We spoke to Nick Stroud of The Aviation Historian.

Can you give us ten offbeat aviation stories covered in The Aviation Historian?

We’ve published some 300 articles since we started five years ago, so picking ten is hard, but here’s a few that might show the range of what we do, and which I learned a lot from working on.

1) Surprise Surprise! For our very first issue back in October 2012 I went to RAF Halton to interview former EE Lightning pilot John Mitchell and RAF groundcrew member Mike Mason, both of whom participated in Exercise Trumpet in late 1962. The Air Fighting Development Squadron had been tasked with intercepting a USAF Lockheed U-2 operating out of Upper Heyford — using Lightning F.1As from Middleton St George — just to see if it could be done. The chaps were wonderful company and having a magnificent painting by Michael Turner of an interception at 65,000ft for the opening spread was a huge honour for us. We revisited the U-2 in TAH7, when Dragon Lady specialist Chris Pocock detailed the type’s brief operational use from an aircraft carrier — yes, an aircraft carrier.

2) How America’s Local Airlines Put Main Street on the Map/Fly America! A bit of a cheat here, as it’s actually a two-part series in our third and fourth issues, in which American airline historian David H. Stringer details the development of the USA’s post-war “feeder airlines”, the local carriers which established the vital link between the nation’s small towns and big cities. It’s a huge, sprawling story, the telling of which David, one of our invaluable editorial board members and History Editor of AIRWAYS magazine, made look effortless, as he always does with everything he tackles, regardless of how complex the subject may be.

3) The Shah’s Skyhooks When we published our history of the UH-1 Skyhook, the four-seat helicopter Cessna likes to pretend never happened, in TAH3, pretty much nothing was known about its service with the Iranian Gendarmerie in the 1960s. Enter Iranian aviation historian Babak Taghvaee, who provided chapter and verse on its use in Iran in TAH10 by means of an interview with Skyhook pilot Colonel Gholam Reza-Rahbariyan, accompanied by previously unpublished photographs of the type in service. This was a terrific example of one TAH feature leading to the publication of another, thereby adding even more to the knowledge base of the subject.

4) Radiant Skies …or how America learned to stop worrying about nuclear power for aircraft and love the B-52, published in our fourth issue. Written by aeronautical engineering specialist Jakob Whitfield, this covered the USA’s troubled post-war attempts to power aircraft with atomic energy using a Convair B-36. A great story told with the help of not one, but TWO pages of magnificent technical illustrations by another of our esteemed editorial board members, Ian Bott, who was there at the very beginning of the TAH enterprise and whose work is very much part of our visual signature.

5) Defending the Reich I’m going to cheat again here and go for Luftwaffe specialist Robert Forsyth’s three-part series in TAH17–19, in which he chronicles the activities of Germany’s wartime experimental aerial weapons unit Erprobungskommando 25, whose CO, Horst Geyer, he interviewed for the series. Set up to test ambitious — and often frankly bonkers — aerial weapons systems, the unit risked life and limb to find out how workable aerial mortars, cable-towed bombs, “fireclouds” and optically-controlled upward-firing cannon fitted to an Fw 190 might be. The results were, shall we say, mixed.

6) The Hot Seat Talking of bonkers, one article I particularly enjoyed writing was this one for TAH14, detailing the US military’s developmental work on a jet-powered “flyaway” ejection seat, designated the AERCAB project. With superb technical illustrations of how it all worked from Ian Bott and some ultra-rare colour photographs taken at the time by American photo-journalist Howard Levy, this was a real eye-opener and — hopefully — as much fun to read as it was to write.

7) Trident: Britain’s Fork in the Road? This could have been any one of Professor Keith Hayward’s many features for TAH actually. When Keith retired as Head of Research at the Royal Aeronautical Society in 2015, we hoped it would give him more time to provide TAH with in-depth, fully referenced articles on the political aspects of some of the most far-reaching decisions made in the history of the British aviation industry. Happily it did and Keith opened his account with us with a probing dissection of the shambolic procurement of the Supermarine Swift in TAH11. Since then he’s tackled the Vickers V.1000, HS Trident, VC10 and perhaps most controversial of all, the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper. There’s plenty more to come from the Prof too, with the Fairey Rotodyne squarely in his sights . . .

8) To Africa in a Barrel One of the most pleasing aspects of curating TAH has been the response from authors all over the world, particularly South America, Scandinavia and Africa, all of which have rich seams of aviation history that have traditionally received scant coverage. The last two combined to make a fascinating feature in TAH13, when renowned Swedish author Leif Hellström agreed to chronicle the Swedish Air Force’s detachment of Saab J 29 Tunnans to Africa in support of the UN during the 1960s “Congo Crisis”. Numerous colour photographs were accompanied by specially commissioned profile artworks of the “Flying Barrels” by world-class illustrator Juanita Franzi, who Mick and I have been working with for nearly two decades.

9) “It Was A Jaguar D-Type on Steroids. It Was The Rolling Stones in Surround Sound After 8 Gallons of LSD . . .” Maybe not one of our more elegant headlines, but this feature by former newspaper journalist Jeff Watson was all about the brute power of the English Electric Lightning, a two-seat version of which he managed to beg a ride in during 1967. The training for the supersonic sortie, including a ride on the dreaded ejection trainer, was tough; then, as he explains in the feature, “came the ballistic trajectory to 40,000ft in a double-barrelled shotgun . . .” Beautifully written, beautifully illustrated.

10) Fire in the Belly It’s not all just about long articles on “heavy subjects” in TAH; we like to take a turn down some of the less significant, but equally fascinating highways and byways from time to time, and I’d like to include this one on the proposed idea of fitting Frank Whittle’s jet engine into an Avro Anson for testing before the Gloster E.28/39 was ready, as a prime example. Another reason is because it came about as a direct result of reader feedback; TAH subscriber Mick Jeffries contacted me to ask if we knew anything about the idea, providing a photocopy of a set of plans showing a hollowed-out Anson with a nose intake to accommodate the as yet unflown W.1 engine. Intrigued, I set to work, and after a few trips to the National Archive at Kew, had the makings of a splendid little feature for TAH20. We’re always open to ideas!

Do you have a favourite aircraft? If so, why?

Always a difficult one this, as the minute you’ve plumped for something, you inevitably think twice and change your mind. Maybe if only for the sheer hubris of the machine and its 1970s soft-porn connotations, the Convair B-58 Hustler has to be up there among my favourites.  Wildly uneconomical, extremely hard to fly well and made obsolete by the introduction of SAMs, it nevertheless looked fantastic and set the tone for the steely projection of American airpower in the 1960s. Having said that, I also unreservedly love the D.H.60 Moth, the direct inverse of the Hustler. Small, economical, easy to fly and designed specifically to promote airmindedness for the masses, its “everyman” qualities represent the benign influence of aviation on humans. Hurrah to that!

What is the greatest aviation myth?

