired into the cosmos. Furthermore since the very beginnings of the project it was known that the shuttle orbiter would have to be ferried from airbase to airbase. Initially the specification required for conventional air-breathing engines to allow the shuttle to fly under its own power in the atmosphere. Unfortunately this was problematic, the orbiter was roughly the same size as a DC-9 but over twice the weight and much less aerodynamic yet could carry far less fuel. With five engines (as opposed to a DC-9’s two) the maximum ferry range considered possible by a self-propelled orbiter was 500 miles, which was not acceptable. An alternative system was sought and coincidentally Robert Salkeld of the System Development Corporation was making presentations around this time on the subject of air-launched fully-reusable spacecraft during which he would show images of the aforementioned Short Mayo composite as an example of a large two-stage aircraft. Nasa had made thousands of unpowered landings with F-104s, and later the X-15 and the Northrop lifting body aircraft, which demonstrated that repeated, accurate landings from high altitude in fast aircraft with small wings were relatively simple. A series of tests with a Convair 990 and B-52 proved that dead stick landings in large aircraft were not only adequately safe and controllable but arguably easier than conventional approaches: on one occasion a Nasa pilot who had never flown a multi-engine aircraft before successfully landed a B-52 unpowered – when tasked with landing the aircraft in a standard shallow-angle powered approach he was unable to do so.
Shuttle Carrier N905NA, here releasing Space Shuttle Enterprise on a glide test, was originally manufactured for American Airlines. Following a drop in passenger numbers, American Airlines sold them to NASA, hence the distinctive American Airlines’ cheatlines on the fuselage. (Nasa)
And so it was decided that the Shuttle Orbiter would glide to landing. To ferry and test the spacecraft a carrier aircraft would be required, Nasa toyed with the idea of a new build aircraft (John Conroy of ‘Guppy’ fame proposed an enormous twin fuselage monster of an aircraft bearing a distinct resemblance to Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch) but time and budgetary considerations compelled Nasa to seek an off-the-peg solution. Only two contenders were seriously considered, the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy and the Boeing 747. The choice fell on the latter after it was discovered in wind tunnel tests that if the C-5 pilot failed to execute the separation manoeuvre perfectly, the Orbiter would tear the tail off the aircraft. As a T-tailed design that would effectively mean the loss of the airframe (and likely the crew as well) as all the rear control surfaces would be removed. The aerodynamics of the 747 naturally aided separation, and even if the worst happened, the 747’s horizontal tail surfaces would be unaffected and the aircraft was known to remain controllable even with a substantial chunk of vertical tail missing.
First flight of the combined 747 and Orbiter took place in February 1977, with the first in-flight separation taking place six months later. This was Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101), built purely for atmospheric test and never fitted with engines or a functional heat shield. Five free flights were made from the 747 carrier aircraft followed by many, many captive trips. Since the retirement of the shuttle, Nasa’s shuttle carriers found themselves without a purpose – though N905NA was utilised on one occasion to ferry Boeing’s Phantom Ray UCAV from St. Louis, Missouri, to Edwards Airbase. Both are now retired and preserved.
This is Space Shuttle Endeavour and Shuttle Carrier N905NA on approach to Los Angeles LAX after its final spaceflight. N905NA is now preserved at Space Center Houston, Endeavour at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. Imagine this flying over as you drive to work. (Nasa)
5. Leduc 0.10/0.21 and Sud-Est Languedouc/AAS.01
Leduc 0.10 and its Sud-Est Languedoc carrier aircraft as they appear in the excellent 1951 documentary ‘Renaissance de l’aviation Française’. The fact that the Leduc ramjet was a 1930s design is staggering.
After the war the French aviation industry worked incredibly hard in an ultimately successful attempt to drag itself back up to world standard. There was no shortage of crazy French research types throughout the late forties and fifties, now mostly obscure outside of francophone aviation enthusiast circles. One of the most impressive and successful was the Leduc series of ramjet aircraft. Ramjets are fascinating engines, so simple that they contain no moving parts, yet efficient at supersonic speeds up to about Mach 4. Unfortunately they won’t work at all at standstill and produce negligible thrust until about half the speed of sound. Any ramjet powered flying machine is therefore a great contender to be a parasite aircraft and construction of a French ramjet powered aircraft with a top speed of Mach 0.85 (about 650 mph or 1000 km/h) had begun as early as 1937(!). Amazingly the semi-completed ramjet was kept secret at the Breguet factory and escaped the notice of the German occupiers throughout the war. Work resumed on the radical aircraft in 1945.
Cold Air Sheath anyone? This remarkably bad cutaway does (kind of) show the salient points of the Leduc 0.21. If you look very hard you can see the pilot gamely attempting to ignore the horrifically bent nose whilst trying not to question the reasoning behind his nocturnal flight over Paris.
From some angles it was difficult to believe the Leduc was an aircraft at all. This is the interim Leduc 0.21, as depicted in the cutaway above.First flight of the Leduc was from the mighty AAS.01/He 274, seen here with the SNCASO SO.M1 on its pylon. Later flights were made from the less powerful but more practical Languedoc.
First powered flight occurred on 21st April 1949 over Toulouse. On that occasion the mothership was the remarkable AAS.01, this being in actual fact a prototype of a four-engined derivative of the wartime Heinkel He 177, originally designated He 274. Two prototypes of the He 274 were built by Breguet during the war and were ready for flight testing as Allied forces approached. The order was given by the German authorities to destroy the new aircraft to prevent them falling into enemy hands, however this order was carried out in a less than enthused fashion and both prototypes survived with only minor damage. After the war both were completed to flying status and saw extensive service on various research programmes.
Initial flight tests were encouraging, the Leduc 0.10 flew at 420 mph on its first flight and subsequent tests eventually saw it attain Mach 0.85 which was pretty hot stuff for 1949. The two original Leduc 0.10s (a third was built somewhat later) were not the first ramjet powered aircraft to fly, but they were the first manned aircraft wherein a ramjet was the sole means of propulsion. After this proof of concept, Leduc shifted his attention to the Leduc 0.21, essentially similar to its predecessor but scaled up by around 30%, with tip tanks added to the wings. The new aircraft was still air launched and completed a detailed flight test programme from 1953 to 1956 to develop an automated control system for the ramjet. A total of 284 free flights was made during which the 0.21 reached a top speed of Mach 0.95.
Buoyed by the relative success of his ramjets so far Leduc moved on to the next version, the 0.22. The air-launched Leducs were purely research aircraft but the end result was always intended to be an interceptor. This time the aircraft was not a parasite. It was equipped with a regular turbojet and could take off conventionally and accelerate to a speed whereby the ramjet could function. Unfortunately, although designed for Mach 2, the Leduc had not been area-ruled and was subject to so much transonic drag that it was unable to break the sound barrier. This setback could probably have been overcome with a redesign but the Leduc was cancelled as part of a swathe of government cuts to French aviation projects. French hopes were pinned on the Dassault Mirage III instead – probably correctly as it turned out given the immense success of that aircraft. With no state funding Leduc was forced to wind up the aviation side of his business but happily Rene Leduc’s company is still in operation today producing hydraulic equipment.
4. Project Tip Tow, Tom-Tom, and FICON: Republic F-84 and Boeing B-29/Convair B-36
The B-36 and F-84 combination of FICON was ostensibly operational for about a year in the reconnaissance role. Implementation of the system was described as ‘difficult’. (USAF photo)
After the less than stellar experience gleaned with the XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter one might have assumed the USAF would avoid flirting with further unconventional parasite projects but the concept persisted. Attention shifted from the purpose-built tiny aircraft that could be wholly contained within the fuselage of the carrier aircraft to some means of bringing a conventional fighter aircraft along for the ride.
The focus of initial development was on wingtips. German engineer Dr Richard Vogt had come up with the concept of increasing range by connecting two aircraft at the wingtip and experiments in support of this had been conducted in Germany on two light aircraft during the war. Having emigrated to the US under the auspices of Operation Paperclip Vogt’s concept of wingtip towing provoked interest, initially in the concept of a manned light aircraft acting as a fuel tank for the larger aircraft. Experiments began with a C-47 and a Culver PQ-14, the two aircraft were not able to engage or disengage but were attached by a leather strap that was slack for take off and landing allowing the two aircraft to fly in formation. At altitude the strap was winched in by the C-47 until the wingtips abutted.
Culver PQ-14 flown by Clarence E ‘Bud’ Anderson having successfully coupled in-flight with the C-47. Anderson had flown in the same squadron as Chuck Yeager during the war, coincidentally Yeager was the fourth test pilot to couple the PQ-14 during these tests. (USAF)
Meanwhile it was realised that as well as a fuel tank the wingtip towing system might work with an escort fighter that could attach or detach at will. The B-29 and F-84 were selected as the obvious choices for this application but as no studies had been done on the feasibility of the system the USAF returned to the C-47/PQ-14 pairing for further experiment. In the course of tests flown in 1949 it was found that the little Culver could indeed dock and undock from the C-47’s wingtip but that it was not easy at first. Vortices around the wingtip of the larger aircraft were difficult to overcome and once attached the pull on the Culver’s wingtip constantly tried to roll the aircraft over. Test pilot ‘Bud’ Anderson found he could counteract the rolling tendency by using the elevators (somewhat counter-intuitively) but the rolling issue was a harbinger of things to come. Despite early difficulties Anderson found that with practice coupling and uncoupling the aircraft could be achieved relatively easily, even at night. Not everyone had the same experience, of the nine pilots who ultimately flew these tests, two were unable to achieve contact.
Experience garnered from these experiments suggested that a F-84 Thunderjet/B-29 Superfortress combination was potentially practical. Flight test of suitably modified F-84s and B-29 began in 1950 codenamed Project MX-1016 but more commonly known as Tip-Tow. From the outset this was a more difficult prospect than hooking up the little Culver to a C-47. Wingtip vortices were more severe and the wing of the B-29 proved considerably more flexible than the C-47. Nevertheless, hook-ups and disconnections were demonstrated, first with one fighter and then with a pair, the first hookup of both F-84s with the Superfortress occurred on 15th September 1950.
Not as crazy as many 1950s projects, Tip-Tow was demonstrated to work even though it proved to be catastrophically fatal. (USAF photo)
The pilots of the F-84s found that they could shut off their engines and restart in flight and the whole concept appeared to be feasible, subject to overcoming some teething issues. Chief amongst these was that, just like the Culver attached to the C-47, the Thunderjet pilots had to continually control their aircraft in the tow to prevent them rolling over onto the Superfortress. Republic Aircraft developed an automatic control system to prevent this which was in testing by March 1953. On 24 April 1953, the left-hand F-84 hooked up and the automatic system was switched on. The F-84 immediately flipped over onto the wing of the B-29 and both crashed with loss of all five B-29 crew and the F-84 pilot. The pilot of the right-hand F-84 of the bomber was Bud Anderson but he was able to pull up and away from both aircraft. This accident effectively ended Project MX-1016 but it did not quite spell the end for the wingtip attachment concept.
The USAF had expended time, effort and lives but the B-36 was still just as vulnerable as when they had started and a different parasite concept was now proposed. If the large and slow B-36 were vulnerable, why not have not have it carry a small, fast aircraft to the vicinity of the target and have that deliver a tactical nuclear weapon while the big B-36 aircraft loitered safely out of range of any air defences? This concept came to be known as FICON for FIghter-CONveyor. Once again the F-84 was chosen as the parasite, an F-84E was modified with a nose hook and a B-36 was fitted with a trapeze. Initial tests, once again flown by Bud Anderson, proved that the concept was workable but the F-84, most of which stuck out below the carrier plane, was causing too much drag and compromising range capability. The decision was made to switch to the swept-wing F-84F and to get more of the new aircraft to fit into the bomb bay its tailplane was given extreme anhedral. At the nose the aircraft received the all important hook to achieve recovery. It was a tight squeeze – once loaded into the bomb bay of the B-36 there was only 6 inches of ground clearance and the parasite’s external fuel tank (or atomic weapon).
FICON Republic RF-84K in the National Museum of the United States Air Force. The FICON RF-84s served as conventional reconnaissance aircraft for years after the demise of the FICON programme. Note insane amount of anhedral on the tail. (USAF photo)
Although a possible nuclear strike role remained as an option for the combination, the primary role for the aircraft was now seen as strategic reconnaissance. During 1953, whilst the new parasite was being prepared, the original F-84E and B-36 combination flew simulated reconnaissance missions against Air Force Base targets in the US. USAF fighters were only able to intercept the ‘hostile’ aircraft on two out of six missions and it was concluded that the FICON system had a good chance of successfully penetrating the air defence network of the Soviet Union. The success of these missions and the suspicion that the B-52 (which had first flown in 1952) would soon render the system obsolete added an urgency to the programme and developmental flying continued apace. The ubiquitous Bud Anderson flew the first trapeze tests with a swept wing F-84 and Republic built 25 production RF-84Ks specifically for the FICON role. On December 7th 1955Â the first operational hook-ups of B-36 with parasite RF-84K fighters was achieved. Capt. Bobby Mitchell took off in his RF-84K from Larson AFB and rendezvoused with Maj. Clyde Perry’s crew in their GRB-36D bomber. Mitchell flew his Thunderflash onto the trapeze and Lt. O.C. Rutter raised the RF-84K into the bomb bay. Once safely stowed with the bomb bay doors closed up against the fighter’s fuselage, Mitchell climbed out to greet Rutter. After a cup of coffee with the crew, Mitchell climbed back into his fighter, was lowered, restarted his engines and flew off. A couple of hours later, Lt. Walter Rudd became the second parasite pilot to hook up and detach. Before releasing the second fighter, the GRB-36D made a low pass over Larson AFB and Maj. Oscar L. Fitzhenry, the 348th BS operations officer, was quoted as saying, “Results proved to be above and beyond our greatest expectations.” Perhaps. In reality hookups with the carrier aircraft proved challenging for experienced test pilots under ideal conditions. In combat or in adverse weather, by regular service pilots, they proved extremely difficult and several RF-84Ks were damaged attempting the manoeuvre. Operations were maintained for a year or so but the success of both air-refuelled B-52s and the U-2 in the nuclear strike and reconnaissance roles respectively doomed the obsolescent B-36 and FICON was consigned to history.
Not sure who they were selling it to exactly but this glorious Convair FICON advert is pleasingly economical with the truth. ‘The most effective and versatile aerial weapon in history’ Hmmm.
Bizarrely, whilst FICON development was in full swing, it was decided to have a look at wingtip-towing again. One of the FICON B-36s was suitably modified for towing swept wing RF-84Fs using a claw system. As before, wingtip vortices made hooking up difficult and the procedure was just as problematic as ever. Eventually on September 23rd 1956 test pilot Beryl Erickson made contact with the wing tip of the JRB-36F with a small angle of yaw. Immediately, his Thunderflash started to pitch up and down violently. There was no emergency method to sever the connection between the aircraft, so the RF-84F ultimately tore the wingtip clean off the larger aircraft, part of the JRB-36F scissors mechanism remaining firmly clamped in the jaws of the Thunderflash’s claw. No one was hurt but this incident predictably ended Project Tom-Tom flight tests.
Project Tom-Tom utilised a claw method to fulfil the same function as Project Tip-Tow. The results were identical, though mercifully not fatal this time. (Lockheed Martin photo)
3. Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk and USS Macon and Akron
A Sparrowhawk hooks onto USS Macon’s trapeze. The horseshoe shaped object at the left will swing down on its arm to steady the rear fuselage, before the aircraft is pulled up into Macon’s hangar. (USN)
The US Navy stuck with the large rigid airship as a potential instrument of war long after other major powers had abandoned these giants as impractical and dangerous. At least, as the world’s sole major producer of helium, the American airships were an order of magnitude less flammable than their European equivalents. The fantastic endurance possible with a large airship operating in a scouting role was attractive but the vulnerability of such a massive and relatively slow vehicle could not be overlooked. It was schemed that the airship would not directly reconnoitre anything of interest but stand off at a safe distance and despatch conventional aircraft to investigate more closely. Following successful trials with a Vought UO-1 and the Zeppelin-built USS Los Angeles, the trapeze system for launching and recovering aircraft in flight was fitted to the Navy’s two newest dirigibles USS Akron and the slightly later Macon. The aircraft ultimately employed for the task, the Curtiss F9C, was a pre-existing design that Curtiss had developed in response to a requirement for a lightweight carrier fighter. The original requirement was abandoned, though the Curtiss had been adjudged the best of the three designs submitted for test and thus when the new requirement for a similar aircraft for airship use came about, with an emphasis (for obvious reasons) on small size and low weight, the Curtiss fighter fitted the bill more or less off-the-shelf. Or at least up to a point, the F9C was advanced in that it was Curtiss’s first aircraft to feature a metal monocoque fuselage as well as stamped aluminium wing ribs but it was hardly suited for the observation role it was ostensibly tasked with. The pilot had a hell of a lot to keep him occupied, ‘normal’ 1930s reconnaissance aircraft took along a second crewman as an observer and operate the radio but no room for him in the Sparrowhawk. The tiny cockpit had nowhere convenient to put the radio morse key, and where it ended up made its use awkward. There was no room at all for the navigation/scouting board, so it was mounted on the control column. Interestingly the F9C retained its carrier capability, an arrestor hook could be fitted and on at least one occasion the Sparrowhawks flew down from their unique aerial aircraft carrier to land on the conventional nautical aircraft carrier USS Lexington. Ultimately eight would be built including two prototypes. All would see service from the flying aircraft carriers, with brief but considerable success.
The immense size discrepancy between the airship and its fighters is vividly displayed by USS Macon and two of her Sparrowhawks approaching the trapeze. A mere 40 feet shorter than the Hindenburg, Macon and Akron remain the largest flying objects ever built in the USA. (USN)
First of the dirigibles to fly in September 1931 was USS Akron which could carry three of the diminutive parasite Sparrowhawks. As first flown however, neither Akron’s trapeze system nor her aircraft were ready and it would be a full seven months before she could boast her full complement of scouting aircraft and the crew to fly them. By then the necessity for her aircraft had became painfully obvious. In January 1932 Akron failed to find an “enemy” flotilla during an exercise, embarrassingly (though unsurprisingly perhaps) the massive airship was herself spotted by two destroyers within the force she was unable to find. The first F9C hooked on to Akron’s trapeze in May 1932 but she was again aircraft-less when she participated in June’s Pacific fleet exercises. Akron at least managed to sight the ships she was scouting for this time but was immediately intercepted by 13 carrier aircraft. Her commander Charles E Rosendahl gamely stating that it was “perfectly apparent” the Sparrowhawks would have fended off their attackers had they been aboard. Over the next few months launching and recovery operations from Akron’s trapeze were perfected but time was not on their side as Akron was lost in a thunderstorm less than a year later on April 3 1933. Tragically only three men survived from the crew of 84.
The amusing badge sported by the Sparrowhawks of USS Macon delights in its trapeze imagery. Higher command disapproved however and these were removed from the aircraft for their last few months of operations.
Barely a fortnight later USS Macon emerged from her hangar for the first time. Modified with experience gained from the Akron she was a notably more successful ship capable of carrying five Sparrowhawks as opposed to the earlier airship’s three. Over the next two years the Macon and her Sparrowhawks would be kept busy, developing the art of operating from the trapeze and eventually becoming a well-honed and efficient scouting platform. In the course of these operations it was realised that the aircraft did not require their landing gear so it was removed and replaced with an external fuel tank, allowing a 30% increase in range. Her greatest moment occurred in July 1934 when Lieutenant Commander Herbert Wiley, one of the three survivors of the Akron crash, took the Macon on an unauthorised jaunt to show his superiors what she was capable of. Wiley knew that President Franklin Roosevelt was due to be travelling from Panama to Hawaii aboard the heavy cruiser Houston with a second cruiser as escort. With nothing more than newspaper reports to go on, he calculated an intercept course from Moffett Field, California (named incidentally, after Admiral Moffett who had lost his life in the Akron disaster) based on his estimate of the Houston’s course and speed and set off to prove the value of the airship as a strategic scouting platform. At 10am the next day Wiley believed they should be at the correct position to effect an interception and launched two Sparrowhawks. Sure enough, just before noon, the aircraft found the President’s ships.
A blurry image but this is one of relatively few known photos showing a Sparrowhawk after its undercarriage had been removed. (USN)
On board the Houston, confusion reigned as to where these small aircraft had come from as all US carriers were known to be in the Atlantic at that time. Confusion briefly turned to fear as some observers mistook the Sparrowhawk’s belly fuel tank for a bomb. But more knowledgeable heads pointed out the telltale ‘skyhooks’ mounted on the top wings of the mystery aircraft. After returning to the Macon, the Sparrowhawks flew low over the Houston and dropped the latest newspapers from San Fransisco as well as stamps franked with a special Macon cachet – Wiley knew Roosevelt was an avid stamp collector. “The president compliments you and your planes on your fine performance and excellent navigation” radioed the Houston. Navy top brass were less thrilled by Wiley’s failure to reveal the true nature of the trip and the fact that Macon had been out of communication for many hours. Disciplinary action was threatened but ultimately called off, allegedly after the intervention of Roosevelt himself. Buoyed by his success, Wiley was eager for the Fleet manoeuvres set for Spring 1935, training in air operations had been intense and the Macon was now fitted with a radio homing beacon allowing the Sparrowhawks to return to the airship no matter what course they or it followed after launch. This feature made it the first, and to date only, genuinely effective airborne aircraft carrier. It was arguably the finest very-long-range airborne early warning system of the pre-radar age and Wiley was keen to prove his ship’s true worth.
In-flight retrieval of the Sparrowhawks was acknowledged to be difficult. However, no serious mishaps befell any of the eight built while operating from the airships. (USN)
However it wasn’t to be, the Macon had suffered damage in severe turbulence over Texas in April 1934. Temporary repairs had been made but never completed and when she was caught in gusty conditions over the Pacific in February 1935 an ill-defined report of damage in the area where the repairs had not been completed led Wiley to order ballast to be dropped and the engines throttled to idle. Either too much ballast was dropped or the engines were delayed in idling as the Macon shot up above her ‘pressure height’ (the altitude at which the gasbags start to automatically vent helium through emergency valves to prevent from rupturing). She remained above pressure height for a full sixteen minutes, venting helium until the inevitable happened – too much gas was lost to sustain flight and the huge Macon plunged, relatively slowly, but uncontrollably, into the water, taking four Sparrowhawks with her. Lessons had been learned since the loss of the Akron, Macon carried lifejackets and rafts both of which had been absent from Akron, and only two of the 83 men on board lost their lives. Herbert Wiley had now survived the loss of both the US Navy’s most advanced airships. Sadly, there was no longer an appetite to replace such a costly behemoth as the USS Macon and the world’s only flying aircraft carrier was consigned to history.
2. North American X-15 and Boeing NB-52
Less than a second after release, the X-15 drops away from its NB-52 mothership (the ‘N’ stands for NASA). Every photo taken of X-15 operations looks utterly terrifying. (NASA photo)
Most of the US X-planes were parasites and the most exciting of the lot was the X-15. Back in 1947, Chuck Yeager flew the X-1 past the speed of sound and into the history books. Back then Yeager had the luxury of being able to hang out in the relative comfort of the B-29 mothership until they were high enough to begin his flight, then he just had to climb into the X-1, close the door and whizz off into the wild blue yonder. Ten years and 3000 mph later the X-15 was too big to be crammed into a fuselage, even in the cavernous bomb bay of a Stratofortress. The X-15 pilot had to sit in his restrictive pressure suit in the tiny cockpit of the X-15, slung under the wing of the NB-52, from before take off all the way up to release altitude.
When the chase plane is an F-104 chances are whatever it’s chasing is very fast indeed. However, the lack of exterior frost on this particular X-15 belies the fact there’s no fuel on board and that this was an unpowered test. (NASA photo)
The X-15 flights may have taken place over fifty years ago but they are still incredible. In 199 flights over just under ten years it repeatedly exceeded height and speed records and remains the fastest manned aircraft ever flown (Mach 6.7 which equates to 4520 mph (7274 km/h) or a shade over 2 km per second). On two occasions it exceeded the Kármán line, 100 km up, and as such is generally considered to have entered outer space. The NB-52 that launched nearly all these tests was possessed of some interesting superlatives too. NB-52 ‘Balls 8’ was built in 1955 as an RB-52 reconnaissance model and was acquired by NASA in 1959 specifically for X-15 mothership use. Fitted with a pylon between the fuselage and engine pod, Balls 8 was subsequently employed on many other projects, particular highlights being the hypersonic X-43, various lifting bodies such as the X-24 and Pegasus, a rocket capable of taking a payload from the NB-52 to low Earth orbit. Balls 8 was eventually retired on 17 December 2004 (101 years to the day after the Wright Brothers’s first flight) at which point it was the oldest active B-52 in service and the only active B-52 still flying that wasn’t an H model. Somewhat counterintuitively it also had the lowest total airframe time of any operational B-52. It is now on public display at Edwards AFB.
Who’s this cool customer? He made the longest duration X-15 flight ever (12 minutes) but he’s more famous for his adventures in a different vehicle. That’s right: it’s everyone’s favourite purveyor of small leaps and giant steps, Neil Armstrong. I guess the X-15 represented one medium leap for mankind. (NASA)
The X-15 programme was extremely successful and unusually safe considering the extreme nature of the flight regime it was exploring. But there were accidents, one X-15 broke its back on landing, another rolled on landing, leading to crushed vertebrae for its pilot John McKay. Worst of all was Flight 191. Due to the aircraft yawing in the extremely thin air at 266,000 feet (82 km), the X-15 ended up entering denser air at lower altitudes whilst at right angles to its direction of flight. At 230,000 feet the aircraft entered a Mach 5 spin. Despite managing to recover from the spin at 118,000 ft pilot Michael Adams found himself hurtling downwards, upside down, at over four times the speed of sound. It should have been a relatively simple matter for Adams to roll the aircraft back to normal and effect a landing but a fault in the X-15s control system led to the aircraft pitching up and down wildly, pulling 15G with each oscillation. The aircraft disintegrated 10 minutes, 35 seconds after launch, killing Adams.
NB-52 ‘Balls 8’ at altitude before dropping a fully fuelled X-15. Note the white patches on the fuselage where ice has formed on the liquid oxygen tanks. (NASA)
The accident completely changed the attitude of both the Air force and NASA to the X-15 and despite both parties agreeing to finance further tests throughout 1968, only another eight flights would be made. The potential benefits of X-15 flights were no longer considered worth the high cost and considerable risk and the final flight was made by Bill Dana in October 1968. Thus ended the flying career of the most spectacular parasite aircraft in history. Never again would a research aircraft be this thrilling.
1. ‘Звено’ SPB: Polikarpov I-16 and Tupolev TB-3
The TB-3/I-16 Zveno-SPB remains the only manned parasite combination to be used in combat. It was surprisingly successful.
In July 1941 an oil depot in the Romanian town of Constanţa was dive-bombed by Polikarpov I-16s. Not in itself, one would think, a particularly surprising act given that the war on the Russian Front had begun in the previous month. However this particular raid caused considerable confusion amongst the Germans and Romanians who witnessed it. Constanţa was well beyond the range of a Polikarpov I-16, let alone one loaded down with bombs, so where had these fighters come from?
The answer of course was that they had been carried there under the wings of a mothership. They were the parasitic attacking component of the ‘Sostavnoi Pikiruyuschiy Bombardirovschik’Â (‘Combined Dive Bomber’), and were the ultimate expression of a concept called the ‘Zveno’ (‘Link’) or ‘Aviamatka’ (Aerial Mothership). The Zveno was the brainchild of Vladimir Vakhmistrov, engineer and occasional test pilot of the Soviet Air force test institute (the NII VVS). He had worked on the concept for a decade before the beginning of hostilities and now was its time to shine.
The first iteration of Vakhmistrov’s Zveno concept featured a Tupolev TB-1 bomber and two Tupolev I-4 fighters.The method for getting the parasites onto the wing of the TB-1 was simple but effective: shove them up a ramp.
Vakhmistrov had specified four potential applications for his Zveno concept, the delivery of fighters beyond their conventional range, providing bombers with escort fighters all the way to and from the target, the ability to equip fighter-bombers with heavier bombs than they would be able to take off with on their own, and the simple expedient of using the added thrust of parasite aircraft to get a heavily laden bomber into the air. Initial experiments involved a twin engine TB-1 bomber and two I-4 parasol monoplane fighters. The I-4 was normally a biplane but for Zveno use the bottom wing was removed in order to clear the TB-1’s propellors, with apparently no discernible change in performance or handling. First flight of this combination ‘Zveno-1’ occurred 3 December 1931 with the I-4s piloted by A. F. Anisimov and a pre-fame Valery Chkalov, who would later attain something akin to superstardom for his test piloting exploits in the mid-thirties. Vakhmistrov himself directed proceedings from the front turret of the bomber. An error in the sequence of releasing the parasites by the bomber crew resulted in one of the fighters prematurely separating and the other remained firmly locked to the wing. However the TB-1 and attached I-4 remained in controlled flight and the second fighter was soon released without further incident. Later, release control would be handled by the pilots of the parasites, normal procedure being to release the tail lock first so that the aircraft came under the control of the pilot, then pull back on the stick to separate completely from the TB-1.
The world’s first docking between two fixed wing aircraft in flight was accomplished with ‘Zveno-5’, comprising a TB-3 and a Grigorovich I-Z. This procedure has hardly become commonplace however, which is something of a shame.
With the concept proved to be workable, Vakhmistrov set about testing various combinations of aircraft and theorising operational uses for his Zveno. Early experimentation was largely concerned with discerning which aircraft types were best suited to the system and maximising the amount of aircraft that could be connected. A TB-1 with the somewhat more potent Polikarpov I-5 as the parasites flew in 1933 designated Zveno-1a. More radical was Zveno-2 which added a third I-5 over the fuselage, this time to a four engine Tupolev TB-3. As with Zveno-1, the addition of the extra thrust of the added aircraft more than overcame any drag or weight penalties they incurred and performance was actually enhanced over a conventional TB-3. Fitting the I-5s to the wings was a relatively simple affair utilising ramps and muscle power but attaching the central Polikarpov onto its mounting was an order of magnitude more difficult. Rather than going through the rigmarole of getting it into position the I-5 was just locked in place, acting as a fifth engine for the TB-1. Eventually the wings and tail were removed and the Polikarpov fuselage acted solely as an engine nacelle, albeit one with a ‘pilot’ on board to operate the engine controls.
Zveno-3 reversed the overwing approach taken so far and fitted two parasites under the wings of the TB-3, these being Grigorovich I-Z monoplanes. The I-Z was itself an interesting design in its own right, being a fighter fitted with two single-shot 76.2-mm (3 inch) recoilless cannon though these were removed for the Zveno trials. Despite being a monoplane, the fixed undercarriage I-Z possessed extremely limited ground clearance under the wing of the TB-3. This problem led to an unfortunately cumbersome system of operation wherein the wheels of the parasites and TB-3 all rested on the ground – the parasite mounting permitted vertical movement of the two underwing fighters relative to the TB-3 so that they could roll over uneven ground on take off. Once airborne, the parasites were to lock their respective mountings in a fixed position for flight; if the parasites were not rigid in flight, the bomber became extremely difficult to control. This unfortunately led to the only serious accident of the whole Zveno project when I-Z pilot Korotkov incorrectly timed the locking manoeuvre, broke the docking frame and crashed into the underside of the TB-3’s wing. As the bomber came in for an emergency landing with both fighters still attached, the slow landing speed of the TB-3 fell below the stalling speed of the I-Z, which fell away, killing Korotkov.
This accident was in contrast to the general success of the Zvenos so far and Vakhmistrov started looking at the possibility of re-docking the parasites in flight. It was felt that turbulence above the mothership would probably be severe and that a ventral trapeze would be the best approach for attempting the first in-flight attachment. This time the position of the trapeze precluded a conjoined take off so the two aircraft flew to altitude separately. On 23 March 1935, the TB-3 and I-Z performed the world’s first mid-air docking between two fixed wing aircraft to become Zveno-5.
Poor but genuine photo of the six-plane ‘Aviatmaka’, two I-5s, two I-16s, an I-Z and the TB-3 mothership. Although successful there is something faintly crazy about the whole thing. The combination was unofficially nicknamed ‘Vakhmistrov’s Circus’.