Having just completed our 60^th anniversary coverage of the UK’s 1957 Defence White Paper, the notorious defence review which has traditionally seen Minister of Defence Duncan Sandys cast as a panto villain sweeping onstage in a black cape to hisses and boos from the audience, I feel well-placed to say that there is a great deal more to the story than is often presented. We ran a series of three in-depth articles in TAH18–21 on varying aspects of the White Paper and its impact on Britain’s aviation industry, with contributions from Prof Keith Hayward on the document’s political ramifications; Greg Baughen’s thought-provoking history of the RAF’s longstanding relationship with “cruise missiles” and Cold War specialist Chris Gibson’s look at the immediate aftermath of the White Paper and the procurement choices available to the RAF as a result. Sandys is routinely pilloried as a missile-obsessed fool who single-handedly destroyed the British aircraft industry; it’s so much more complicated — and fascinating — than that!

What should I have asked you?

I think you should definitely have asked how to find out more about TAH and how to get your hands on it! We’re not available in newsagents or shops — except a few specialist non-traditional outlets (museums etc) — but you can find out all about us, see previews of articles, follow our Twitter and Facebook feeds, download our free PDF index (updated with the publication of each issue) and buy a subscription, back issues or single issues from our website at www.theaviationhistorian.com. Alternatively you can give us a ring on +44 (0) 7572 237737 or write to us at TAH, PO Box 962, Horsham, RH12 9PP, UK. We’re the world’s fastest-growing aviation periodical — try it and find out why!

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

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 planes”.

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.

We are currently 33% funded

Will it be just modern warplanes? 

Nope. Warplanes of all eras.

So, why crowdfund? 

This offers me greater editorial control, allowing it be utterly uncompromised. Unbound is an award-winning publishing house who know how to manage and distribute projects of this nature.

How does that work? 

You pre-order a copy or two. Once pre-orders generate 100% of the funding target, production begins.

Will it feature new material? 

Yes. There’s a few articles I’m particularly looking looking forward to sharing there’s tons of new stuff. It will be a combination of your favourite articles from the site, suitably spruced, expanded and updated by myself – and meticulously proofread by the editors of Unbound.

When will you stop hassling us to pre-order?

When it hits 100%. I would advice you to do that quickly to avoid disappointment.

Will you say nice things about TSR.2? 

Balanced thoughts…and some provocative opinions.

Who would win in a fight between a Typhoon and Su-35? 

I’ll tell you in the book.

Will it look good in my home? 

Yes, it will. It’s gorgeous.

Any rewards? 

Yes, you get your name printed in the book. You can get signed copies. We have some very cool aeroplane card games. You can even get me or one of the Hush-Kit team to write on a subject of your choice and get that featured in the book! I mean it would have to be aircraft related and I’d have to say ‘yes’, but I’m very openminded. One person has already selected that option and I’m looking forward to seeing what they choose. I’m going to go VERY DEEP with the research for these boutique articles. Feel free to really challenge the Hush-Kit writers if you go with this option.

Convinced? Pre-order your copy 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 planes”.

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.

• Convinced? Pre-order your copy here 

The thing about counterinsurgency is it doesn’t work. If you are doing counterinsurgency there’s a strong chance you’re in the wrong, either ethically, tactically or strategically and probably all three. Still, putting big guns on, often tiny, aeroplanes is pretty exciting stuff. We looked at 10 cancelled (or very short-lived) COIN aircraft — and then asked former IAF MiG-27 pilot Sqn. Ldr. Anshuman Mainkar how confident he feel flying each one of them into combat. 

10. BAe SABA – Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft  (1984) ‘SABA rattling’ 

A historical perspective

In thinking about this piece, I did a bit of a search for unsuccessful Counter-Insurgency (COIN) aircraft, and turned up a reasonable number of aircraft, none of them British. This is a little odd, as, after the First World War, Britain made a great thing of policing its Empire by air, having worked out that this solution was cheaper, and quicker, than sending ground forces out to deal with trouble spots.

In doing so, it was exploiting superior mobility, enabled by the fact that the, generally poorly-equipped, opposition had no effective anti-air weapons other than the possibility of a lucky shot with a rifle. The aircraft used at the time, and indeed up to the Second War, were basically general-purpose biplanes, capable of carrying limited numbers of bombs, and the odd machine gun.

We interviewed one of SABA’s designers about the aircraft here.

After the Second war, the Empire became the Commonwealth, as Britain set about divesting itself of its colonies. There were, of course, still hot spots to deal with, including troubles in Africa, Malaya and the Middle East, but a wide range of capable aircraft were also available to help manage these, making the development of new types unnecessary. An eventual decision to cease involvement ‘East of Suez’, pretty much took the UK out of the COIN game for a while, although an eye to the export market did result in modest successes with aircraft like the Strikemaster.

In the US, however, a combination of a post-war vision of that Nation somehow being empowered as a World Policeman, National testosterone, and a fear of Communism, led to the US being involved in many conflicts, of scale ranging from the Korean and Vietnam Wars, to the Invasion of Grenada.

The Vietnam experience revealed the surprising utility of aircraft like the AD-1 Skyraider in suppressing ground forces, and ever since Vietnam, there has been a healthy succession of US efforts to field similar capabilities, delivered with some quite impressive aircraft, including the Cessna A-37, B-26K Counter-Invader, OV-10 Bronco and, at the extreme tank-busting end, the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

In the UK, a gradual realisation dawned that in a globalised World, alliances were important, and the scope of the military’s involvement could not easily be limited to Europe. The extent to which this was driven by the military-industrial complex realising that the (as it turned out) temporary collapse of the USSR as a rival had left it searching for relevance is, perhaps, a topic best left to historians. It’s fair to add, however, that the shock of having to recover a far-flung remnant of Empire (the Falklands) in 1982, had shown that there were still distant trouble spots that could not be ignored.

Over time in the UK, a realisation dawned that in a globalised World, alliances were important, and the scope of the military’s involvement could not easily be limited to Europe. The extent to which this was driven by the military-industrial complex realising that the (as it turned out) temporary collapse of the USSR as a rival, had left it searching for relevance is, perhaps, a topic best left to historians. It’s fair to add, however, that the shock of having to recover a far-flung remnant of Empire (the Falklands) in 1982, had shown that there were still distant trouble spots that could not be ignored.

While it is likely that the RAF would have considered that the capability they had in their existing strike aircraft, the Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado, was sufficient that no dedicated COIN aircraft was needed, the MoD is continually driven by Treasury to search for cheaper ways to deliver capability. In addition, there would also have been consideration of whether Army should have its own anti-tank and anti-helicopter capability.

SABA

So, we come to the Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft concepts of 1987. The reference material states that these were intended to provide a means of clearing the battlespace of helicopters, tilt-rotors, UAVs and tanks, in circumstances where air superiority had already been achieved. In consequence, the only armament to be carried would be anti-air weapons (plus, presumably a gun or other anti-tank weapon).

On the face of it, the premise is odd, but possibly is either a throw-back to air policing a hot spot with no anti-air capability, or contributing to a coalition effort where the air opposition has already been suppressed (except for helicopters, tilt rotors etc.). Given, however, systems like the AC-130U, this situation is clearly regarded by some as credible in some circumstances.

What of the concepts themselves? There were 5 concepts explored. The P1233 was a straight-winged canard powered by a turbo-prop driving a contra-rotating pusher propeller, with 6 pylon-mounted air-to-air missiles. The P1238 used the same propulsion system, but with a twin-boom layout reminiscent of the product of a relationship between a Cessna O-2 and a Vampire.