Attention had now shifted to an exciting new fighter, the Polikarpov I-16. The world’s first low-wing, retractable undercarriage, cantilever monoplane fighter was somewhat beyond the state-of-the-art in military aircraft design of the early thirties. One feature in particular lent itself to Zveno use: retractable undercarriage. When mounted under the wings of the TB-3 with gear up, the I-16 offered sufficient ground clearance to do away with the unwieldy attachment of the I-Zs. Vakhmistrov set to immediately with Zveno-6 which mounted two I-16s under the wings. Despite the groundwork of Zveno-5, these were not able to reattach in flight but the developed Zveno-6 featured a retractable trapeze under each wing onto which the I-16s could attach or detach at will. The procedure, whilst demonstrated to be possible, was deemed too difficult for service use however.
Final fling of Vakhmistrov’s pre-war experiments was the ‘Aviamatka’ which appeared in public carrying five parasites, the lower component of which could attach or detach at will. Vakhmistrov’s plan was for one TB-3 to be accompanied by eight I-16 parasites as a form of long-range airborne patrol craft. The parasites would never all hook on at once but rotate, attaching or detaching as required. They could also take on fuel from the mothership. Although some tests were carried out in support of this concept, including in flight fuel transfer, the full eight-parasite composite never saw the light of day. The Aviamatka was seen as simply too cumbersome to be effective. Despite this, interest in a simpler twin-parasite I-16 carrier to function as a composite bomber continued, especially from the Navy. Ultimately only six operational Zveno-SPB’s comprising six TB-3s with twelve I-16s were delivered, forming the 2nd ‘Special’ Squadron attached to the 32nd IAP (Fighter Regiment) of the 62nd Aviation Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet. They were stationed in Crimea.
Pictured with two 250 kg bombs, more than double its normal bombload as a conventional fighter-bomber, the diminutive I-16 mated to the TB-3 vindicated the Zveno concept in action. Further development did not arise.
In the opening stages of the Great Patriotic War, the Black Sea Fleet Air Force was tasked with destroying industrial targets in Romania. The most important of these was the King Carol I bridge over the Danube which carried the Ploiești-Constanţa oil pipeline from the oilfield at Ploiești and was critical for the Axis war effort. After several attempts to destroy the heavily defended bridge with conventional bombers, the target was given to the Zveno-SPB squadron though as a combat test, it was decided to attack the oil depot first. On 26th July 1941, two Zveno-SPB aircraft performed a textbook attack on the depot in daylight with no losses. The fighters disconnected 40 km (25 miles) from the target and returned home under their own power. After this convincing demonstration, two raids on the bridge were flown, on the first the parasites successfully dive-bombed from an altitude of 1800 m (5,900 ft) and again returned home with no losses despite heavy anti-aircraft fire. The second raid took place on the 13th August 1941. Three Zveno-SPBs approached the target and the six fighters scored five direct hits on the bridge, completely destroying one of its spans. On the way back, the fighters strafed Romanian infantry and once again suffered no losses.
It is not known how many missions were flown in total but it was probably around 30. As well as severing the oil pipeline, Zveno-SPBs were responsible for destroying a dry dock in ConstanÅ£a and a bridge across the Dnieper. This garnered some attention at high level as Soviet forces in general (and the air force in particular) were on the back foot in the first months following the launch of Operation Barbarossa. The main obstacle to getting more Zvenos into the air was the lack of TB-3s available fitted with the Mikulin AM-34FRN engine, variants with other motors not being sufficiently powerful to carry the bombed up I-16s. Admiral Kuznetsov asked Stalin for additional AM-34FRN-engined TB-3s from the Air Force so they could be converted to Zveno-SPB carriers but the request was denied. Aircraft losses were so great at this early stage of the war that the Air Force needed every conventional aircraft it could lay its hands on. The success of the Zveno-SPBs was acknowledged but it was undeniably a complex system and seen as a luxury the Soviets could ill-afford at this stage in the war. Operations continued into 1942 but by then it was becoming apparent that both the I-16 and especially the lumbering TB-3 were too vulnerable in the face of German numerical and technical air superiority and the briefly effective fighting career of Vakhmistrov’s incredible creation was over.
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
Fairchild AU-23A Armed Pilatus Turbo-Porter 72-3 Janes – Sufficient put into service to not be relevant.
*Pave Coin Beech A36 Bonanza Janes 72-3. Other aircraft included the Piper PE1 Enforcer (turbine Mustang) – Janes 81-2, AU-23 and 24 (above), Cessna O-1, U-17 and O-2 and Cessna A-37.
Commander Nigel David ‘Sharkey’ Ward, DSC, AFC  is a retired British Royal Navy officer who commanded 801 Naval Air Squadron during the Falklands War. We asked him his view on British air operations during the 1982 war in which he fought.Â
If you could have changed one thing about British air operations in the Falklands what would it have been?
“There are two subjects that continue to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
One is the completely disingenuous propaganda campaign conducted by the Royal Air Force immediately after the war which sadly persuaded the gullible British public that they, the RAF alone, had won the air war over the Falklands. The full story of this deception and attempt to rewrite history is told in detail in my new book, soon to be published.
Suffice it to say here that the Sea Harriers of the Fleet Air Arm conducted 1,500 war missions over the Islands. The small detachment of RAF ground attack Harriers in HMS Hermes flew about 150 sorties of which less than half were combat oriented. All the air to air combat kills were achieved by naval aircraft (indeed, it is worthy of note that all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft – and yet they claim they won the air war in Operation Corporate, the Falklands war).
Adding insult to injury, the propaganda campaign glorified the small but extremely expensive part that RAF Vulcan bombers played in the conflict. The real facts are that of the 63 bombs dropped by the Vulcan in three missions against Port Stanley runway, only one bomb was on target and that only damaged the side of the runway which was repaired on the same day. The four other Vulcan missions delivering anti-radar missiles only managed to hit one small radar emitter, that of a radar-controlled anti-aircraft gun on the outskirts of Port Stanley. These seven missions had no material effect whatsoever on the course of the Falklands conflict. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking.
The suggestion that the Nimrod aircraft played any effective part at all in or near the combat zone is also facetious propaganda.
The second ‘bad taste’ is an in-house naval affair.
HMS invincible had been formally given the responsibility of Anti-Air Warfare Control (AAWC) ship which principally meant having full and direct control over all Sea Harrier assets, including those in HMS Hermes, for Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duties on the outer ring of Task Force air defence. The AAWC established three permanent CAP Stations to the South-West, the West and the North-West of the San Carlos beachhead. Invincible’s instructions to the Sea Harrier air groups onboard each carrier were very clear. Each station had to be manned by a pair of Sea Harriers who would have to conduct their patrol at low level, thereby providing an up-threat barrier against incoming Argentine attack aircraft. HMS Hermes, the flagship, had 50% more Sea Harriers than Invincible and these were needed to ensure a complete and secure barrier against incoming threat aircraft.
What happened? Without informing Invincible, the Flagship ignored the AAWC and instructed their Sea Harrier CAP aircraft to station themselves directly above San Carlos Water at 20,000 feet.
This provided no deterrence at all to attacking aircraft. Low-level CAP Stations were left empty and through these empty stations came the enemy fighter bombers and delivered their attacks against beachhead units and forces. As a direct result, several warships were attacked and disabled or sunk: including HMS Ardent and HMS Coventry. After releasing their weapons and as they left the beachhead area, more than a few Argentine aircraft were destroyed by the overhead CAP aircraft – but it was “after the horse had bolted†and at the unnecessary cost of many brave lives and several ships. The loss of HMS Sheffield in the open ocean was also a direct result of the Flagship re-tasking CAP aircraft from the air defence barrier to search for surface contacts, again without any ‘by your leave’ to Invincible. An Étendard aircraft penetrated the empty CAP station and delivered its deadly Exocet attack.
Despite all this Flagship interference, 801 Squadron low-level CAP aircraft managed to turn away more than 450 Argentine attack missions. Without this success, the war could well have been lost.” What was the biggest mistake of the Royal Navy?
“Bearing in mind that this round of Hush-Kit interviews relates to Operation Corporate and retaking the Falkland Islands, I find this question rather odd and misleading.
When Argentina invaded South Georgia and the Falklands, the firm response (to Maggie Thatcher in the hastily convened War Room) from the Chief of the Air Staff and the Chief of the General Staff was that the Air Force and the Army were powerless to intervene. The then Defence Secretary, John Nott, who was a rabid critic of maritime power (about which he knew nothing) immediately tried to prevent the Prime Minister from listening to the Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Henry Leach. Nott was overruled and Sir Henry informed Mrs Thatcher, “Yes, Prime Minister. I can assemble a Task Force forthwith and retake the Falklands.†Delighted, she told Sir Henry to make it so.
That was how Operation Corporate was born.
Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief Fleet was appointed Task Force Commander and Royal Marine Major-General Jeremy Moore was appointed Land Forces Commander. He in turn appointed Brigadier-General Julian Thompson as Amphibious Brigade Commander. Sir John Fieldhouse appointed Rear-Admiral Sandy Woodward, then Flag Officer Mediterranean, as Commander Carrier Battle Group and Commodore Mike Clapp as Commander Amphibious Group. The Naval Service therefore provided all the Commanders of the Task Force elements (the Royal Marines, of course, being part of that Naval Service). By their own admission, the RAF could not provide any combat aircraft in support of the Task Force.
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
In four short days, the Naval Task Force was gathered, provisioned, armed and the Carrier Battle Group with 20 Sea Harriers embarked in HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible set sail for the South Atlantic amidst huge patriotic fervour. Two days before sailing, Air Vice Marshal “Blue Rinse†Menaul appeared on public television and stated categorically that the Task Force would fail ‘because it had no fighter air defence capability’! How wrong he was!
In relation to the Falklands War, the Royal Navy made no big mistake. They and the Amphibious Brigade land forces contrived and achieved a remarkable victory against all odds. The only major failure was that of the Royal Air Force who, despite their earlier outrageous claims to Ministers, were unable to provide the Task Force with any air defence or antisubmarine capability en route to the conflict or during combat operations. They have not yet been held accountable for this abysmal failure.
My new book attempts to rectify this.”
What is the greatest myth about air combat in the Falklands?
“Without banging the drum too much, the greatest myth about air combat in the Falklands is that generated by the RAF propaganda campaign post the conflict. They proclaimed loudly and strongly to the British public that the Royal Air Force had won the air war over the Islands and, thanks to the extraordinary silence of the Naval Staff, they were allowed to get away with it.
They managed to convince the British public through disingenuous inference and innuendo that the fighter combat that took place over the Islands was at the hands of the RAF. The very existence of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm and Carrier air power was neither mentioned nor alluded to. And yet, clearly, it was carrier-borne Sea Harrier fighter aircraft and Royal Navy surface warships which won the day.
This was a disgraceful attempt to rewrite history and, because it was believed by gullible ministers and civil servants, resulted in a severe and misguided decline in investment in true maritime/Fleet power that may well come to haunt us in the near future. China’s claims over the South China Sea, through which much of our trade passes, will soon reach critical mass. We and our allies need to be able to contain China’s territorial aggrandizement. If we do not wish to become embroiled in a fighting war, we and our allies need to be able to deter this emerging military giant.
Our other interviews with Sharkey Ward are here and here
Deterrence through visible strength is the key to maintaining an acceptable peace.
And so the media, the Secretary of State, the House of Commons Defence Committee and our politicians should now be asking the question:
‘Following the investment of hundreds of billions of pounds sterling in land-based combat aircraft and supporting units over the past four decades, what can the RAF do in the South China Sea to deter the power grab by China?’
One or two Typhoon fighters supported by a £1 billion Voyager tanker flying out of Singapore on short range missions cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered an effective 24/7 show of force. Only well-armed fleets at sea can deter or effectively counter this sinister Chinese initiative.”
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
Â
Â
This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here.Â
Ekranoplans are among the most extraordinary machines ever built. The Soviet KM remained the largest aircraft in the world during the entirety of its existence. It was 20 metres longer than a Boeing 747, weighed over a million pounds and flew faster than a Spitfire just above the surface of water. Ever when Ekranoplans or ‘wing-in ground-effect’ vehicles are not warlike giants they are unique. Here’s an explanation of how they work, and perhaps why the big breakthrough has not yet happened.
By Jim Smith What is an Ekranoplan? Well, Ekranoplan is the Russian term for a class of air vehicle otherwise known as a Wing-in-Ground-Effect craft, or WIGE.
The best-known example of an Ekranoplan is the Caspian Sea Monster, otherwise more properly known as the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau KM, a very large WIGE weighing 240 tonnes empty, and up to 500 tonnes at maximum weight. The KM could cruise at up to 230 knots and was designed to operate at about 10 m above the surface of the water. The envisaged role was as a high-speed, high-payload, troop or equipment carrier, flying below radar detection over the sea.
So, let’s unpack Wing-in-Ground-Effect craft, to explain their operating principles, and from there, discuss their potential applications, and some of the issues that may affect their operation.
Wing Lift and Downwash
A conventional lifting wing can be thought of as generating lift through circulation about the wing, the circulation being shed at the wing tips as trailing vortices. These are the familiar vortices, often seen behind manoeuvring aircraft, but also visible as part-span vortices trailing from flaps, because of the change in circulation at the end of the flap. The circulation is generated as a result of the shape of the aerofoil, its camber and its angle to the airflow.
If we want to consider a simple representation of a lifting wing, we can represent this as a ‘bound’ vortex, lying across the span, with trailing vortices at the wing tips (this is called a lifting-line representation by aerodynamicists). In a steady flow, this representation will result in additional local air speed above the wing, and reduced speed below, and the pressure difference between the two surfaces of the wing will generate lift. Considering this model a little more, we can see that a lifting wing will generate an upwash ahead of the leading edge and outside the wing tips, and a downwash behind the wing, and between the trailing vortices.
This is a simplified representation is valid for low-speed flows without considering air viscosity. However, despite this, the model works surprisingly well, in describing the flow about a lifting wing.
Incidentally, the upwash outside the wing tips is why migrating geese travel in large V-shaped formations – each bird is exploiting the upwash outside the wing tip of the neighbouring bird ahead of it, reducing the energy it needs for flight. Ground Effect
Pilots and their passengers are familiar with ground effect as a cushioning influence felt as the aircraft flares for touchdown. From a flow perspective, the ground or sea surface acts like a mirror. As the aircraft approaches the ground, the flow around it is changed because the downwash generated by the aircraft is modified.
Mathematically, this can be represented by introducing a mirror image of the aircraft into the flow, with the ground surface acting as the mirror. The equal and opposite influence of the mirror image aircraft increases as the physical aircraft and its virtual mirror image near the ground. The aircraft experiences greater lift, and less drag than in its usual free-air flying conditions.
This results in the ‘float’ experienced by the pilot as the aircraft nears the ground. Normally, at least for light aircraft pilots, this is not a problem, and generally increases the pilot and passengers satisfaction with the flight. But if you have a large wing-span, like a sailplane or a U-2, ground effect can be a real issue – hence the need for spoilers, brake chutes and so on.
For civil transports, float is not good either, as it increases field length required, and can be particularly dangerous in wet conditions. A very gentle touchdown for an airliner will not only have used more runway than necessary, it can, in wet conditions, cause the aircraft to aquaplane, reducing braking action and dramatically increasing landing distance. Hence the desirable airliner landing is actually ‘firm’, and will be followed by the use of spoilers, lift dumpers and reverse thrust, all of which reduce landing distance and the likelihood of aquaplaning in wet conditions..
Wing in Ground Effect Craft
Flying in ground effect seems to me a bit like slipstreaming a truck going uphill in my kombi. You get a boost from the aerodynamics of the truck, or from flying within a wingspan of the surface. The reduction in drag (and increase in lift for a WIGE craft) is real, and beneficial. Less power is required to lift a given load, or to get up the hill at the speed of the truck, and, for an Ekranoplan or WIGE, you can travel far faster than any boat.