The P1234 came in three variants. The P1234-1 looked quite avant garde, with side intakes feeding a single jet engine, blending into a straight wing, with no horizontal tail surfaces. Armament consisted of a low-profile under-fuselage gun turret, aimed via a helmet mounted sight, and a couple of weapons pylons. Overall, the impression looks like another hybrid, this time between a Fauvel tail-less glider and a miniature SAAB Draken.

The P1234-2 is described as simply being a turbofan version of the P1233. I don’t think this is really the case. Although the same wing may have been used, this is now in a tailed configuration, rather than as a canard, with twin fins. The flying surfaces are attached to a forward fuselage that has clearly fallen off the back of the Harrier production line. The six pylons of the P1233 are retained.

The P1234-3 is a small delta, looking like a scaled-up Payen Delta or possibly like a scaled-down (is that possible?) Tejas, with the propulsion system of the Fouga Magister – one small engine each side of the fuselage. This version has two tip mounted missiles plus an under-fuselage turret and some form of sensor in the nose.

Would the concepts have worked? And which would be the best? Interesting, hard to answer questions.

Of the two turbo-props, I prefer the P1238 because the airframe carries less risk than the P1233. It’s a simple, well proven layout, where the P1233 has not only the canard layout, but appears to have some questionable lateral-directional issues, given the use of a forward fin (rudder?) possibly because of the large ventral fin which is being used to protect the propeller on take-off and landing.

Of the P1234’s, the P1234-2 would probably get the Ministry nod, because the fuselage is clearly stolen from the Harrier, and the layout is more-or-less conventional. On aesthetics, I prefer the P1234-1, just because it looks both pretty, and pretty cool. The P1234-3 either has two engines, which will increase cost (but perhaps enhance survivability), or a bifurcated arrangement like the Sea Hawk – but the latter looks unlikely from the reference material. It would certainly need more runway than the other variants.

So, if the decision were mine, the P1234-1 is the one for me. Big contra-rotating propellers are cool, but somehow not in a pusher configuration.

Reality Check

One has, however, to ask – does the requirement make sense?

I am not sure it does. One issue is that, to be viable, air superiority has to be assured. OK, there are many recent circumstances where that may apply. But all these concepts look vulnerable to shoulder-launched missile systems, and these are widely available to almost everyone, not just those with tanks and tilt-rotors.

Other commentary around these concepts suggests that they may have been a bit of a make-work, to keep the design office at Kingston occupied as BAe began to focus military aircraft work at Warton. I’d be sceptical of such suggestions, and merely observe that Kingston is much more likely to have been interested in future ASTOVL requirements than in SABA.

The origin of the requirement is also unclear. Although the reference material mentions a NATO interest, it is unlikely that these concepts would have gone anywhere without Service support. In the context of the time, it may be that these studies, and transient UK interest in the Scaled Composites (Rutan) Ares, may have been sufficient to convince the Army that an armed Attack Helicopter would be more useful than the limited capability offered by the SABA concept.

The SABA studies might have been useful in establishing a baseline for the capability offered by a budget fixed-wing solution. Acquisition of the A-10 might have been a bit more expensive, but would also have been a low risk option, having been in service for about 10 years at this time.

I must stress that at no time in my professional career did I have any connection with the SABA concept or requirement. Hence any, and indeed all, of the above should be regarded as speculative.

—Jim Smith

MiG-27 pilot response

“It was designed to launch in an air superiority environment, protecting ground formations from aerial threats. We’re looking at combat situations now, with considerable loiter. As a pilot, I’d have to be mentally prepared to get thrown around considering the loading/stresses, demanded turn performance, and the loiter demands. Mission-wise, haven’t seen under the hood, but she better have all the bells and whistles to survive what’s coming. She boasts of good performance against fast jets. I wouldn’t be keen to pit the Flogger against her, on the first day of the battle, at least :)” 

9. Rutan ARES ‘The Killer Bee’

The A-10 is a very mildly asymmetric aircraft, placing the (massive) gun slightly to one side to allow room for the nose wheel to retract into. It was also a big gun that resulted in the more pronounced asymmetry of the Scaled Composite ARES (Agile Responsive Effective Support), a close air support aircraft designed as a result of a study into a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA) – essentially a smaller cheaper A-10. A major problem with aircraft mounted guns arises if the engine ingests waste gases produced when the weapon is fired. To avoid this Burt Rutan sensibly mounted the gun on the right side of the aircraft and the engine intake is on the left. To avoid problems from asymmetric recoil of the gun the exhaust gases produced by firing it are channelled left by a duct to cancel this out. To compound the asymmetry of the aircraft, the engine is not mounted parallel to the direction of flight but canted eight degrees to the left, the jet pipe is curved to direct the thrust directly to the rear. The curved jet pipe also serves to reduce the IR signature of the aircraft. As seems to be the norm with ‘low cost’ combat aircraft with a massive potential international market, ARES proved thoroughly excellent in tests and then no one bought it. However all was not lost as ARES starred as the secret Me 263 in the screen (ahem) ‘classic’ of 1992 ‘Iron Eagle III’ and remains airworthy (and available for hire) with Scaled Composites at Mojave as a research aircraft.

British technical liaison Jim Smith travelled to the desert to learn more about this capable, but ultimately doomed, aircraft. 

“In early 1990, I was asked to visit Scaled Composites at Mojave to gain information on the Ares light support aircraft. At the time, I was working for the British Embassy in Washington DC in a technical aerospace liaison role, working mainly with US Government Agencies, but occasionally with US Industry, and seeking to promote technical collaboration in Aerospace.

I welcomed the opportunity to visit Scaled Composites. As an aerodynamicist and an air vehicle configuration specialist, this would provide an opportunity to see a new product from the always imaginative Burt Rutan, and would also provide an opportunity to catch up with NASA projects at the nearby NASA Dryden (now NASA Armstrong), at Edwards Air Force Base.

I visited Scaled Composites on the 26^th Feb 1990, one week after Ares had made its first flight, and attended a presentation of the aircraft to local media, industries and others.

Ares was the Greek God of war, and Scaled Composites had also turned ARES into an acronym for its Agile Response Effective Support aircraft. The design was described at the time as an anti-helicopter and light support aircraft, with potential customers being the US Customs Service and possible the US Army or Marines. The intent was that the demonstrator would validate the concept and that further development would enable a variety of other roles to be developed.

The aircraft is of unusual design, essentially resembling a turbofan-powered configuration similar in size and shape to a Rutan Long-Eze, wrapped around a GAU-12U 25-mm multi-barrelled cannon.  The design is dominated by the arrangements made to accommodate the cannon, which is mounted in a payload bay on the starboard side of the aircraft. To avoid any problems with gun gas ingestion, the Pratt & Whitney JT-15D engine is mounted at an offset of 8 deg and fed by a single intake on the port side of the fuselage, with a curved jet pipe exhausting parallel to the fuselage longitudinal axis.

The attached photos of the aircraft were taken on the visit and show the unusual layout of the aircraft.  The demonstration flight made on the day was the 5^th flight of the aircraft.

This is video is quite impressive, showing the aircraft manoeuvring nimbly at low level around rough terrain in California, firing trials with the cannon, and Burt Rutan explaining the features of the aircraft.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you. 

At the time, I thought this was a neat little design, with an original approach to packaging a large gun into a small airframe. I was sceptical of how such an aircraft could contribute to UK capability, but could see the potential for an air policing or border protection role for others.