But the geometry is a constraint. I don’t really recommend slipstreaming trucks in the kombi, because great awareness is required, and the penalty for mistakes could be severe. For WIGE, the beneficial effects taper off to near zero at about one wingspan above the surface. At this low altitude, the scope for manoeuvre is limited, because any significant roll angle may bring the ‘down’ wing tip too close to the surface. Similarly, the ability to climb to greater than a wingspan above the surface may be helpful in avoiding surface obstructions, in manoeuvring, or in passing over coastal features, but will come at the expense of requiring additional power.
What does this mean for WIGE design? At present, practical WIGE seem to fall into two distinct categories – relatively small people movers and absolute behemoths.
The smaller craft typically have capacity from 2 to a dozen or so people. The larger end of this group is represented by the Sea Wolf Express, proposed for use as a Baltic Ferry, while craft such as the RFB X-114 represent the sporting and utility end of the market.
The most successful Ekranoplan is the 125 tonne A-90 Orlyonok, but this has itself been dwarfed by the Caspian Sea Monster, and would have been further dwarfed by the Boeing Pelican Ultra concept, which was for a ground effect aircraft with 500 ft wingspan and a payload of 1270 tonne. The Pelican was supposed to take-off and land from the ground, but cruise over the sea most of the time. Contrasting attitudes to WIGE Craft
One of the most interesting aspects of Ekranoplans or WIGE, is that there is some uncertainty about whether they are boats that fly, or flying-boats operating only at low altitude. The conceptual difference may appear trivial, but it seems to lead to substantial differences of view about their attraction or utility.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has identified three classes of Ekranoplans, which apply for craft carrying 12 or more passengers, based on the heights at which the craft can operate.
These are defined as follows: Type A: capable only of operating within Ground-Effect i.e. no more than 1 wingspan above the surface; Type B: temporarily capable of flying out of ground effect, but at no more than 150m above the surface; Type C: capable of flying out of ground effect, at heights above 150m.
If we consider these vehicles to be ‘craft’ rather than ‘aircraft’, we can see some attractions. For example, a vehicle like the Sea Wolf Express could make a very impressive fast passenger ferry, as is envisaged for that craft, operating between Estonia and Finland.
A smaller version with perhaps two-seats, could be great fun as a sort of ‘flying jet-ski’ for whizzing about over rivers, lakes and calm seas.
And, if you are in the invasion or urgent freight business, the Russian Ekranoplans or Boeing Pelican, with payloads in the hundreds of tonnes and speeds above 200 knots look pretty impressive.
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
Potential Issues
So, what are the drawbacks? Why are sporting WIGE, fast ferries and Ekranoplan freighters not everywhere?
If we look at each of these potential uses in turn, we can see some potential issues. For all of these craft, the ability to become airborne will require quite a lot of power, mainly to overcome water drag up to the point where the craft can reach planning speed across the surface.
This implies, for the sporting end of the market, significantly increased cost compared to a jet-ski. In addition, thinking about the alternative uses of sporting boats, it is not going to be possible to either fish, or tow water-skiers, behind a flying craft. Great for a runabout, or for what the Australians would call ‘hooning about’, but potentially an expensive alternative to either a jet-ski or a speedboat.
Operating economics are going to be the key driver for the fast ferry application, as well as safety and environmental considerations. One key problem faced by many operators of such craft is that, generally, the waterborne small fast ferries cannot carry cars, and this is likely also to be true for Sea Wolf Express class WIGE. As a result, operations are generally limited to passenger carriage, such as the routes operated in Sydney Harbour, along the Brisbane River or the Thames in London. Combinations of factors, such as bridges, tides and noise constraints, are likely to limit the practical applications of WIGE ferries around cities. This is not to say that short, high volume passenger services, linking destinations with good public transport at each end, such as proposed across the Baltic, would not be viable. But it is to suggest that this might be rather a niche market.
What about the behemoths? Well, the Russian giants have certainly demonstrated that such vehicles can be built and flown, and provide evidence that the carriage of a large payload is going to require huge dimensions and plenty of engine power. The Boeing Pelican Ultra concept is an interesting case study – although only a concept, the eventual design was huge, with 500ft wingspan, and a payload well in excess of 1000 tonnes. So, it can be done – why is this not happening? Well, largely because the commercial freight business is insanely competitive. Costs are pared to the minimum, and great attention is paid to operating economics. If, for example, you are shipping cars to the US in volume, it makes no sense to look at anything other than a ship (or building the cars in the US in the first place). The degree of urgency that would require such freight to arrive in a couple of days simply is not there. Far better and cheaper, to use either a container ship for general freight, or a specific type of vessel for more specialist needs.
Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
Who has the ability to ignore these commercial realities? Well, the military, who might have a need for rapidly, and relatively covertly, landing tanks, troops, vehicles and artillery on the beach of some neighbouring country. Hence the proposed applications of the giant Ekranoplans are exclusively military. An additional factor seems to be that for these craft size does matter, and, in general, the bigger things are, and the more engines they need, the more they cost, not only to develop, but to acquire and operate.
The other common issue that will undoubtedly require some thought is the licensing of operators. The IMO approach is all very well, but, if the intent of flying out of ground effect (Class B and C) is to fly over bridges, vessels, potentially isthmuses and small islands, then the operation is moving into a zone where aircraft operating requirements may come into play. Ekranoplans as Aircraft
What happens if you look at Ekranoplans and WIGE, not as watercraft, but as a new class of flying-boat? A couple of big issues immediately become apparent.
Firstly, if even a small WIGE is going to require a pilot’s license for its operation, and all the reporting and maintenance procedures that come with aviation, then the costs of either commercial or private operation are going to increase markedly.
And secondly, the existing airborne alternatives are immediately going to come to mind. One only has to consider aviation in Alaska to identify the large market for small utility aircraft operating as floatplanes. At the small to medium size level of operation, there is certainly a valid question as to whether a Cessna 206 or 208, or a Twin Otter class floatplane, might not be a better bet, particularly where something of the nature of a Cessna Grand Caravan on floats could be used, giving the flexibility of either land or water-based operation. All at a higher cost than a conventional ferry, of course, but fast and flexible.
Indeed, at this scale, it is difficult to regard the WIGE as anything other than an inefficient flying-boat, with small wing size that constrains operations to very low level, and increases the power needed to get airborne, and hence acquisition cost.
There is currently no military equivalent to the Ekranoplan ‘deliver the landing force to the beach’ capability except, perhaps for the large hovercraft used in small numbers by some Nations. But the utility of using 747 and similar freighters for delivering urgent air freight has become all too apparent in recent weeks as PPE and other equipment is moved, largely from China, to the rest of the world. And it is hard to look past the fleets of military freight aircraft as a capability for moving urgent military supplies to wherever the operational need demands.
So, reluctantly, I am forced to the view that the current Ekranoplan and WIGE systems are niche capabilities, looking for a viable market. I’d love to have a go in a small 2-person flying jet-ski, especially if no special operating license is required. But even given that desire, I am not sure I could get sufficient utility out of such a device to justify buying one.
The Sea Wolf Express Baltic fast ferry venture is an exciting opportunity, and there may well be other routes where similar ventures would be attractive, such as Vancouver to Victoria BC, or even Southampton to the Isle of Wight.
However, any operator is going to look hard at the alternatives – conventional vessel, hydrofoil, hovercraft or aircraft.
Anyone fancy building an Ekranoplan ferry for the ride across to Tasmania from Melbourne?
Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
Robert ‘Ludvigovich’ Bartini was an aristocratic Italian aircraft designer. The Italian Communist Party sent him to the USSR following the Fascist take-over of Italy. It was the intention of the ICP that he would bring modern Italian know-how to the Soviet aviation industry to aid its fight against fascism.
Being an aircraft designer was an extremely dangerous occupation in Stalin’s terror state, being a foreign aircraft designer even more perilous. In 1938 Bartini began an eight year prison sentence. Despite spending the Great Patriotic War imprisoned, he still did a huge amount of design work, notably on the Tu-2 bomber.
Bartini also proposed the A-57, a long-range strategic bomber that could land on water and refuel by submarine.
He became one of the most important Soviet aircraft designers, and survived to design the exceptionally unusual VVA-14, designed to counter the threat of Polaris missile submarines. This was a wing-in-ground-effect vehicle, a type of aircraft which sits on the recirculated air that forms beneath wings at extremely low altitudes. Capable of taking off from land or water, the vehicle could fly far faster than any boat at ultra low-level while carry large loads. It could also fly at higher altitudes as a true aeroplane.
In collaboration with the Beriev Design Bureau, Bartini planned to develop the prototype VVA-14 in three phases. The initial M1 was to be an aerodynamics and technology testbed. The M2 would have a battery of 12 Rybinsk RD-36-lift engines to give full VTOL capability, and was to be fitted with one of the world’s first fly-by-wire flight control systems. The M3 would integrate weapons (including depth charges, torpedos and anti-shipping missiles), the Burevestnik computerised anti-submarine warfare (ASW) system and the huge Bor-1 magnetic anomaly detector (MAD).
Bartini died in 1974 and with him the momentum that drove the project. Like all Ekranoplans, being neither fish nor fowl no one quite knew what to do it with it and the the VVA-14 never entered service.
8. THK-13 Flying Wing Glider ‘Turkish Spirit’
Not outright weird but definitely an unorthodox design for its time. From an unexpected country with little or no background in aircraft production, the THK-13 flying-wing glider deserves to be on this list.
Met with harsh criticism for its looks, the THK-13 glider was a product of Turk Hava Kurumu (THK – Turkish Air Association), the aviation bureau of the young Turkish Republic. THK was established in 1925, only two years after the foundation of the republic itself. THK quickly set up a production facility and trained a core engineering team. It created several aircraft and glider programmes from the THK-1 to the THK-16. Of these, the THK-5 twin engine light transport and THK-15 two-seat trainer were the most successful.
The THK-13 design work was started in 1943 by senior engineer Yavuz Kansu. The prototype made its maiden flight on 26 August 1948 in Ankara, and was towed into the air by a Focke-Wulf Fw 44. During take-off, the towing cable ripped off and the glider went out of control, resulting in an emergency landing in a nearby field. The pilot, Kadri Kavukcu, survived without a scratch — and the prototype was quickly repaired in the field. Several hours later, it made another ‘first flight’, again towed by the Fw 44. This time landing safely back at the THK airfield.
Upon the news of the crash, local media jumped on the opportunity to blame THK for designing such a ‘weird’ aeroplane, speculating that such an unlikely looking machine was sure to fail. The project was shelved until the next year. A flight on 29 September 1949 ended in a more severe crash, seriously wounding the pilot and sealing the fate on this extraordinary glider.
7. Mississippi State University XV-11 MARVEL ‘The Marvel Superfan’
Looking like it flew straight through a wind tunnel taking the fan with it, the first all-composite aircraft was the Mississippi State University XV-11 MARVEL. MARVEL is a backronym standing for ‘Mississippi Aerophysics Research Vehicle with Extended Latitude’. The aircraft was build to continue research for the military into boundary layer control, an effort that had been ongoing since the 1950s.Accordingly, the MARVEL employed a blower driven by the engine to draw suction through more than one million tiny holes in the wings and fuselage.The aircraft also spurned conventional flaps in favour of wing warping to deflect the wing trailing edges. So far, so weird, but the good people of the Department of Astrophysics and Aerospace Engineering at the Mississippi State University weren’t stopping there and addeda ‘Pantobase’ or ‘rollerboot’ undercarriagewith tandem wheels fitted within two sprung wooden pontoons which were intended to allow operations from rough surfaces or water.
The ducted pusher propeller returned with little success in the Edgely Optica and RFB Fantrainer.Â
The technologies of the XV-11 were first tested on the Mississippi State University XAZ-1 Marvelette of 1962
6. Tumonecotrans Bella 1, Russia (1994) ‘The Swamp Monster’
Our initial efforts revealed that Google video searches for ‘Trans Bella’, while distracting, are not helpful for researching rare Russian aircraft. What was useful however, was an ancient Russian website looking for investors in an utterly bizarre form of transportation.
The story starts in the Soviet Union in 1989. Alexander Filimonov wanted to build an aircraft that could operate from the Arctic regions, Siberia and the far east of Russia without airfields. According to the aforementioned (and extremely quaint) website “70% of aircraft maintenance costs in this region relate to airfields”.
On the other hand there are numerous natural flat airstrips in the form of lakes, rivers, marshes and fields. But even a rugged seaplane will struggle with marshes, and a helicopter or aeroplane needs special adaption (and a brave pilot) to operate from very thick snow or long grass. As the company’s website notes, “For example, the well-known Russian An-2 aircraft has three changeable takeoff and landing devices: wheel, ski and hydrofloat. The first two require runways.”
So how could an aircraft deliver cargo or people to such austere locations? Filimonov believed the answer was to combine the advantages of a ‘wing-in-ground’ effect ekranoplan with a conventional aeroplane. The result is a strange hybrid, with a horizontal ducted helicopter-like fan, a hovercraft-like ‘skirted donut’ – and pusher engines and wings. Here was a machine that could make very short take-off from extreme terrain, and do it in terrible weather conditions. Funding was never found for this extremely unusual project.
Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.
5. Vought V-173/VF5U ‘Zimmers Skimmer’Â
The handsome Vought XF5U
In the 1930s, Charles H. Zimmerman advocated the ‘discoidal’ aircraft with its pancake-shaped fuselage acting as a lifting surface. Zimmerman had worked on NACA’s (later renamed NASA) early wind tunnels. Influenced by the circular designs of Cloyd Snoder, and the less ridiculously named Steven Nemeth and Richard Johnson, he took this concept a step further. He wanted to produce a circular VTOL aircraft capable of flights at unbeatable speeds and altitudes, and able to hover like a helicopter. This proved overly ambitious with contemporary technology, but earned Zimmerman a prestigious NACA award.
Zimmerman believed that discoidal aircraft could be capable of near vertical take-off and landings. They also promised excellent manoeuvrability, high speed and great structural strength.
The concept, nicknamed the ‘Zimmer Skimmer’, was radical and unlikely-Â so Zimmerman set about demonstrating its veracity with a series of prototypes for both himself and the Vought company. The V-173 flew in 1942. Soon local residents were reporting UFOs, or they would have if the term existed (‘UFO’ was coined in 1953 by USAF). Nazi sympathiser and general douche Charles Lindbergh flew the type and found it handled extremely well, especially at low speed. Initial problems were centred more around the propulsion system, which used a complex geared system to route power to the propellers from the engine than the novel aerodynamic configuration.
Â
One propulsion failure led to a dramatic emergency landing on a beach. As the aircraft landed the pilot spotted two utterly bewildered bathers in the aircraft’s path. Full braking effect was applied, resulting in the aircraft somersaulting over on itself. Thanks to the aircraft’s immense strength both the pilot and aircraft emerged unscathed.
Before the V-173 had flown, Zimmerman was working on its weaponised successor, the the Vought XF5U ‘Flying Flapjack’ for the US Navy. Fast, agile, well armed (six 50 cals or four 20mm cannon) and with a tiny take-off run the aircraft was a tantalising prospect as a carrier fighter. The geared propulsion system again proved troublesome, as did repeated operation of piston-engines and very large propellers at very high angles of attack. Development dragged on, and the war ended.
After it was destroyed and sent to the scrapheap someone remembered that the gearbox contained $6000 ($71,713 in 2020 dollars) worth of silver. Staff and security personnel scoured the scrapheap but failed to find the missing silver. Eventually the local scrap dealer who had hauled the wreckage away was caught by the FBI trying to sell the silver. But as Vought had made the mistake, it was found that the dealer’s actions were completely legal. The dealer kept the silver, and Vought was forced to pay back the Navy.
The German AS-6 V-1 was a wartime effort by Arthur Sack. It is likely that Sack was influenced by the worker of Zimmerman.
4. Antonov An-14SH ‘Clodhopper’
The West believes the world should adapt to support its aeroplanes, whereas the Soviet Union believed the aeroplane should adapt to function in the world as it is.
The Antonov An-14 was a small tough short take-off and landing transport. It was intended to replace the hugely popular An-2 biplane, the only problem being that the An-2 was still doing its job very well and didn’t need replacing. Antonov gave up after only 332 units – which is small potatoes compared to the 18,000-plus An-2s. Perhaps as a punishment for lack of success, Antonov used the unlucky type for multiple experimental purposes. On January 22 1983, one aircraft took the sky with the indignity of a hovercraft undercarriage. This would have allowed the An-14Sh to have taken off or landed from any flat (or almost flat) surface from rivers to bumpy fields.  The huge drag and reduction in range and payload were unacceptable and the project did not carry only beyond the prototype stage though the idea may have influenced the later Bella 1.
Â
3. Piaggio P.180 Avanti ‘The Buzzing Carp’ (1986)
Â
If you’re a multimillionaire and you want a new private jet, you have many obvious if slightly unadventurous choices. Textron, Dassault, Bombardier, Gulfstream or Beechcraft will be happy to sell you a sleek, safe and refined jet that will perfectly fit any brief. If you’re feeling a bit quirky, you might even take a look at Pilatus and their PC-12, or maybe the stiletto-inspired HondaJet.
But if you’re not just a run of the mill multimillionaire, you’ll want a jet which will stand out on the apron when you fly into Samedan for a spot of snow polo. In that case, there’s only really one choice. The wonderfully weird Piaggio Avanti P.180.
Piaggio also used pusher propellers on P.166 which made an appearance in the 1960 film Plein Soleil
Ok, from some angles it’s a bit carp-like, but most of the time the Avanti gives off strong Thunderbirds-meets-Flight of the Navigator vibes. The fact that the turboprop engine and its propellers point backwards, the third, anhedral lifting surface at the front, the wing shaped fuselage, the T-tail and massive delta fin strakes, the scimitar shaped blades in the latest EVO version… it all adds up to something a child of the 60s would have imagined we’d all be flying around in today. Jeff Tracy would have definitely flown in an Avanti to get to and from Tracy Island.
P.7
Perhaps it’s not surprising that the Avanti is so different, because Piaggio has a history of making decisions against the grain. First, there was the P.2, an aerodynamically clean monocoque, low wing monoplane which flew in 1923, when most other manufacturers were busy bracing the wings of their biplanes with wires. But Piaggio’s place in the heritage of weird planes is assured by the P.7, an amphibian racer built to compete in the famous 1929 Schneider Cup Race, which forced designers and manufacturers to make ever more low drag designs and liquid-cooled engines, inspiring the Spitfire and the P-51 Mustang.
The P.7 had a streamlined and stunningly beautiful look, and to avoid the drag and weight of floats, it used hydrofoils to take off from the water. To make it “work”, the Italians came up with a very convoluted take-off procedure. To reach the speeds needed to attain lift on the hydrofoils, the P.7 had a water propeller at the back as well as an airscrew up front. Once the hydrofoils lifted the aircraft out of the water, a clutch would be engaged and switch the power to the front. It was an utterly mad idea and it never got airborne, but without that adventurous heritage which inspired the Avanti, the world of private aviation would be a lot more boring.
Wobbling drunkenly into this house party of weirdos, our next guest is a two- place, triple-jet, circular wing, VTOL concept demonstrator with a special take on aerodynamics. A secretive joint undertaking of the Canadian government, Avro Canada, the US Army and the USAF from the late 1950s the Avrocar was a mid- century effort to embrace a scientific principle called the Coanda effect. This is the Bernoulli-like business of deliberately bending a jet of air flowing over a curve to generate controllable lift. In other words, the Avrocar is the silver, convex-bodied aerospace equivalent of Theremin music.
Bench testing and wind tunnel findings aimed at further harnessing Coanda theory remained inconclusive in the mid-1950s after some interest in the 1930s and 1940s. Everything from flying jeeps mounting recoilless rifles to big supersonic NORAD interceptors were briefly envisioned using this handy principle and a circular wing.
This being that gilded era of fabulous prototypes money was available to be thrown at a Coanda-based project, though not the CF-105 Arrow, apparently! The result does look pretty cool to our jaded 2020 eyes, a throwback to shiny, imagined futures long given up on. Unhappily, the gyroscopes of the day couldn’t regulate the Avrocar’s tendency to pitch and roll without constant pilot input. A t-tail and other modifications designed to further refine and direct airflow lent only minor improvements to controllability. Wheels were added in place of fixed circular moon lander style feet because the Avrocar couldn’t transition safely out of ground effect. It was only nominally safe in untethered flight at all and right away those two lovely plastic bubble canopies were replaced on the first example with racing car style roll bars at the cockpits. Luckily, the domes remained on the example sent to NASA’s Ames Research Center in California and which you can see at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
The Coanda effect was never harnessed well enough here to eliminate the dinner plate hanging from a string effect visible in film footage of the Avrocar taken outside Avro’s plant in Malton, Ontario. Helicopters, STOL aircraft, hovercraft and motor vehicles were already doing more than the Avrocar ever would. Perhaps some day composite materials and digital flight controls will combine to unweird the circular ducted flow wing and truly unleash the Coanda? We can only hope.
We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here
– Stephen Caulfield
British Rail Flying Saucer (1970)
British Rail, the much missed national rail service, couldn’t make a decent sandwich – but that didn’t stop them flirting with interplanetary nuclear fusion powered flying saucers. Simply squirt liquid fuel beneath the aircraft, ignite it with a series of lasers, create a nuclear fusion explosion and contain the highly radioactive explosion within a magnetic field. Then you can take 22 people to the moon (probably sustained on terrible sandwiches squeezed from toothbrush tubes). Unsurprisingly this radical patent was seen as a being rather too ambitious, but who knows, perhaps one day science will catch up with the imagination of Charles Osmond Frederick, a 1970s locomotive engineer.
“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. Here’s the book link .
I can do it with your help.
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.
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. Here’s the link to pre-order your copy.
By Bing Chandler. Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer and current Wildcat Air Safety Officer. If you want a British Pacific Fleet roundel sticker he can now fix you up.The Cold War is generally considered to have lasted from 1947 with the declaration of the Truman Doctrine, to support free peoples resisting subjugation, to 1991 and the end of the Soviet Union. Initially it didn’t appear a promising time for carrier aviation, nuclear bombs were the future of warfare and at that time the only aircraft that could carry them were strategic bombers. These would not fit on a ship, although the USN had some ‘interesting’ ideas involving P2V Neptunes and one-way missions. With the invasion of South Korea by the North in June of 1950 conventional forces experienced a sudden re-interest, Mutually Assured Destruction sort of working by preventing the two super-powers annihilating the planet. Carriers and their aircraft would go on to see action in most of the events in Billy Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire.
This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.
This Top 10 concentrates on combat aircraft in a vague attempt to keep to an actual ten for once, hence the absence of aircraft like the S-3 Viking, Gannet, and Vigilante. In an attempt to address obvious criticism just outside the 10, and in no particular order, were the Corsair II – which only stayed in production a few years longer than the A-4 which it was supposed to replace; the Super Étendard – couldn’t do anything a Sea Harrier couldn’t and needed a catapult to get airborne; Grumman Panther – did get the first carrier jet-on-jet kill, but barely had the performance of a Sea Hawk despite getting the more powerful Tay derivative of the Nene jet engine.10. Hawker Sea Fury
Arriving just too late to see combat in WW2 the Sea Fury represents the final evolution of piston-engine fighters alongside the Bearcat and the Sea Hornet. All three of which have broadly similar performance and weaponry. Unlike the latter two however, the Sea Fury saw combat from the deck of a carrier.
Taking over from the Seafire FR47s onboard Triumph (not on this list because they were so damaged by carrier landings that the squadron AEO would only allow them to fly under wartime regulations, grounding them once the ship left Korean waters) the Sea Furies of HMS Thesus were the first to conduct patrols over the Korean Peninsula in 1950. These would be maintained by aircraft from Ocean, Glory and the RAN’s Sydney for the rest of the conflict.
Perhaps most famous for 802 NAS’ Sub-Lt ‘Smoo’ Ellis shooting down a MiG-15 on 9 Aug there was also at least one other probable MiG kill by Lt ‘Toby’ Davis also of 802 NAS the following day. As well as their air-to-air ability the Sea Fury could carry two 1000lb bombs or a collection of 60lb rockets. The former soon becoming the weapon of choice when it was realised the Fury’s bubble canopy gave the pilot an advantage in the dive-bombing role compared to the Firefly. These were used to great effect conducting close-air-support for Commonwealth troops and strikes on enemy and tactical positions. The pilots could also direct naval gunfire support, a task not without its problems such as asking a ship to correct its fire by nine miles, or the USS Missouri almost shooting the spotter down. [1]
After it was discovered that wing spars were being damaged catapulting them with bombs attached it was decided aircraft would be launched using RATOG. Between aircraft trickling off the front end of the ship after they failed to ignite and entering a vertical climb because the trim was set incorrectly it’s a wonder anyone ever got around to actually engaging the enemy! But they did with both Ocean and Glory achieving a record 123 sorties in a day between their Fury and Firefly squadrons, at least one Fury pilot conducting five sorties in a day.
As well as the Royal Navy the Sea Fury also operated from the carriers of the Australian, Canadian, and Dutch navies. Fast, well-armed, and with only a fair chance of flipping upside if the throttle is slammed open at low speed, the Sea Fury was the ultimate piston carrier fighter.
[1] Alan Leahy. Sea Fury From the Cockpit. Ringshall: Ad Hoc Publications, 2010. 68-69
9. Douglas A-1 Skyraider  ” …the greatest workhorse the Navy ever had. It was loved and trusted by those who flew it. A pilot who trusts his plane is a bold pilot. And bold pilots really do the job. “  Adm. Tom Connolly
Another design that entered service too late for the war for which it was intended the Douglas Skyraider was a single seat piston-engined aircraft that shot down MiGs. There the similarity with the Sea Fury more or less ends as the A-1 was designed as a dive/torpedo bomber rather than a fighter. Intended to replace the Avenger and the Dauntless the XBT2D-1 Destroyer II first flew in March of 1945, by April the USN had placed an order for 548 and thankfully changed the name to the AD-1 Skyraider. Part of the success was due to Ed Heinemann’s design team’s emphasis on weight reduction and simplicity inspired by an information bulletin that showed for each 100lbs of weight saved take-off would be reduced by 8’, combat radius increased 22 miles, and rate of climb increased by 18’ per minute. In total the team saved 1800lbs enabling the Skyraider to carry 8000lbs of weaponry, in something of a worrying trend for the USN this included plans for one way trips with a nuclear weapon.
Thanks to its promise and relatively low-cost orders for the AD-1 were not cut back at the end of the Second World War and the first squadron was formed in December 1946. With the invasion of South Korea Skyraiders from Valley Forge were soon in action conducting ground attack and minelaying operations. The following year VA-195 and VC-35 onboard the Princeton were called upon to make an attack on the Hwacheon Dam. Despite little training in the use of torpedoes the necessary modifications were made to the aircraft to allow them to carry the weapons including disabling the airbrakes. On 1 May, in what to date was the last aerial torpedo attack on a surface target, eight Skyraiders attacked the dam successfully disabling the control gates and preventing Communist forces from controlling water levels.
Remaining in service until 1968 AD-1s were also active in Vietnam, where as well as attack, close air support, and rescue missions they shot down two MiG-17s. The Skyraider’s only other naval user was the Royal Navy who operated it in the AEW role.
Remarkably long lived for an aircraft that was designed at the dawn of the jet age the Skyraider is probably unique in being the only aircraft to have been developed into single, two, three, and four seat combat variants.
8. Hawker Sea HawkÂ
The Sea Hawk started as a private venture by Hawkers under the lead of Sydney Camm, also responsible for the Sea Fury. The initial concept being to replace the later’s Centaurus engine with a Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet. After what, it must be assumed, was a lot of development work the P.1040 emerged as a tapered wing jet with the intakes and bifurcated exhaust based in the wing roots. Despite a lack of interest (this is disputed by some) from the Admiralty and the Air Ministry Hawkers produced three prototypes, the first flying in September of 1947 (again there is some debate on the prototypes’ chronology). Following successful carrier trials, the Royal Navy ordered 151 with the first front line squadron, 806 NAS forming in 1953. Ironically after all that effort, Hawkers only built the first 35 Sea Hawk Mk1 before turning over their Kingston factory to producing its ultimate evolution the Hunter. Development and production were transferred to their subsidiary Armstrong Whitworth who went on to produce over 500 in 6 principle marks adding bombing and ground attack capabilities to the basic day fighter’s 4 x 20mm cannons.
Arguably one of the most beautiful aircraft to take to the sky the Sea Hawk served with 13 front-line RN squadrons. In 1956 seven of these took part in the Suez conflict, with little air opposition they conducted bombing, strafing, and close air support missions. During one of these their strafing was accurate enough that the paratroopers they were supporting felt confident enough to advance while it was taking place. [2] Only two Sea Hawks were lost during the action, both pilots surviving, while a number of other aircraft recovered even with severe damage.
By the end of 1960, the Sea Hawk had left front line service with the Royal Navy having also conducted operations in Aden from Bulwark in 1958. At the same time, it was entering service with what would be its final operator the Indian Navy. Operating from the Majestic class carrier INS Vikrant the Sea Hawks of 300 INAS, the White Tigers, took part in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War which led to East Pakistan gaining its independence, becoming Bangladesh. Despite catapult problems the 18 aircraft of 300 INAS ranged across Bangladesh attacking air bases, ammunition dumps, and troop positions. Battle damage was repaired on board and all the aircraft remained serviceable during the ten days of operations.[3] Although formally leaving service in 1978 a Sea Hawk met the first three Sea Harriers for the Indian Navy over the Arabian Sea in 1983.
Also operational with the Royal Netherlands Navy until 1961 the Sea Hawk’s viceless handling, excellent visibility, and rugged construction make it one of the standout aircraft of the early cold war.
[2] Brian Cull. Wings Over Suez. London: Grub Street, 1996. 302[3] Michael Doust. Sea Hawk From the Cockpit. Ringshall: Ad Hoc Publications, 2007. 60-61
7. Grumman F-14 Tomcat
To some the F-14 is the ultimate naval fighter, and they might not be wrong. However, in terms of the Cold War it doesn’t quite make the top ranks. Entering service in 1972 with VF-124 the F-14A inherited the TF30 engines from the F-111. These were less than ideal for a fighter, rapid throttle movements, especially pulling the throttle to idle, could cause the engine to stall. Like in that film you’ll have seen, where due to the wide spacing of the engines a flat spin developed due to the asymmetric thrust. There were similar issues operating above 30,000’ which forced crews to operate lower than ideal reducing range and endurance.
All these problems were solved, the range greatly increased, and take-off performance improved by the introduction of the F110 engine in the F-14B. These only started to enter service in 1987 though, four years before the end of the Cold War. By that point at least 24 Tomcats had been lost due to engine issues, around 28% of all losses. For variety one had also managed to shoot itself down with a Sparrow missile…
Despite this the F-14A did manage to cover the withdrawal from Saigon on its maiden cruise, engaged two Libyan Su-22 in the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident, and engaged two Libyan MiG-23s in the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident. Which at least shows a degree of consistency on the part of the USN and the Libyan Air Force. They also covered the Invasion of Grenada and intercepted the Egypt Air 737 carrying the hijackers of the MS Achille Lauro, appearing alongside the aircraft at night while an EA-6B jammed radio communications. Oh and one shot down a USAF RF-4C during an exercise, which is taking inter-service rivalry a bit far.
The F-14A was the Cold War Tomcat, it wasn’t perfect, and the pilots flew the engines as much as they flew the aircraft, but it was still a capable fleet defender.
6. Douglas A-4 SkyhawkÂ
Following on from the success of the Skyraider Ed Heinemann and his team produced a proposal for its successor. The USN specified an aircraft of no more than 30,000lbs to meet their range criteria for carrying a 2000-lb ‘special’ (in that way that a nuclear bomb is ‘special’) weapon. Laughing in the face of such limitations the Douglas design was half the weight while still meeting the requirements. The ‘special’ weapon leading to the characteristic stalky undercarriage. One of the weight saving measures was restricting the wingspan to 27’ enabling them to fit down carrier lifts without folding, removing the need for hydraulic actuators and allowing 2000 litres of fuel to be carried in each wing.
With the first operational squadron forming in 1956 two years later the Skyhawk was in action over the Lebanon. This and subsequent action in South East Asia led to improvements to the A-4s conventional weapons capabilities which expanded to carry a wide range of unguided and guided weaponry. At the same time max payload increased from 5,500lbs in the A-4A to 9195lbs in the A-4M.