Now, the design looks well ahead of its time. With the ability to carry external stores on 4 hardpoints as well as the cannon, ARES would have been a fast and flexible counter-insurgency asset, offering much greater speed than competitors derived from turbo-prop agricultural aircraft or trainers.

Having made this initial visit, I included a visit to Mojave on a couple of other occasions. Among other projects, Scaled Composites built the composite delta wing for the Pegasus air-launched small satellite deployment system, and claimed this as the fastest and highest altitude composite wing, travelling at greater than Mach 5 and up to 200,000 ft. The company has built many notable products, including the Voyager and Global Flyer; and the White Knight 1 and 2 and Spaceship 1 and 2. They are building the Stratolauncher, which will have the largest wingspan of any aircraft yet flown, with a view to providing an airborne satellite launch system.”

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

MiG-27 pilot response

“Rutan ARES – as a policing aircraft / anti-smuggling / etc. great piece of equipment and fun to fly. Can try their luck against slow moving military targets. Reminder in my diary: Getting into a combat with potent platforms to be avoided. Shoot and scoot, and enjoy the scenery on the way. A good ride for a cool flight :)” 

8. Northrop A-9

MiG-27 pilot response

“Northrop A-9A – lost out to the Fairchild A-10. It may have lost out to the A-10, but any design that combines gaps from an actual conflict with inputs from participating combatants cannot go too wrong. The A-10’s selection is justified, but losing out to it is not a black spot on its character, by any measure. Will fly!”

7. PZL-230 Skorpion ‘Jet Machinepistol’ 

A mid ’80s Polish requirement for a small, agile battlefield attack aircraft resulted in the PZL-230F. Looking like a Manga cartoon of a SR-71, it was actually a serious design with an emphasis on survivability, ease of use and economy of operation. Slow (around 400mph) and capable of forward basing it would have offered a flexible close air support capability. Armament would have consisted of a gun (possibly the GAU-12 rotary cannon) and a light load of guided and unguided munitions.

 Initially a degree of stealth was desired, but later in the programme it was decided that this was a redundant quality in an aircraft operating so close to the frontline it would be visible with naked eyes. Its rivals were the IL Kobra 2000 and PZL Mielec M-97/M-99ch. Several configurations of the PZL-230  were offered with turbojet, turboprop and turbofan engines. The 230 won the contest and some development work was done, but it was unsustainable, as Poland faced the economic crisis of transitioning from communism to capitalism. It was terminated in 1994, never having reached a flyable prototype stage.

MiG-27 pilot response

6. PZL Kobra ‘The Pizzle Twizzle’ 

A late Cold War-era Polish battlefield attack aircraft that looks like a Manga SR-71 is too high-risk for you? You might find a suitable replacement in the PZL Kobra. The Kobra picked up where the PZL-230F Skorpion left off – another lightweight attack aircraft optimised for operations in the forward edge of the battle area. A twin-engine design from Warsaw’s Aviation Institute in collaboration with PZL, it sought to break the Polish Air Force’s dependence on its regular Soviet-supplied equipment.
Revealed to the public in September 1993, the Kobra soon disappeared without trace, but not before a computer-generated artwork provided a tantalising glimpse of what might have been.

While the Skorpion was judged to be too radical a solution for the close-air support requirement (remember, at this time the only Polish Air Force aircraft in this class that required direct replacement was the Lim-6bis ‘Fresco’), the Kobra was hardly conventional itself. The engine air intake was mounted above the fuselage, just aft of the bubble canopy, à la North American F-107, presumably to provide optimum protection from ground-launched infrared-guided missiles. The swept wings were of conventional configuration, but the large horizontal tail surfaces were mounted on twin dorsal fins projecting well below the bottom of the rear fuselage.

The Skorpion dates back to the mid-1980s era of Solidarność, but before the shackles of Soviet domination had been thrown off. In contrast, by the mid-1990s, Poland was newly independent. This is reflected in plans for the Kobra to incorporate 70-80% of Polish components, compared with just 20% for the Skorpion.

The Kobra’s powerplant was to be a pair of indigenous thrust-vectoring turbofans, based on the existing PZL D-18, generating 27kN (6,070lb) of thrust – sufficient to provide for a weapons load of up to 4,000kg (8,818lb). Rate of climb was to be in the region of 100m/s (19,665ft/min).

Had the Kobra found official favour, it was planned to achieve a first flight within four to five years (around 1997-98, in the best-case scenario), before service entry in the early 2000s. At the time, there was a perceived requirement for between 60 and 100 examples (a two-seat variant was also schemed) that would have bridged a gap between Mi-24 helicopter gunships and fighter-bombers.

 — Thomas Newdick, aviation writer

MiG-27 pilot response

5. Helio AU-24A Armed Stallion ‘Mekong Bobtail’

Credible Chase was not Chevy’s barely known Shakespearian acting brother but a US sponsored project was intended to add mobility and firepower to the South Vietnamese Air Forces as quickly as possible. The type had a brief combat career. 

MiG-27 pilot response

“Helio AU-24A Armed Stallion – One of those designs boosted by the ’necessities’ of war, it was ultimately passed on to an ally for counter-infiltration/surveillance/road convoy escort roles – finding for itself a niche that it may not have been designed for, but acquitted itself creditably in. Sometimes, it is all about the timing, and this one sparked at the right moment. Let me choose my battle, and I’ll fly it.”

4. Ilyushin Il-102 ‘Arse-end Ivan’

The sexy high-tech nature of the latest warplanes is appealing to the inner child of those in charge of procurement, which may partly explain why the exceptionally ugly and low-tech Il-102 failed to enter production. And boy, did Ilyushin try. It started life as the Il-40 a design from 1953. It was then dusted off and slightly modified to compete against the Su-25 as a new battlefield support aircraft for the Soviet air force. It lost the competition, but unusually for the Communist Soviet Union, Ilyushin persisted with it as ‘private’ effort.  This culminated in the Il-102 of 1982, which must be the last fixed-wing design to be offered with a rear gun turret fitted with a GSh-23L twin-barreled cannon that could traverse in the vertical plane. Considering that Ilyushin created the Il-2 Sturmovik, an aircraft as symbolically important to Russians as the Spitfire is to the British, is not hard to see their magnetic attraction to building a new tough and simple warhorse, but the this ‘Jet Sturmovik’ was not to be.

MiG-27 pilot response

“Auto-operated tail gun turret, a second cockpit mid fuselage. A a little stuck in time-warp? Got to give it points for unique features, especially the under-wing bomb-bays. Fit for starring role in an Indian Jones flick. I’ll trade in my Flogger if given a role.”

3. Potez 75

Intended as a battlefield support and counter-insurgency aircraft armed with guided anti-tank missiles (the SS-10), the wonderfully anarchistic Potez 75 shared much with modern helicopter gunships, including its top speed of 171 mph. The type didn’t prove successful as a missile platform and was subsequently modified to perform the light attack role with guns, rockets and light bombs. It proved its worth in this role in a combat evaluation in the dirty Algerian War of the mid-1950s. Potez received orders for 100 from the French military. Light COIN aircraft are seldom popular with air forces, as it is feared they lead to subservience to land forces and threaten the beloved high-tech fast jets. Accordingly, the Potez 75 failed to survive budget cuts.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you. 