Although the USN retired the A-4 from front line service in 1976 they were still operating from US carriers until October of 1999 in the training role. The Royal Australian Navy operated them from 1967 embarking on HMAS Melbourne until it was retired in the early ‘80s, the A-4G being wired for Sidewinders to provide an air defence capability. This was something the USN had also done for operations from its smaller ASW Carriers. The Comando de la Aviación Naval Argentina received 16 A-4Cs in 1971, later replaced with A-4Qs, to operate from the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, previously HNLMS Karel Doorman, previously HMS Venerable. However, due to issues with her catapult the majority of the Skyhawks missions were flown from shore, perhaps not surprising when using a third-hand carrier.
The Skyhawk was a classic of Cold War naval aviation, proving its capability and perhaps uniquely for this list a new operator took it to sea almost a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Brazilian Navy taking delivery of 23 ex-Kuwaiti Air Force A-4KUs in 1998 and by 2001 these were operating from the carrier Minas Gerais.
5. Grumman A-6 IntruderÂ
Following the Buccaneer into frontline service by around 18 months the first operational Intruder squadron VA-75 formed in November of 1963. The requirements that led to the Intruder were similar if slightly less ambitious than the British bombers, a two-man crew, radius of action of 300nm for close air support and 1000nm for long range interdiction, with a speed of 500knots. [4] Unlike the Buccaneer the Intruder also had a STOL requirement for USMC use during amphibious assaults, this led to the engine exhaust being deflected by 23° although ultimately this only featured on the first seven examples. It was however used during the types first flight the exhausts remaining vectored downwards throughout. After initial trials showed that the fuselage mounted airbrakes caused excessive turbulence over the tail plane when deployed they were moved to the wingtips giving the aircraft a distinctive appearance in the approach configuration. In a novel move to increase lift almost the entire trailing edge was used as flap with roll control being achieved through use of spoilers on the upper wing surface.
By 1965 VA-75 – The Sunday Punchers, were at war, using the advanced all-weather systems in the A-6 to strike targets at night, previously the North Vietnamese forces ally. Unfortunately, the systems were a bit too advanced and initially the aircraft suffered a 35% reliability rate. Improvements came with new radars and updates to the attack system known as DIANE. At the same time the USN undertook an effort to update all its mapping of North Vietnam, some of which was several miles out, to make sure the targets were where the Intruders’ systems thought they were.
The A-6 underwent a number of upgrades ultimately evolving into the A-6E with a sensor turret housing an infra-red camera and laser designator which were integrated with the avionics systems. After Vietnam, the Intruder took part in raids on Lebanon, Libya, Iranian shipping during the tanker wars, and as something of a swan song took part in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
Interview with Sea Harrier war hero Sharkey Ward here
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
In April 1982 both front line squadrons would be deployed to the South Atlantic as part of the British Task Force to retake the Falklands Islands from Argentina. In total 28 sea harriers would be deployed, the final 8 with the reformed 809 NAS which joined the carriers in the South Atlantic allowing some of the pilots to tick off their first air-to-air refuelling and deck landing sorties. There were further trials involved in deploying the aircraft with development radars being used to get sufficient operational Sea Harriers. Despite this, and predictions that the complete force would be wiped out in a matter of days, the Sea Harrier became the first fighter to achieve 20 air-to-air kills for no losses. All without using vectored thrust in forward flight, or VIFF, despite the insistence of multiple internet pundits. [Ref]
This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.
Post war the aircraft received a number of upgrades, including the ability to carry four Sidewinders and integration of the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile which had been interrupted by the conflict. Further upgrades would lead to the F/A.2 with AMRAAM capability, but these didn’t enter service until 1993. The Cold War Sea Harrier would however remain in service with the Indian Navy’s 300 INAS until 2016 operating from another Falklands veteran the ex-HMS Hermes, INS Viraat.
Although smaller, slower, and less well armed than the aircraft it replaced the Sea Harrier showed the world that there was an alternative to the American route of ever larger super-carriers in conditions where even they would have trouble operating.
[Ref] This is the sort of thing that will feature in a Top 10 of FAA Myths just as soon as I finish it.
McDonnell Douglas Phantom II
In July 1959 the Royal Navy formed its first Sea Vixen squadron, an all-weather two-seat twin-engined carrier fighter that could just about break the sound barrier downhill. Rather un-sportingly 18 months later the USN formed its first F-4 Phantom squadron which could go twice as fast, carrying twice as many air-to-air missiles, while also hauling a selection of air-to-ground weaponry. It’s as if the Admiralty and British industry had had a total lack of imagination, although requiring the Sea Vixen to be able to conduct a free (catapult-less) take-off from the deck suggests they may have been smoking something.
First flying in 1958, the same year as the Buccaneer, the Phantom used boundary layer control almost as much as the British aircraft*. Both aircraft also featured ailerons that drooped compensating for relatively small flaps in the take-off and landing configuration.
Originally designed as an all-weather fleet defence interceptor the Phantom was seemingly capable of almost any role, being able to carry 16,000lbs of pretty much anything in the US or NATO inventory. In the case of the RF-4B it also carried out photoreconnaissance for the USMC from afloat and ashore. It was one of the first carrier aircraft to have an automatic landing capability, first trialled on 12 converted F-4Bs. They had been fitted with a system allowing them to be controlled by AWACs or surface ships to conduct interceptions, resulting in a change of designation to F-4G (a decade before the USAF F-4G). By using a retractable radar reflector in front of the nose gear the aircraft carrier could use the system to control the aircraft on approach to the deck. Although the interception capability never saw widespread use the deck landing capability was retrofitted to standard F-4Bs.
Like the Intruder the Phantom saw its combat debut in Vietnam where it operated in the fighter and bomber roles. Unlike the Intruder it would also see service with the Royal Navy in a modified form, the J79 turbojets being replaced with Spey turbofans. Famously despite increasing the available thrust this reduced the top speed by around 0.2 Mach due to the drag from the larger intakes. They did however make the UK’s Phantoms the fastest accelerating up to around 400knots. They were also briefly considered for the USN as the F-4L for operations off the smaller Essex class carriers. However, a lack of commonality with the other US models and the potential threat to the Nimitz-class programme ended the idea.
The Phantom remained in frontline service with the USN until 18 October 1986 when the type made its last carrier landing almost exactly 25 years after the first front-line squadron became carrier qualified. This period was the peak of the Cold War and throughout the F-4 proved a carrier aircraft could equal the best of any Air Force, if only because most of them ended up buying it.
If you enjoyed this the pre-order the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a large beautiful coffee-table book. This book will happen when we hit our funding target, we are currently at 55%. The more you order the quicker you get your books.
*The only difference being an unblown tailplane. The resulting increased size being needed so full elevator authority would be available while operating at high Mach when the shift in centre-of-pressure increases the aircraft’s stability.Â
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. Here’s the book link . 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. Here’s the link to pre-order your copy
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
Bizarre moments in aviation history.
Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.
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. Here’s the book link . Â
The most beautiful machines in sporting history were the unforgiving brutes designed to win the Schneider Cup for seaplane racing. Dangerous, glamorous and with international pride at stake, the racers were fire-breathing monsters operating at the absolute limits of what was technologically possible. In the ten years from 1921, the Schneider record speed doubled, from 205mph to 470mph. The final figure of 470mph was also a staggering ten times faster than the first race winner of 1913.Â
The world of racing seaplanes is a very limited one so when I was asked to put together a piece about the top 10, the first thing I did was bend the rules and include flying boats. Even so, this really only leaves Schneider Trophy (more properly ‘Schneider Cup’) contestants, with an oddball excursion thrown in for variety. First held in 1913, Schneider’s intent for his eponymous trophy was that it should encourage the development of reliable, safe, waterborne aircraft. This being seen as a more practical proposition in those early days of sparsely distributed random muddy airstrips for land-borne planes. The First World War arrived a year later immediately rendered the concept anachronistic, with surviving members of the air forces emerging from those dark days educated with all they needed for setting up a more formal land based aviation network, equipped by an industry that had developed from inspired geniuses and lunatics into fully mature and generally competent businesses. However, the Schneider Trophy carried on, and it developed into an arena for government funded racers. It was finally won in perpetuity by Great Britain in 1931. The selection of aircraft for this list could have simply been made based on the number of wins and increase in performance over previous winners, but where’s the fun in that? Instead I have made my selection based on historical significance, success, flair and aesthetics.
10. Savoia S21Â
This is a fictional aircraft but please bear with me. Porco Rosso is a film from that doyen of anime, Studio Ghibli, and although an animated fairytale of sorts it is multi-layered and well regarded by those who know about this sort of thing. The plot is based around 1930s ‘air pirates’ in a pseudo-Mediterranean setting with some of the aircraft being clearly based on Schneider Trophy competitors (in particular those of the two main protagonists). There are fictional aspects to suit the storyline but, even so, the aircraft maintain a close visual relationship to the source material. Porco Rosso’s S21 is obviously inspired by the Macchi M33 of 1924 and arch villain Donald Curtis flies a Curtiss R2C-2. As the hero’s mount it has to be the ‘S21’ that gets the vote for inclusion here. This film introduces this extremely appealing subject to a wider audience in a colourful and entertaining way. It’s clear that whoever drew these has a real love of the aircraft and as such it cannot help but encourage interest in this period of aviation history, and the Schneider Trophy in particular. If I’ve learnt anything about anime fans it’s that they can be a tad obsessive, so you can guarantee a fair number will dig deeper into what lies behind the designs. It’s the education of a wider public – almost through subterfuge – that earns this aircraft a place on the list and, if nothing else, it’s the best porcine aviation based animation you may never have seen!
9. Macchi M.39
America had shown the old countries the way with regard to what was required to win the Schneider Trophy in its later years, with the CR-3 in 1923. In 1926, the USA was on the cusp of winning it forever. The Italians retorted by showed how they had learned from the American success with the Macchi M.39. As the Curtiss had set the model for success before it, the M.39 refined this further and introduced the basic aircraft configuration that would be followed by all subsequent winners. Castoldi had studied the entrants in 1925 and applied what he’d learned to his new design, concentrating on attention to detail around the streamlining and packaging. The other aspect embraced was government backing; Il Duce’s regime funding it and creating the Reparto Alta Velocita (High Speed Unit) as the team to uphold Italy’s honour. The M.39, with its Fiat AS2 engine, was the first to hold the fuel in the floats and crystallised the classic late 20’s design (albeit as an all-wood construction)
The key features were a faired in cockpit with minimal height screen, low monoplane wing, surface radiators and minimal external bracing. There were problems at the start with the aircraft being difficult to handle, both on the water and in the air, but the initial development programme at least got these to a point where they were manageable. There were also problems with the inlet duct causing a reduction in engine power, something that would reoccur with a number of later aircraft as the limits of testing and knowledge were pushed further. In this case it was solved whilst out in America for the race where the M.39 was finally able to show its class and grab the win, vanquishing the biplane as victor to the history books forever.
8. Piaggio Pegna PC7
The Piaggio Pegna PC7 manages to clamber so far up the list simply by being so inherently audacious and, given it was such an ambitious design, having come so close to flying. Pegna had been creating various wild schemes for some time and in 1928 his persistence was rewarded with a contract from the Italian government for two examples of the PC7. Sadly there were too many novelties and too little time to develop them, but the PC7 wasn’t simply a madcap scheme. The overall driver for the design stems from the use of hydroplanes instead of floats or a conventional hull, an approach which required with numerous additional, and very complex, features. Pegna had been actively researching hydroplanes during the First World War and returned to them as a way of reducing weight and drag. The problem of creating a ‘vane design’ that would work well when on the water and in flight occupied quite a bit of time. There was also the matter of how you deal with the low lying propeller at the front. This was solved by installing a clutched variable pitch water propeller in the back and a clutched drive to the main prop up front. The latter also had a cunning device to ensure that when stopped it would always be with the propeller blades across the aircraft (the position shown in the photograph above).
All of which allowed for a slim, low-sitting, fuselage-hull without wing tip floats. The nose was extraordinarily long and the pilot located pilot well back toward the fin. Both PC7s were completed but an inherent instability during take-off, and the passing of the race itself, meant they never actually flew. Instead they simply became beautiful, visionary, and utterly glorious cul-de-sacs.
7. Gloster Napier VI
The Gloster Napier VI only came about because of the decision to change the Schneider Trophy into a biennial event after 1927. At the time, Gloster were shaping up to develop their series of good but not quite good enough biplane racers a little further. Meanwhile, the aero-engine manufacturer Napier were reconciled to the Lion engine finally being outclassed. However, an additional year of preparatory time was enough to spur both airframe and engine designers to greater ambition. The result was VI with its supercharged version of the W-12 engine. Two aircraft were built and, with their gold painted fuselages, the type soon became known as the ‘Golden Arrow.’ If nothing else the looks promised much. Even by Schneider Trophy standards, the new type had a small fuselage and highly polished finish. In fact many still view this as the most handsome aircraft ever to be built in pursuit of the trophy. The slim wings (with their hint of the elliptical) had a ‘kick up’ at the root to provide an aerodynamically efficient junction with the fuselage revealing the extreme care with which the type was designed. The supercharger, designed under contract by British Thomson-Houston, was fed by three carburettors which in turn were fed by air from three separate intakes. It is here that the key to the VI’s failure lay: the engines could not be made to run consistently under race conditions, a problem generally attributed to the related inlet ducting. The tendency to cut out during high speed turns was especially dangerous in the racing environment. The Gloster VI may never have competed because of this, but N249 momentarily snatched glory in 1929 when it set the world speed record at 336.3mph. Sadly for Gloster, the Supermarine S6 topped this a mere two days later, but at least it had earned its brief place in the sun – and validated Henry Folland’s masterly, but flawed, design.
6. Supermarine Sea Lion II
Supermarine first entered the Schneider Trophy in 1919 with the Sea Lion and, truth be told, it hadn’t gone at all well. They returned with the Sea Lion II in 1922 and this time they were far more successful, taking the win in Naples. Sea Lions I and II are related but its not quite so simple as one being a development of the other.
Supermarine had built and supplied three aircraft to the government in support of a bid to supply single-seat fighter flying boats during World War I. After the cessation of hostilities they bought them back, possibly with a view to selling them onto wealthy individuals for ‘sports’ flying. What two of them actually ended up being used for was forming the basis for the racers, the small single-seat hull being an ideal starting point. The Sea Lion II had the more convoluted evolution of the two, passing through an intermediate phase before emerging as the aircraft that would finally race. New wings and a new tail got it match fit, while swapping the engine for a development of the Napier Lion W-12 didn’t do any harm for its chances of success either. Whereas the Sea Lion looks a little ‘square rigged‘ to our eyes the Sea Lion II at least has the streamlined nose the modern eye expects. The latter aircraft makes it onto the list for one very special reason though, and that is by it being the last flying boat to win the trophy. There were flying boats that came later and flew faster but this was the last time an integral hull was proven as giving the best solution to building a waterborne racing aircraft. As such it is arguably both the last and the ultimate of its kind.
5. 1913 Deperdussin
The first Schneider Trophy was held in 1913 and the Deperdussin earns its place in the top 10 by being the first winner. However, the reason for inclusion does go a little deeper.
The intent of the race was to promote the reliability of seaplanes and flying boats, thereby improving the breed. This is why, right up to the end, competing aircraft still had to carry out sea worthiness and taxiing trials. It was never simply an outright speed contest. Deperdussin entered a number of slightly different aircraft in the inaugural competition although only one made it to the start line. With a wood ply monocoque forward fuselage to which were attached just the single set of wings, this was an aircraft far removed from the Wright Flyer of only a decade before. Up against a Morane-Saulnier and a couple of Nieuports, the surviving Deperdussin came in first due to various problems befalling the other competitors. 1914 saw a near doubling of the winning speed and a similar level of attrition before the clouds of war halted flying for sport (other than blood) in Europe for the following four years. By the time the contest resumed in 1919, the sustained – desperate – military funded development of aviation had brought a relatively high level of reliability with it.
The game had changed, and manufacturers were compromising a little too much for teh sake of outright speed, and the initial objective for the Schneider Trophy had been undeniably diluted. The Deperdussin and 1914’s Sopwith Tabloid stand then as the only winners that had to be designed as a complete package, to struggle to be superlative across the complete range of disciplines originally demanded by Jacques Schneider.
4. Supermarine S5
Italy well and truly established the way forward in 1926, and R. J. Mitchell, who would later create the Spitfire, responded with the audaciously sleek S5, designed for the 1927 Schneider Trophy contest in Venice. The gentle waters of Venice would reverberate to the fire-breathing majesty of the fastest and most beautiful machines in existence.
Conforming to the new norm for success, this was a design both supported by the government and benefiting from extensive testing in government funded institutions. In addition the RAF formed its own High Speed Flight to provide the team that would enter on Britain’s behalf. The S5 though took the principle of reducing drag to obsessive levels of detail. The radiators were of the surface-type mounted on the wings and the fuel was held in one of the floats, removing the need to find room for it in the fuselage. The oil was also cooled by surface radiators but this time mounted on the fuselage sides. Although this basic architecture had been a feature of the M.39, Mitchell saw beyond that design and realised it unlocked a potential for dropping the cross sectional area to minuscule proportions. Napier helped by cleaning up the Lion, and Mitchell packaged it so tightly that the cam covers formed the external surfaces of the aircraft. The fuselage behind this was tiny, the pilot only being able to get into it by half turning until his shoulders were below the cockpit edge. The overall result was that the S5 had a clear advantage over its opponents even before the propellers turned. The S5 seemed to fly well with no particular indication of vices but despite this Flight Lieutenant Kinkead lost his life while attempting to set a speed record in 1928. The S5 succeeded in 1927 and was so good that two years later it only lost second place to Italy’s M.52R by a trifling two mph.
Up to 1923 the development of racing water-borne aircraft had followed a process that veered between seaplanes and flying boats, but which was still a recognisably evolutionary path (excepting the leap forward in technology that came with WWI). The Curtiss CR-3 that won in 1923 indicated a step change from this and became the pattern for how people went about winning the Schneider Trophy from then until the competition’s conclusion in 1931. It is apparent from photos of the CR-3, when compared with its peers and predecessors, that it was a very clean design, reduced to what at the time must have seemed to be the smallest overall package. The others are obviously racing aircraft in that they are small with a large engine but this has the look of every aspect having been reviewed and pared down individually. The major mechanical components were similarly optimised in support of this. The engine, Curtiss’ own D-12, was superlative. Later, even Italy went on to source examples to power its own racers, and the Reed patent metal propeller also became the default fitment for serious contenders. It was the perfect storm to be faced by its fellow competitors.
The other key change the CR-3 brought with it was less obvious but equally important, it was ordered by the U.S. Navy to enter into the contest. This was now essentially a government backed endeavour and from here on a private venture would no longer have the money or resources to win the competition alone. It could be argued that up to this point companies had entered to promote themselves and also, perhaps, to fly the flag for their country. Now it was a straightforward matter of national prestige with all the hopes and pressures that brought with it.
2. Macchi-Castoldi M.C.72
Although conceived to contest the 1931 Schneider Trophy, the M.C.72 ruled itself out by being too late however it did go on to set an outright speed record that stood for five years. The journey to success wasn’t easy though, with Fiat’s A.S.6 24 cylinder engine being the main culprit. The A.S.6 is one of those pieces of engineering that seems half inspired and half insane: take two highly strung V12 race engines and bolt them back to back, having one drive one element of a contra-rotating prop and the other drive the second, with no direct link between the separate throttles for each half of the combined engine. Surprisingly, all this wasn’t the main source of the problem but rather it was the inlet tract, all the way from the carburettor inlets to the cylinder ports. The way the problem generally manifested itself was through backfires and these caused a number of failures which included the splitting of the supercharger casing. Ultimately this caused the deaths of two pilots, Monti and Bellini, and led to the M.C.72 being a no-show at the 1931 event. A protracted development programme, aided by advice on fuel mixtures by Britain’s Rod Banks, eventually brought just enough reliability to allow record attempts to be made. An ultimate speed of 440.68mph was set in 1933, only being bettered in 1939 (by a German landplane), and it’s still the case that no piston-engined seaplane has travelled faster. The proportions dictated by the long engine made it a magnificent looking aircraft. It may have failed in its original aim but the M.C.72 is a worthy runner -up.
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here
1. Supermarine S6 Series
R.J. Mitchell realised that the S5, along with the Napier Lion, would not be competitive in the race of ’29. The replacement S6 was late to the starting gate, being delivered on August 5th with the competition starting on September 6th. This was partly down to prevarication by the government and RAF, something that would also blight the 1931 attempt, but mainly it was the difficulty in getting the new Rolls Royce R type engine to run reliably. Despite this, it stormed to victory in a 1929. When the S6 followed this with a second win in 1931 Britain got to keep the Trophy forever.
In a further flourish of glory, it achieved an ultimate speed record of 407.5 mph shortly thereafter. Admittedly there were no other competitors in 1931 – but before the race it was decided that a minimum increase in speed had to be met for a win. This was never simply a case of turning up and claiming the prize. There’s also the minor matter that when you enter a race you need to ensure you’re there at the start, having something faster later rather misses the point. Two wins, numerous records and a speed increase of 80mph over its short life are reason enough for the S6 to claim the top spot, but take a moment to look at it as well. There is a lean beauty that comes with the pursuit of aerodynamic cleanliness, the aeronautical equivalent of high cheekbones and in this case it’s perfectly accentuated by the blue and silver paint scheme. The legacy is rather important too, lessons from the S6 and R were applied to the Spitfire and Merlin. Simply sublime on all counts.
By Actuarius
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
Who? English aircraft designer, William Edward Willoughby ‘Teddy’ Petter
The J 29 prototype featured full span ailerons but these produced an excessive rate of roll of 180 degrees per second. They were superseded by ailerons of around 65% span with the remaining inboard section replaced by flaps.
From March 1953, the J 29B became the standard Tunnan version. The major change was the installation of internal wing tanks that added 154 Imperial gallons (700 litres) of fuel taking the internal total to 462 Imperial gallons (2,100 litres), a 50% increase. Twin 99 Imperial gallon (450 litre) drop tanks could also be carried so offering a total load of 660 Imperial gallons (3,000 litres). The tanks were fitted at roughly mid-span on the outer of the two main pylons with the inboard hardpoints retained for weapons. The original Gripen uses a 242 Imperial gallon (1,100 litres) drop tank that can be fitted on the centreline and inboard underwing pylons. With three tanks in place, total fuel carried is 1,386 Imp gallons (6,300 litres); the internal load being 660 Imp gallons (3,000 litres).
The Tunnan’s wing was shoulder mounted, meeting the fuselage somewhat above the centreline. The wing was a one-piece structure and ran straight through the capacious fuselage passing just behind the cockpit rear pressure bulkhead and above the intake duct. Gripen also has a shoulder-mounted wing, which is set roughly at the centreline of the slim fuselage. This is slightly below the level of the canards that in turn are mounted just below the upper surface of the intakes. Fuel tanks are fitted in the upper part of the fuselage middle section with the intake duct(s) and main undercarriage bays placed below.
A one-piece wing could have been mounted level with the fuselage upper or lower surfaces as per the Jaguar and Phantom respectively. A low mounted wing on the diminutive Gripen would have offered insufficient ground clearance for loading underwing stores without a longer and heavier undercarriage. To achieve favourable interaction, the canards have to be set above the level of the mainplanes. Lack of suitable alternative mounting points for the canards would rule out the high wing location option. Furthermore, in order to reduce drag, it is best to avoid forming acute angles at wing-fuselage fairings. A mid wing configuration arguably offers the best overall solution in this and the other respects; it is therefore an entirely reasonable design choice.
Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise 
The Tunnan was of monocoque structure built from aluminium alloy. High strength and stiffness were required to withstand the loadings imposed by transonic flight and a very fine standard of surface finish was also achieved in order to reduce skin drag. In structural terms, the Gripen marked a major change for Saab with composite materials (carbon fibre, glass fibre and Aramid) accounting for 20% of the structure by weight. Fatigue life consumption is reduced by a gust alleviation system. Aircraft disturbance is sensed by the flight control system, which prompts control surface reaction to alleviate the loads imposed.
The most obvious difference between these aircraft is in their lifting and control surfaces. Although radical at its inception for its swept wing and flying tail, the J 29 was standard in being longitudinally stable with a conventionally sited tailplane. Such tailplanes apply a download to balance the mainplane’s lift (the mainplane’s centre of pressure being behind the centre of gravity). In turn, the mainplane must generate additional lift to counter the tail’s down force and as a result lift-induced drag is increased. The Tunnan’s primary flying controls were the tailplane for pitch and the ailerons for roll. By contrast, the Gripen controls pitch by the canard while the inboard and outboard elevons on the delta wing act in both pitch and roll. The canard applies a lifting force to balance the mainplane and this co-operative interaction reduces the overall lift-induced drag.
Saab originally reversed the traditional arrangement with the Viggen and adopted a tail-first or canard design although it retained natural longitudinal stability. With the JAS 39, the full potential of the canard was realised. Full time, full authority, digital, fly by wire flight control system (FCS) allowed the adoption of artificial stability in pitch with attendant gains in agility and aerodynamic efficiency. At supersonic speeds the centre of lift on all wings moves aft promoting a nose down moment. A conventional aircraft trims this by increasing the tailplane download whereas the opposite applies with the canard, a more efficient solution. An unstable canard design offers more lift during take-off and landing, better supersonic turning performance and lower supersonic drag. The FCS keeps the Gripen’s instability in check and allows the full envelope to be exploited without the risk of overstress or departure from controlled flight. This carefree handling facility enables the pilot to concentrate on the mission while the FCS controls the load factor, AOA, angle of sideslip and roll rate. Another function unavailable to the Tunnan is CG control. The fuel control system not only monitors the fuel remaining but also balances the amounts drawn from the various tanks to keep the CG within limits.
Weapons and Systems
The early swept wing combat aircraft were designed as gun-fighters and the Tunnan was no exception. Its original standard armament was a battery of four 20 mm Hispano cannons with 180 rounds per gun. Stemming from an original design of the early 1930s, the Hispano weighed 84 lb (34 kg) and fired a 4.88 oz (138 gram) round with a muzzle velocity of 2,880 ft/sec (878 m/sec). The muzzles were spaced circumferentially on the underside of the nose, a short distance back from the intake. Some jet fighters (eg the Hunter F.1 with its axial Rolls Royce Avon 100 series) experienced considerable engine problems through the ingestion of the shock waves of their cannon shells. A centrifugal compressor may be broader than its axial flow equivalent but it is inherently more tolerant of disturbed airflow. Cannon blast ingestion was inevitable on the Tunnan but no engine surge problems appear to have been experienced.
Two factors combined to make cannons alone an insufficient armament for air combat. The speed of jet fighters made for only fleeting firing opportunities while their stronger structures (for the high aerodynamic loads) could withstand cannon shell damage – up to a point. Cannons therefore required both a high rate of fire and a heavy high velocity round but these features tended to oppose each other. The more powerful cannons had a slow rate of fire and the faster models had less punch. One attempted solution to this problem was to fit fighters with batteries of unguided air-to-air rockets that would be fired in a barrage of a dozen or more in the hope of at least one hitting a fighter target or several hitting a bomber. The Tunnan was fitted with twenty-four 75 mm (2.95 in) diameter rockets carried in vertical stacks of four on three close-set hardpoints inboard of each wing drop tank. In the event, such rockets were to prove a blind alley and although adopted by several air forces they were superseded by guided missiles. From 1963, the J 29E could carry a pair of Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (AAM) termed Rb 24 in the Flygvapnet inventory. This addition helped keep the Tunnan viable until it went out of service in May 1967, the Saab Draken having progressively taken over the fighter role from 1959.
Proving to be a fine weapons platform during testing, the Tunnan J 29B was applied to the ground attack role with the new designation A 29B. The four Hispanos were retained and either fourteen 14.5 cm (5.7 in) anti-armour rockets or four 18 cm (7.1 in) rockets for hard, fixed targets could be carried. As mentioned above, the drop tanks were fitted to the outboard main pylons where they would have helped relieve the wing bending moment. Inboard of the tanks, there were up to four hardpoints under each wing. The 14.5 cm rockets were carried in six vertical pairs plus a single rocket on the furthest inboard position to avoid a clash with the undercarriage door. The 18 cm rockets had individual pylon mountings. All the Tunnan’s weapons bar the Rb 24 Sidewinder were unguided whereas the opposite obtains with the majority of the Gripen’s armament. Although guided weapon unit cost is greater than the ballistic equivalent, their higher accuracy makes for better cost-effectiveness. As fewer rounds and aircraft sorties are needed to destroy a target, the result is a lower overall cost in weapons plus likely lower aircraft and aircrew losses.
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The aircraft also spurned conventional flaps in favour of wing warping to deflect the wing trailing edges. So far, so weird, but the good people of the Department of Astrophysics and Aerospace Engineering at the Mississippi State University weren’t stopping there and added
By Bing Chandler. Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer and current Wildcat Air Safety Officer. If you want a 
This Top 10 concentrates on combat aircraft in a vague attempt to keep to an actual ten for once, hence the absence of aircraft like the S-3 Viking, Gannet, and Vigilante. In an attempt to address obvious criticism just outside the 10, and in no particular order, were the Corsair II – which only stayed in production a few years longer than the A-4 which it was supposed to replace; the Super Étendard – couldn’t do anything a Sea Harrier couldn’t and needed a catapult to get airborne; Grumman Panther – did get the first carrier jet-on-jet kill, but barely had the performance of a Sea Hawk despite getting the more powerful Tay derivative of the Nene jet engine.
10. Hawker Sea Fury
Arriving just too late to see combat in WW2 the Sea Fury represents the final evolution of piston-engine fighters alongside the Bearcat and the Sea Hornet. All three of which have broadly similar performance and weaponry. Unlike the latter two however, the Sea Fury saw combat from the deck of a carrier.
Taking over from the Seafire FR47s onboard Triumph (not on this list because they were so damaged by carrier landings that the squadron AEO would only allow them to fly under wartime regulations, grounding them once the ship left Korean waters) the Sea Furies of HMS Thesus were the first to conduct patrols over the Korean Peninsula in 1950. These would be maintained by aircraft from Ocean, Glory and the RAN’s Sydney for the rest of the conflict.
Perhaps most famous for 802 NAS’ Sub-Lt ‘Smoo’ Ellis shooting down a MiG-15 on 9 Aug there was also at least one other probable MiG kill by Lt ‘Toby’ Davis also of 802 NAS the following day. As well as their air-to-air ability the Sea Fury could carry two 1000lb bombs or a collection of 60lb rockets. The former soon becoming the weapon of choice when it was realised the Fury’s bubble canopy gave the pilot an advantage in the dive-bombing role compared to the Firefly. These were used to great effect conducting close-air-support for Commonwealth troops and strikes on enemy and tactical positions. The pilots could also direct naval gunfire support, a task not without its problems such as asking a ship to correct its fire by nine miles, or the USS Missouri almost shooting the spotter down. [1]
 ” …the greatest workhorse the Navy ever had. It was loved and trusted by those who flew it. A pilot who trusts his plane is a bold pilot. And bold pilots really do the job. “  Adm. Tom Connolly
Another design that entered service too late for the war for which it was intended the Douglas Skyraider was a single seat piston-engined aircraft that shot down MiGs. There the similarity with the Sea Fury more or less ends as the A-1 was designed as a dive/torpedo bomber rather than a fighter. Intended to replace the Avenger and the Dauntless the XBT2D-1 Destroyer II first flew in March of 1945, by April the USN had placed an order for 548 and thankfully changed the name to the AD-1 Skyraider. Part of the success was due to Ed Heinemann’s design team’s emphasis on weight reduction and simplicity inspired by an information bulletin that showed for each 100lbs of weight saved take-off would be reduced by 8’, combat radius increased 22 miles, and rate of climb increased by 18’ per minute. In total the team saved 1800lbs enabling the Skyraider to carry 8000lbs of weaponry, in something of a worrying trend for the USN this included plans for one way trips with a nuclear weapon.