MiG-27 pilot response

“Potez 75 – A design that has evolved but not changed much hence (boom / pusher), its operational success is noteworthy. Also proves how in spite of failing in its originally designed role as a missile carrier, it went on to become an effective ground attack platform. There is nothing like conflict and constraint to bring the best out of most designs. It has a specific battle to fly, not much latitude there.”

2. Breguet 460 ‘Vultur’ ‘Uncultur Vultur’

Throughout the 1930s, French aircraft designers went to seemingly endless lengths to build the ugliest aircraft the world had yet seen. This happy state of affairs would still, no doubt, be ongoing if it weren’t for a few rogue designers, distracted by long hours devising new examples of aeronautical anti-pulchritude, inadvertently producing a couple of quite pretty fighters. France immediately capitulated to Germany. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Meanwhile the Armee de l’Air had formulated possibly the most mercurial specification for a combat aircraft yet devised: the ‘Multiplace de combat’ in which the same aircraft was to act as a bomber, reconnaissance aircraft and heavy fighter. This idea was ultimately not entirely insane as the de Havilland Mosquito managed exactly that some years later. However, back in 1935 when this machine made its first flight the roles envisaged for this aircraft were totally incompatible. That did not stop various companies attempting to produce such an aircraft and the Vultur was Breguet’s stab at the impossible. As can be seen, Breguet succeeded handsomely in producing an aesthetic monstrosity, only exceeded in ugliness by the competing Amiot 143 which ultimately became a pretty successful heavy bomber (though it is impossible to even entertain the possibility of it succeeding as a fighter).

Despite its impressive armament which included three 23mm machine-guns and 1500 kg of bombs which would have rendered it potentially useful in the COIN role in France’s colonial possessions, the Vultur was not deemed sufficiently hideous to enter production. However, the Republic of Spain, desperate for modern (or at least modern-ish) equipment, acquired several examples (probably all that were ever built). Although its operational life in Spain is obscure, as are those of most aircraft operated by the Republicans, it is known that it saw action against Franco’s Nationalist forces – arguably the most successful insurgency in history. So although it was cancelled, the Vultur did at least see active service in the COIN role.

Weirdly, and for no obvious reason, the aircraft was developed into an improved version, the Breguet 462, which also served in Spain and ultimately two examples survived to operate in the Vichy French air force. Decidedly obsolete, both were scrapped in 1942.

– Ed Ward
MiG-27 pilot response

“Can’t help comparing this to the B-17 origin story. A less ambitious program, it too failed initially. However, the military/govt., did not totally  dismiss the idea, and the rest, they say, is history. The importance of sticking it out and encouraging designers to experiment cannot be overstated. Won’t fly!”

1. Sukhoi T-12 (1984) ‘Conjoined Battle Frog’

In 1981 the Soviet ministry for the aviation industry requested designs from the main design bureaus for a new generation of combat aircraft for the 1990s. It was a vast requirement as the USSR wanted new fighters, bombers and tactical support aircraft; the latter need was be addressed by project ‘Sturmovik-90′.

In 1984 the Sukhoi OKB chief of project Mikail Potrovic’ Simonov pushed forward an extremely unorthodox proposal, the freakish T-12. It consisted of two Su-25 fuselages connected to a central section. If that wasn’t unusual enough already, it also had swept forward wings.

The centre section housed a novel propulsion system devised by P.A. Kolesov, named Izdelie 107. It was a kind of ‘double’ engine that could operate through an elaborate bypass system like a variable cycle turbojet, depending on the speed, maximum thrust or operating economy required. The considerable size of the aircraft, whose weight could reach 30 tons, was viewed with a certain skepticism by military authorities who would would have preferred a more compact machine. Conversely, Simonov was convinced of the need to make an aeroplane without compromise, capable of employing a wide variety of armaments to attack any type of land target. Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, studies continued until 1992, with continuous modifications and reinterpretations of the initial design, some of which included two conventional engines, a rather more conservative single fuselage, the introduction of measures to decrease the radar signature — and even a a carrier capable variant. The T-12 never reached the construction phase.

Thanks to Isma Mehreen and Ivano Guastella for translating from the excellent Assaltatori ed Aerei Da Attacco Al Suolo: Russi E Sovietici 

MiG-27 pilot response 

“It was 1984. The Soviet-Afghan campaign was raging. The Soviets felt a need for a replacement of the Su-25, which averaged about 360 sorties per annum, considerably higher than other types.

One design that the Soviets came up with was the Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik ‘attack aircraft’ 90. It basically sought to twin the Su-25, placing two fuselages in parallel, taking combined thrust up a notch to 100kn (02 x RD 33I OR 01 x RD 79-300 ) along the centerline axis, and increasing payload/loiter/even survivability (twin cockpit design) in the process.

Design:

First look at the design, and it reminds you of the Wing-in-Ground-Effect (WIG) designs like the S-90 ekranoplan.

Stealth 1.0?

While not a ground-effect aircraft by any means, the  lifting body design, forward swept wings, nacelles and a lack of horizontal stabilisers may point toward some form of Stealth 1.0 experimentation. The planned use of internal bays to carry payload also emphasises this.

Safe to assume, though, that external carriage would also be an option (contrary to today, back then payload was a big factor). The pilot/Fire Control Radar would be housed on the port section, and the WSO/Nav-attk on the starboard. Lessons for Afghanistan, re. crew survivability?

Performance:

The Max Take Off Weight was planned for 20 tons (the figure for the Su-25 figure is 19.3 tons). Against the 4.4 ton store capacity of the Su-25, this design peaked at 6.5 tons.

EW sensor package in the aft would enable stand-off/protection measures, and additional room for fuel would increase loiter.

Offsetting the low thrust-to-weight ratio (below), it is estimated that the forward sweep would help retain manoeuvrability in the transonic regime, enhance low speed performance – especially given the unique twin design, assist STOL ability and improve range.

Powerplant:

Variable bypass ratio turbofan powerplant with flat nozzles seem to be on cue here. However, if the 0.69-0.70 Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of the Su-25 was desired, a thrust of at least 19 tons (RD 79-300) with an AUW of 30 tons would work. But that would violate the planned AUW.

Hence, the second option of utilising 02 x RD 33I (02 x 5500kgf) for a lesser TWR (0.53 – 0.55) for the initial variants, but still weighing in at 23 tons. Maybe they had also retaining a future possibility for re-rating (AL-31) / thrust vectoring / even VTOL, maybe.

Afghanistan aside, the case for carrier ops is also strong with this one J

Well, whatever the design feasibility, the early 90s put paid to this project, promising during its time, from progressing ahead.

In hindsight, the higher payload/range requirement for close-support was unique to Russian platforms of the era. In addition, the Su-25 managed to hang in there just about okay.

It is likely that this platform, had history been kind to it, would’ve evolved beyond the role it was designed for, into a test-bed for stealth evolution / next-gen carrier aviation or a strategic role in the tactical battle area (wink wink tac nukes)

Incidentally, both the Allies and Axis tried this back during WWII. A sense of urgency, plus a need to put heavier and longer-range platforms into the air encouraged them. Both incidentally were trumped by the advent of the jet engine, and the new challenges of airpower.

Who knows what could’ve become of the Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik 90. But it remains safely ensconced in the legacy of fighter design, consigned to the digital attic now, awaiting its time to come back to the drawing board!

During WWII, the Germans and the Americans had experimented with a similar ‘twin-up-grade’.

The Germans with the Me 309 à Me 609 upgrade, sought to economise on time and effort (taking parts from the failed Me 309) to put a heavier fighter into the air. The jet-powered Me 262 put paid to the effort.

The Americans were more successful with the P 51 à F 82 transformation (inspired by another German twinning project, the Bf 109Z ‘Zwilling’), largely meant to transform them into long-range escorts for the B-29s (3200km+), towards the Pacific war effort.”

———————————————————————————

BONUS

American Electric Piranha (1966) ‘Little Miss Big Bite’ 

With a name better suited to a Prog Rock band, the American Electric Piranha was essentially a weaponised LeVier Cosmic Wind (a name better suited to a Psychedelic Rock band). The Cosmic Wind was a tiny racing aircraft designed and built by Lockheed’s chief test pilot, Tony LeVier, and a group of Lockheed engineers. It first flew in 1947, and the design team hoped it would win the Goodyear Trophy for Formula 1 class racers. Six Cosmic Winds were built (the last in Britain in 1972) and the type won the 1964 King’s Cup.

According to declassified documents “The search for a follow-on aircraft to the AC-47 had begun in 1966 when Project Little Brother looked at several smaller planes. This project died, however, when the Air Force decided to reconfigure the C-130 Hercules (Project Gunboat).” The Piranha certainly was smaller, powered by a tiny engine and held aloft with wings a mere 3.85 metres in span. Armament came in the form of two wingtip pods each carrying four Zuni unguided rockets and a single 500-pound (230 kg) bomb on a belly hardpoint. Had it entered service, this tiny aircraft may have had a tiny logistical footprint and been easy to deploy, but would have been exceptionally vulnerable to small arms fire in the dangerous skies above Vietnam. Even appealing to patriotic sentiment with the ridiculous alternative name’ American USA’ couldn’t save this unlikely project, and it was pushed aside by the AC-130, an aircraft with far greater endurance and firepower.

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

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 planes”.

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.

SAAB-MFI-17 (only 300kg external load capability) 72-3 Janes

We spoke to Knut Övrebö, Chief Engineer of Future Air Systems for Saab to find out more about the road that led to today’s Gripen mulit-role fighter. 

What was B3LA and why didn’t it happen? 
“B3LA was a study of a transonic strike aircraft aimed at replacing the ground attack version, AJ 37 Viggen. It was also referred to as the A 38, filling the gap between the Aircraft 37 Viggen and the Aircraft 39 Gripen. (All aircraft destined for Swedish inventory are assigned consecutive numbers including cancelled projects)
B3LA progressed quite far including several wind tunnel tests and a full scale mockup. For a year or so Saab even did some joint work with Aermacchi who was developing the AMX in parallel. But in the late 1970s it was realised that B3LA did not offer enough potential for the future and the focus was redirected into a single multirole platform which could fulfil both Fighter, Attack, and Recce roles. (in Swedish: Jakt/Attack/Spaning, thus JAS 39). Saab had conducted very promising studies of the ‘lightweight fighter concept’ potential, and when B3LA was cancelled in February 1979, the JAS 39 project destined to become the Gripen was initiated. In this process several other options were assessed as well, but I’m not going into such details. A lot is available in books (mainly Swedish) and on the web.”

Looking at the respective successes of AMX and Gripen it is not hard to conclude that Saab had the right idea, though AMX is an effective low-cost attack aircraft and did succeed in its relatively modest goals. AMX production ended in 1999 after 200 aircraft were produced. As further testament to that, the Brazilian AMX force is set to be completely replaced by the new generation Gripen…in 2032!

Sadly, this site will pause operations in June if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

The British connection 

Around 1980, British Aerospace was looking for a partner for its P.106 concept. It wished to use cutting-edge technologies, including fly-by-wire control and a carbon fibre wing, to offer a viable alternative to the correctly predicted commercial dominance of the F-16. The F-16 had great potential, and was being aggressively promoted by the US, but there was room in the market for another combat aircraft for nations not wishing to sacrifice the advantages of maintaining some indigenous design and production capabilities. Sweden was looking for a Viggen replacement at the time, and Saab was interested in learning more about the P.106. The BAe P.106 was also a canard delta of similar configuration to the nascent Gripen. In the early 80s, a technical exchange between Saab Linkoping and BAe Warton enabled engineers to talk and share ideas. The P.106 effort was led by Jim Fletcher, who had led the Short SC.1 VTOL test aircraft project of the 1960s. Saab decided to pursue JAS 39 Gripen as a national effort, but was impressed by the British carbon fibre wing design. In 1982 it issued a contract with BAE for six sets of wings for the Gripen prototype aircraft. Bae and Marconi-Elliot was also brought in to help resolve early problems with the flight control system.

What, if any, was the influence of BAe P.106 on the Gripen design?
“None that I’m aware of. The P106 looks very similar to the Gripen, but at the same time Israel developed the Lavi and Switzerland were considering the Piranha, both single engine canards. So it’s rather a logical layout for such a configuration.
Gripen was actually the result of extensive exploration of configurations including wind tunnel testing and analysis of all major options. WT-testing of early Gripen was conducted mainly in Rockwell facilities in the US. And one of the options considered (config 2111) was based on Rockwell’s HiMAT-technology (High Manoeuvring Technology). And this alternative has the strongest resemblance to P106. I guess BAe were testing out similar ideas being inspired by Rockwell as well. Below is the Gripen development path with the major configurations assessed during the concept phase from 1979 up until 1982. The Viggen heritage is apparent and a strong point in the final selection of configuration.”

Interview with a Viggen pilot here

Interview with a Gripen pilot here

What were the Swedish/British fighter talks about in the 1970s and how much did they influence Gripen?
“In this business ‘everybody talk to each other’ quite frequently, and Saab had dialogues with several other industries including collaborative technology studies. I’m not aware of these specific talks you refer to and the influence they had on either side. In the 70s UK seemed to be more focused on VTOL, but later on got into the studies of agile fighters. They did the Jaguar FCS testbed, just as FCS was demonstrated on the Viggen ESS testbed by Saab. There may have been collaboration on technology development such as carbon composites, but I really don’t know. But BAe had a stake in the wing design of the Gripen based on their knowledge within carbon composites.”

When and why was the canard delta arrangement decided upon for Gripen?
See the family tree above. Both tail and canard configurations with various intake positions and planforms were assessed, and the final selection was made in 1982. The rationale for canard was mainly short field performance and air-to-air combat agility: Gripen was to be able to operate from short roadstrips and was designed to excel in air-to-air combat. Furthermore, FCS enabled pitch instability in a canard which gave great weight savings, smaller actuator loads and more agility. In hindsight, this has proven to be a very wise selection. With another configuration, the Gripen would have been bigger, heavier and more draggy requiring a bigger engine to provide similar performance. And then it wouldn’t have been as competitive.

I understand a large twin-engined replacement for Viggen was considered, what was this? “Low operating cost has always been essential to Saab and the Swedish Air Force, and this is directly related to both size and the number of engines. In fact it was the escalating operation and support cost of Viggen that was the main driver for replacing it. The replacement was to provide similar or superior performance at half the weight (size) of the Viggen. And this rules out both twin engines and large aircraft. In the end Gripen is about half the empty weight of Viggen and immediately was vastly superior in all air vehicle aspects. And early on in service the Gripen systems matured into capabilities beyond the most recent fighter Viggen. The only large twin engine Saab concept I can think of was a nuclear bomber being considered in the 1950s. A wind tunnel model is on display at the Air Force Museum in Linköping. But this never progressed beyond an idea.”