Thanks to its promise and relatively low-cost orders for the AD-1 were not cut back at the end of the Second World War and the first squadron was formed in December 1946. With the invasion of South Korea Skyraiders from Valley Forge were soon in action conducting ground attack and minelaying operations. The following year VA-195 and VC-35 onboard the Princeton were called upon to make an attack on the Hwacheon Dam. Despite little training in the use of torpedoes the necessary modifications were made to the aircraft to allow them to carry the weapons including disabling the airbrakes. On 1 May, in what to date was the last aerial torpedo attack on a surface target, eight Skyraiders attacked the dam successfully disabling the control gates and preventing Communist forces from controlling water levels.
Remaining in service until 1968 AD-1s were also active in Vietnam, where as well as attack, close air support, and rescue missions they shot down two MiG-17s. The Skyraider’s only other naval user was the Royal Navy who operated it in the AEW role.
Remarkably long lived for an aircraft that was designed at the dawn of the jet age the Skyraider is probably unique in being the only aircraft to have been developed into single, two, three, and four seat combat variants.
8. Hawker Sea HawkÂ
The Sea Hawk started as a private venture by Hawkers under the lead of Sydney Camm, also responsible for the Sea Fury. The initial concept being to replace the later’s Centaurus engine with a Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet. After what, it must be assumed, was a lot of development work the P.1040 emerged as a tapered wing jet with the intakes and bifurcated exhaust based in the wing roots. Despite a lack of interest (this is disputed by some) from the Admiralty and the Air Ministry Hawkers produced three prototypes, the first flying in September of 1947 (again there is some debate on the prototypes’ chronology). Following successful carrier trials, the Royal Navy ordered 151 with the first front line squadron, 806 NAS forming in 1953. Ironically after all that effort, Hawkers only built the first 35 Sea Hawk Mk1 before turning over their Kingston factory to producing its ultimate evolution the Hunter. Development and production were transferred to their subsidiary Armstrong Whitworth who went on to produce over 500 in 6 principle marks adding bombing and ground attack capabilities to the basic day fighter’s 4 x 20mm cannons.
Arguably one of the most beautiful aircraft to take to the sky the Sea Hawk served with 13 front-line RN squadrons. In 1956 seven of these took part in the Suez conflict, with little air opposition they conducted bombing, strafing, and close air support missions. During one of these their strafing was accurate enough that the paratroopers they were supporting felt confident enough to advance while it was taking place. [2] Only two Sea Hawks were lost during the action, both pilots surviving, while a number of other aircraft recovered even with severe damage.
By the end of 1960, the Sea Hawk had left front line service with the Royal Navy having also conducted operations in Aden from Bulwark in 1958. At the same time, it was entering service with what would be its final operator the Indian Navy. Operating from the Majestic class carrier INS Vikrant the Sea Hawks of 300 INAS, the White Tigers, took part in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War which led to East Pakistan gaining its independence, becoming Bangladesh. Despite catapult problems the 18 aircraft of 300 INAS ranged across Bangladesh attacking air bases, ammunition dumps, and troop positions. Battle damage was repaired on board and all the aircraft remained serviceable during the ten days of operations.[3] Although formally leaving service in 1978 a Sea Hawk met the first three Sea Harriers for the Indian Navy over the Arabian Sea in 1983.
Also operational with the Royal Netherlands Navy until 1961 the Sea Hawk’s viceless handling, excellent visibility, and rugged construction make it one of the standout aircraft of the early cold war.
[2] Brian Cull. Wings Over Suez. London: Grub Street, 1996. 302
[3] Michael Doust. Sea Hawk From the Cockpit. Ringshall: Ad Hoc Publications, 2007. 60-61
7. Grumman F-14 Tomcat
To some the F-14 is the ultimate naval fighter, and they might not be wrong. However, in terms of the Cold War it doesn’t quite make the top ranks. Entering service in 1972 with VF-124 the F-14A inherited the TF30 engines from the F-111. These were less than ideal for a fighter, rapid throttle movements, especially pulling the throttle to idle, could cause the engine to stall. Like in that film you’ll have seen, where due to the wide spacing of the engines a flat spin developed due to the asymmetric thrust. There were similar issues operating above 30,000’ which forced crews to operate lower than ideal reducing range and endurance.
All these problems were solved, the range greatly increased, and take-off performance improved by the introduction of the F110 engine in the F-14B. These only started to enter service in 1987 though, four years before the end of the Cold War. By that point at least 24 Tomcats had been lost due to engine issues, around 28% of all losses. For variety one had also managed to shoot itself down with a Sparrow missile…
Despite this the F-14A did manage to cover the withdrawal from Saigon on its maiden cruise, engaged two Libyan Su-22 in the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident, and engaged two Libyan MiG-23s in the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident. Which at least shows a degree of consistency on the part of the USN and the Libyan Air Force. They also covered the Invasion of Grenada and intercepted the Egypt Air 737 carrying the hijackers of the MS Achille Lauro, appearing alongside the aircraft at night while an EA-6B jammed radio communications. Oh and one shot down a USAF RF-4C during an exercise, which is taking inter-service rivalry a bit far.
The F-14A was the Cold War Tomcat, it wasn’t perfect, and the pilots flew the engines as much as they flew the aircraft, but it was still a capable fleet defender.
Following on from the success of the Skyraider Ed Heinemann and his team produced a proposal for its successor. The USN specified an aircraft of no more than 30,000lbs to meet their range criteria for carrying a 2000-lb ‘special’ (in that way that a nuclear bomb is ‘special’) weapon. Laughing in the face of such limitations the Douglas design was half the weight while still meeting the requirements. The ‘special’ weapon leading to the characteristic stalky undercarriage. One of the weight saving measures was restricting the wingspan to 27’ enabling them to fit down carrier lifts without folding, removing the need for hydraulic actuators and allowing 2000 litres of fuel to be carried in each wing.
With the first operational squadron forming in 1956 two years later the Skyhawk was in action over the Lebanon. This and subsequent action in South East Asia led to improvements to the A-4s conventional weapons capabilities which expanded to carry a wide range of unguided and guided weaponry. At the same time max payload increased from 5,500lbs in the A-4A to 9195lbs in the A-4M.
Although the USN retired the A-4 from front line service in 1976 they were still operating from US carriers until October of 1999 in the training role. The Royal Australian Navy operated them from 1967 embarking on HMAS Melbourne until it was retired in the early ‘80s, the A-4G being wired for Sidewinders to provide an air defence capability. This was something the USN had also done for operations from its smaller ASW Carriers. The Comando de la Aviación Naval Argentina received 16 A-4Cs in 1971, later replaced with A-4Qs, to operate from the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, previously HNLMS Karel Doorman, previously HMS Venerable. However, due to issues with her catapult the majority of the Skyhawks missions were flown from shore, perhaps not surprising when using a third-hand carrier.
The Skyhawk was a classic of Cold War naval aviation, proving its capability and perhaps uniquely for this list a new operator took it to sea almost a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Brazilian Navy taking delivery of 23 ex-Kuwaiti Air Force A-4KUs in 1998 and by 2001 these were operating from the carrier Minas Gerais.
5. Grumman A-6 IntruderÂ
Following the Buccaneer into frontline service by around 18 months the first operational Intruder squadron VA-75 formed in November of 1963. The requirements that led to the Intruder were similar if slightly less ambitious than the British bombers, a two-man crew, radius of action of 300nm for close air support and 1000nm for long range interdiction, with a speed of 500knots. [4] Unlike the Buccaneer the Intruder also had a STOL requirement for USMC use during amphibious assaults, this led to the engine exhaust being deflected by 23° although ultimately this only featured on the first seven examples. It was however used during the types first flight the exhausts remaining vectored downwards throughout. After initial trials showed that the fuselage mounted airbrakes caused excessive turbulence over the tail plane when deployed they were moved to the wingtips giving the aircraft a distinctive appearance in the approach configuration. In a novel move to increase lift almost the entire trailing edge was used as flap with roll control being achieved through use of spoilers on the upper wing surface.
By 1965 VA-75 – The Sunday Punchers, were at war, using the advanced all-weather systems in the A-6 to strike targets at night, previously the North Vietnamese forces ally. Unfortunately, the systems were a bit too advanced and initially the aircraft suffered a 35% reliability rate. Improvements came with new radars and updates to the attack system known as DIANE. At the same time the USN undertook an effort to update all its mapping of North Vietnam, some of which was several miles out, to make sure the targets were where the Intruders’ systems thought they were.
The A-6 underwent a number of upgrades ultimately evolving into the A-6E with a sensor turret housing an infra-red camera and laser designator which were integrated with the avionics systems. After Vietnam, the Intruder took part in raids on Lebanon, Libya, Iranian shipping during the tanker wars, and as something of a swan song took part in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
Britain’s aircraft manufactures have never had much success making carrier aircraft, or land ones if you look at the Supermarine Swift and Gloster Javelin. It’s something of a surprise then that a company that had previously produced such 
Demonstrating that the Admiralty could do asymmetric warfare if they put their minds to it the Buccaneer specification was drawn up in response to the emergence of the Soviet Navy’s Sverdlov cruisers. This called for an aircraft able to carry a variety of stores, including a 2,500kg Red Beard tactical nuclear bomb, the abortive Green Cheese anti-ship missile [5], or 4000lbs of conventional bombs, at speeds of at least 550kts at sea level, with a minimum radius of action of 400NM at low level. [6] For 1954 these were ambitious criteria, so much so that Percival Aircraft after asking to tender read the full requirements document and changed its mind. Fitting it into the limited dimensions of a British carrier called for novel solutions. While some aircraft had used high-pressure air from the engines blown over the flaps to improve take-off and landing performance the Buccaneer took the concept to the next level. Bleed air from the engines was ducted over the wings from just aft of the leading edge, the flaps, and the tail plane. This increased the coefficient of lift and the angle of attack at the stall allowing smaller wings and tail plane. In turn this gave a smoother ride at low level where a larger tail plane would have made the aircraft overly sensitive. For comparison with a 25% bigger wing at a weight of 33,000lb the Sea Vixen had an approach speed of 125kts to the Buccaneers 124kts. [Ref]
In something of a Blackburn tradition, the initial Buccaneer S1 was under-powered, on launching from a carrier the acceleration was around 1kt per second. Unusually plans to rectify this were in hand as the S1 entered service and the S2 fitted with the Spey was operational only three years later. This improved the acceleration after take-off to 7kt per second and let later Buccaneers leave the carrier with a full load of fuel rather than having to take some from a passing Scimitar.
The Buccaneer is also notable for being the first aircraft to have a head-up display, providing steering cues to the weapons release point as well as an indication of the distance to go and the air speed.
Having a relatively peaceful time in RN service its major actions were helping enforce the Beira patrol in support of sanctions against Rhodesia, bombing the stricken tanker Torrey Canyon off Lands’ End in an attempt to burn off the crude oil, and launching from Ark Royal in mid-Atlantic to conduct a show of force over Belize to deter a Guatemalan invasion. Which is the kind of thing someone should write a book about.
[5] This was ultimately cancelled in favour of just lobbing tactical nuclear bombs in the general direction of enemy shipping before Martel was invented and some sanity restored.
[6] Tony Butler. British Secret Projects – Jet Bombers since 1949. Hinckley: Midland Publishing. Chapter 5
[Ref] Flight International 14 Jan 1971. 55-59
3. Chance-Vought F-8 Crusader
Attempting to prove anything the British could do the Americans could do better Vought produced two terrible jet powered fighters, the F6U Pirate and the F7U Cutlass. For professionals such as Supermarine this would have been considered a good warm up before producing something truly average like the Scimitar, Vought however fumbled the ball and produced the outstanding F8U Crusader instead.
Although powered by a Pratt & Whitney J57 like the F-100 Super Sabre the Crusader could fly further, faster, and higher while carrying more. To assist in getting the supersonic fighter onboard Vought used a variable incidence wing this allowed the pilot to maintain sight of the ship while flying slow enough to safely land. These were later modified to incorporate boundary layer control over the flaps, initially to allow the French Navy to land the Crusader on its smaller carriers by reducing the landing speed by 15kts.
The Crusader was active during the Vietnam War where it scored 19 air-to-air victories for 3 losses, the best ratio of any US aircraft. Armed with 4 x 20mm cannon it has frequently been called the last of the gunfighters, however it was upgraded through its life to carry an increasing range of stores allowing it to be used for ground attack missions as well as air defence. To provide the Essex Class carriers with an all-weather fighter from the F-8C onwards a new Magnavox radar was introduced with a larger dish. This allowed it to operate the AIM-9C, the only version of the Sidewinder to be radar guided giving it a head-on capability the IR version wouldn’t get until the AIM-9L in 1977. [Ref] However, being closely tied to the Crusader’s radar the 9C gave up the Sidewinders ability to be hung on nearly anything and didn’t equip any other type.
Entering service in 1957 the Crusader served with the USN as a fighter for 20 years and remarkably was only retired by the Aéronavale in 1999 after 35 years of service.
[Ref] Ron Westrum. Sidewinder, Creative Missile Development at China Lake. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. Chapter 14
2. BAe Sea HarrierÂ
Books could, and have, been written on the inter-service shenanigans that led to the Royal Navy acquiring the Sea Harrier. Suffice to say with the writing clearly on the wall for its conventional carriers the emergence of the Harrier in the late ‘60s offered a potential solution to the task of maintaining air cover over the fleet without relying on shore based aircraft. The FRS1 essentially added a radar and a navigation system that could be aligned at sea to the basic Harrier GR3 airframe. It also removed as much magnesium as possible from the structure due to its tendency to fizzle in the presence of water.
Intended to ‘Hack the Shad’ by taking out Bear reconnaissance aircraft of Soviet Naval Aviation forces the Sea Harrier was initially armed with 30-mm cannons and 2 x Sidewinders. Alternatively, dumb bombs or rocket pods could be carried. Justifying the S in FRS1 it could also carry a WE177 nuclear bomb, while a Vinten F.95 camera took care of the R. First flight was in mid-1978 and in a move that would shock the F-35 development team one training and two operational squadrons, 899, 800, and 801 respectively, were formed at Yeovilton by February 1981.
In July 1959 the Royal Navy formed its first Sea Vixen squadron, an all-weather two-seat twin-engined carrier fighter that could just about break the sound barrier downhill. Rather un-sportingly 18 months later the USN formed its first F-4 Phantom squadron which could go twice as fast, carrying twice as many air-to-air missiles, while also hauling a selection of air-to-ground weaponry. It’s as if the Admiralty and British industry had had a total lack of imagination, although requiring the Sea Vixen to be able to conduct a free (catapult-less) take-off from the deck suggests they may have been smoking something.
First flying in 1958, the same year as the Buccaneer, the Phantom used boundary layer control almost as much as the British aircraft*. Both aircraft also featured ailerons that drooped compensating for relatively small flaps in the take-off and landing configuration.
Originally designed as an all-weather fleet defence interceptor the Phantom was seemingly capable of almost any role, being able to carry 16,000lbs of pretty much anything in the US or NATO inventory. In the case of the RF-4B it also carried out photoreconnaissance for the USMC from afloat and ashore. It was one of the first carrier aircraft to have an automatic landing capability, first trialled on 12 converted F-4Bs. They had been fitted with a system allowing them to be controlled by AWACs or surface ships to conduct interceptions, resulting in a change of designation to F-4G (a decade before the USAF F-4G). By using a retractable radar reflector in front of the nose gear the aircraft carrier could use the system to control the aircraft on approach to the deck. Although the interception capability never saw widespread use the deck landing capability was retrofitted to standard F-4Bs.
Like the Intruder the Phantom saw its combat debut in Vietnam where it operated in the fighter and bomber roles. Unlike the Intruder it would also see service with the Royal Navy in a modified form, the J79 turbojets being replaced with Spey turbofans. Famously despite increasing the available thrust this reduced the top speed by around 0.2 Mach due to the drag from the larger intakes. They did however make the UK’s Phantoms the fastest accelerating up to around 400knots. They were also briefly considered for the USN as the F-4L for operations off the smaller Essex class carriers. However, a lack of commonality with the other US models and the potential threat to the Nimitz-class programme ended the idea.
The Phantom remained in frontline service with the USN until 18 October 1986 when the type made its last carrier landing almost exactly 25 years after the first front-line squadron became carrier qualified. This period was the peak of the Cold War and throughout the F-4 proved a carrier aircraft could equal the best of any Air Force, if only because most of them ended up buying it.
From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as
“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planesâ€.
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
FEATURING