Furthermore our air force always assess options to indigenous designs, and I believe the F-4 Phantom II was considered as alternative to the Viggen early on, just as the Northrop F-18L (landbased version of what later became the MDD F/A-18 Hornet) was considered as alternative to Gripen. And both of these were twin-engined large aircraft and would have been very costly to operate.”

What was the SAAB Project 1642-06 FLP Klass B3LM and was it based on the A-10?

“See answer 5. It was clearly inspired by the A-10, but never progressed beyond 3-view sketches. But this is how concept work is often conducted. By ‘reverse engineering’ the competitors, you assess their pros and cons to check if there is something to carry further. And this sketch is typical of such competitor assessments.”

What future fighter studies are Saab doing?

“Future studies are ongoing continuously. We always look beyond the horizon to assess options, to develop technologies and to prepare roadmaps to position ourselves to be highly competitive long term. Studies include future development of existing products and ideas of new products. But I’m not at liberty to reveal information on any of these studies.”

Were any stealth fighter designs considered in the 70s/80 or 90s?
“Stealth design in terms of reducing the radar cross-section by several magnitudes was not considered until the 1980s.”

A Draken pilot I spoke to said Draken had a very low radar cross section – is this true and how low was it? “No it’s not true. Draken has a planform that could be associated with a stealth aircraft, and Lockheed Martin apparently considered acquiring one of the Drakens available in the US to be used as a testbed for UCAVs. Their F-16XL has a remarkably similar double delta planform but was not stealthy either. To acquire low RCS, a suitable planform is not enough. It is down to detail design, surface joints, air intakes, canopy, external stores, etc.

The level of RCS in Draken? I’d say conventional, i.e. comparable with other small fighters of this generation like Mirage III. In other words, in clean configuration without external stores it would have somewhat lower RCS than a large fighter carrying external stores.”

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

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 planes”.

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.

I told our columnist (admittedly just in my head) not to do a quarantine special. I definitely mentioned (thought) that he should avoid the ubiquitous toilet paper jokes. I emphatically bellowed (might have had a passing thought) that he should not tar all fans of aviation with the brush ‘nerd’ or ‘trainspotter’. Well, Sam Wise, never one to listen to my unexpressed wants, has done all of the above and here it is. 

“You would think that aviation nerds, who skirt the fringes of society, have a limited palette of human interaction and who are frequently kept more than two metres away from normal people at the best of times, would be barely affected but the opposite is quite true. Every aviation event in the world shut its doors, nearly every passenger flight is grounded and even for those cargo flights that are moving, no one is allowed to go and see them. Thus, the majority of plane geeks have got literally nothing left in their lives.
The situation, then, might seem dire. But fortunately we’ve come up with a list of DIY
aviation activities to scratch that itch, to see you through these dark days! The following will provide endless hours of aircraft and aerospace-related fun without ever having to leave your home (which you shouldn’t be doing unless for essential journeys or one exercise a day. And remember to wash your hands).
1. Watch aviation movies down your camera lenses. Imagine you’re at an airshow or a fence somewhere while watching Top Gun, Chevaliers du Ciel or even Airplane.
Enjoy the rollercoaster action as though you’re seeing it live, get those perfect
topside shots or close-in static images. You can even enjoy stock-footage on some of
those Australian customs and immigration shows they put on daytime TV. Don’t
forget to share your pictures on Twitter!

2. Ever fancied being ~0 years old again? Relive those heady days by getting your
partner, family member or other person living with you to put your food on a spoon
and say “Hewe comes da aewopwane” as they “fly” it into your mouth. Nyeeoowwnn
noises are, of course, compulsory. Try to imagine the cutlery as a plane from a
different era with each mouthful – in this way you get to enjoy a display of the
evolution of aviation without ever leaving your dining table! If you live alone simply throw the food into the air and catch it with your mouth.

3. If you accidentally panic bought 500 rolls of toilet paper they can be handily
fashioned into a MiG-21, Su-7 or -9, English Electric Lightning or other such
pencil-bodied fighter jet. Stockpiled lasagna sheets can work wonders for the wings
and tail section and all those bottles of wine and beer everyone knows you’ve been
getting through can make for realistic missiles. Toothpaste lids make ideal jet nozzles.

4. Recreate the sounds of aviation even during your work hours! Assign each of your
colleagues an airline-appropriate callsign and use strict radio protocol during Zoom
meetings. Refuse to answer them until they do the same, and they can join in the fun
too!
5. Design your own aeroplanes with pen and paper. You’ve got plenty of options here –
fanciful, realistic, fictional etc. Supersonic VTOL spy-triplane? Why not, who says you
can’t! Upgraded F-15 variant with human-carrying pods on the wings? Sure thing! A
stealthy TSR.2 if the bloody Yanks hadn’t cancelled it out of jealousy or something?
Hell yes. Don’t worry if you’ve got no drawing ability and your plane looks like total
garbage, just pretend you’re an aeronautical engineer from the 1920s.

6. For a more thoughtful act, you can show solidarity with grounded or jobless airliner
pilots by staring out of your window for 12-14 hours every day. Bonus respect points
if the window faces into the rising or setting sun. Wear aviators to add a touch of
“ex-military cargo pilot” to it.

7. Sort your patch collection into alphanumeric order*. Although, at that point it’s
probably better just to let the corona take you. As you can see, there’s no reason to let your favourite hobby sit by the wayside during this difficult period. With a little imagination, decisive determination and a burning hot fiery passion for all things flight you can find isolation no less entertaining as before. In the real world, meanwhile – stay safe, don’t let up on washing your hands and maintaining social distancing, think about those around you and don’t travel unnecessarily.

Also

Do visit aviation museum websites as some are offering virtual tours and could do with your support.

Hush-Kit is eight years old today, here’s what we’re doing to celebrate.

What do you love? The thunderous naan triangle that was the Avro Vulcan? The evil insectoid menace of the Apache? Or perhaps the elegant beauty of the de Havilland Comet racer?

The arrogant brutality of the Thunderchief is appealing…but then so is the industrial madness of the MiG-25 or the batshit eccentricity of the Wyvern. You can choose absolutely any aircraft. Have a think, make this impossible choice and pop your answer in the comment section below. 

Let us know your favourite aircraft in the comments section below and after a month (closing date 23/5/2020) we’ll tally the votes and assemble a top ten with a quirky history of each type that is included in the list. 

Hello pilots!

How’s your Russian? Some kind soul has scanned and uploaded the entire 1942 Pilot’s Notes for the IL-2 Sturmovik. What I didn’t expect was the vivid and jolly colour printing and merry drawings of all the controls and stuff – as well as some hearty tank busting renderings. I imagine it would quite cheer one up after being posted to a punishment squadron. смерть фашистам and all that.
Here they are

— Ed Ward

Rowland White and Hush-Kit each have new books. Rowland’s is about the exciting story of 809 Naval Air Squadron, while Hush-Kit has a lavish coffee- table book on warplanes, quite unlike any other. Both are available for pre-order today (the Hush-Kit book is entirely crowdfunded so do get involved).

Fuelled by Malbec and cabin fever, and using the excuse of joint promotion to talk about aeroplanes — the two gave each other 10 questions. 

Hush-Kit interview Rowland White 

What’s so interesting about 809 Squadron?
“Through chance and circumstance they sort of came from behind to emerge as the Fleet Air Arm’s leading fixed wing squadron. For nearly ten years they flew from Ark Royal as the FAA’s sole Buccaneer squadron, then returned in 1982, pulled together like the Dirty Dozen for one last mission (which, of course, is inherently cool …) then, off the back of all that, displaced more obvious choices like 800, 801 and 899 to be chosen as the Navy’s first F-35B Lightning squadron.”

In your book, you share the fact that BAe tried to sell the (Sea) Harrier to some pretty unlikely customers – who were they?
“Apart from those that did buy first generation jump jets – the US, India, Spain, Thailand – there were also concerted efforts to sell them to Australia, Iran, China, Chile, Brazil and even France! But of most interest in the context of the Falklands War, was the strong pitch to the Argentine Navy in the late seventies, supported by the Foreign Office on the basis that, designed for air defence, the Sea Harrier would pose little threat to the Falkland Islands.”
What is the biggest myth about British Harrier operations in the Falklands War?
“That twelve Phantoms aboard the old HMS Ark Royal would necessarily have done a better job than twenty Sea Harriers. In the end it was, as it so often is, more a numbers game than anything. The F-4 was undoubtedly a more capable naval interceptor than the Sea Harrier. Heavily-armed, long-legged and equipped with a powerful pulse-doppler radar, Phantom on CAP ‘up-threat’ of the islands would have wreaked havoc against incoming Argentine raids – including the Exocet carrying Super Etendards. But six weeks is a very long time to keep just twelve Phantoms and their crews flying without any possibility of reinforcement or replacement. The F-4 was maintenance heavy and temperamental in comparison to the SHAR which chalked up astonishingly high mission availability rates during the war. Then there was the weather. Given the conditions in which some of the Sea Harriers were able to get back on deck it’s hard not to imagine that some of the F-4s might, at the very least, have suffered damage in landing incidents. Once your force of twelve F-4s is reduced to ten, or eight, or six serviceable airframes it all starts to look a little more tenuous. The SHARs, on the other hand, could be reinforced almost as required by RAF GR3s. In what was a largely visual fight against enemy aircraft that had little or no radar capability of their own, Sidewinder-armed GR3s were a viable alternative.”
Your books are brilliantly researched – are you particularly dogged, what motivates you?
“OCD”
The Argentinians claim to have hit a British carrier, something the British deny…what is your opinion on this? “See homeopathy, flat-earthers, anti-vaccers, the link between 5G and COVID-19, and fake moon landings …”
What was the biggest lesson of your first book?
“To choose a subject you really, really like. If your motivation is anything other than a genuine and unquenchable interest in telling the story, it’s going to be a misery. It’s just too much work to do it for anything but the love of it. I need to almost have a compulsion to write a story. Before I arrived at Vulcan 607, the first subject I started scratching around was the Schneider Trophy Races. I even interviewed a former engineer who’d worked in the Supermarine factory in the thirties, but my heart was never really in it.”

How important were the USMC in the development of the Harrier’s air combat potential; what was VIFFING – and what are its benefits?
VIFF – Vectoring in Forward Flight – was the unique ability of the Harrier to change the direction of its jet thrust by rotating the four exhaust of its jet engine. The US Marine Corps were the driving force behind the technique from the outset. Two USMC test pilots evaluated the Harrier in 1968. When they asked about the envelope for putting the nozzles down in forward flight they got the impression it was the first time anyone had asked. But after some hasty calculations came back from Hawker, they took the jet to 25,000 feet and 300kts and gave it a go. They would go on to develop it into something of an art. Trials first took place using a Kestrel that belonging to NASA, but accelerated once frontline Marine Corps squadrons got their hands on real Harriers and, employing VIFF against A-4s, F-4 and T-38s, beat them all. Such was the potential that, in 1972, a joint UK/US test programme, run by the USMC, NASA and the Royal Aircraft Establishment was instigated that proved beyond doubt that, using VIFFing, the Harrier was capable of manoeuvres that no other warplane could match. As one veteran USMC Harrier pilot put it: ‘When we started, the F-4 Phantom was the Marines’ premier fighter. And when we engaged them in dogfights, they were literally murdered.’ Because of its ability to VIFF, no opponent could stay in a Harrier’s six o’ clock if the jump jet’s pilot didn’t want it to. Ironically then, and despite much being written about VIFFing in British newspapers as the Task Force sailed south, the technique was never used to either shoot down or escape the enemy during the Falklands War.”

How well did the Harriers do in the Falklands and why were they so important?
“The Sea Harriers destroyed twenty-three enemy aircraft – fixed and rotary wing – without suffering a single combat loss in return. Those numbers speak for themselves. With respect to the Sea Harrier’s importance to the operation to recapture the Falklands, it was black and white. As Admiral Sir Henry Leach, First Sea Lord at the tome of the Falklands War, put it: ‘Without the Sea Harrier there could have been no Task Force’.”

How important was the AIM-9L and what was its advantage?

“In the end, it turned out to be largely psychological. The latest version of the Sidewinder, rushed into service with the Sea Harrier before the fighting, was described as a ‘death ray’ by one of the engineers who developed it. From the moment when a SHAR armed with the Nine Lima first intercepted a 707 shadowing the Task Force on 21 April, the Argentine Air Force knew they were up against a missile that, unlike their own, could be fired from any angle – even head-on. It was a factor in their reluctance to engage the Sea Harriers and, where possible, avoid them altogether. In the event, post-war analysis showed that every single Sidewinder kill should have been within the capability of the earlier AIM-9G version.”

Pre-order order your copy of Harrier 809 here.

How do you decide on the subject for a book and determine the ‘story’?
“Each book has been something of a reaction to the content of the previous one, a change in direction. From RAF to the Fleet Air Arm; from big machines at sea to a rough and ready ground war in the Middle East; from boots on the ground to orbital mechanics; and from the US back to a very British story – and one that, more than any other book I’ve written, is about air-to-air combat. There have also been particular, and sometimes quite unlikely sounding touchstones for the books. With Vulcan 607 I wanted to write something that felt something like a British, non-fiction, Flight of the Old Dog. I wanted Phoenix Squadron to feel like the miniseries that launched the Battlestar Galactica reboot. The trigger for Storm Front was watching a special forces assault in an episode of 24. For Into the Black it was reading Andrew Smith’s brilliant Moondust. I genuinely hadn’t been much interested in space until I read his account of his effort to meet the surviving moonwalkers, but as soon as I did I knew I had to write about the Shuttle – a spaceship with wings.
Then identifying the shape and focus of the narrative is absolutely key. Obviously I’m working with the facts as I’ve discovered them but I’m always thinking about the story I’m telling and trying to deploy the material in the service of that. I’m fascinated by the subject of ‘story’ and what’s required to capture and hold a readers’ (or moviegoers’) attention. So I’m an avid reader of the likes of Robert McKee, William Goldman, John Yorke and was even lucky enough to attend one of McKee’s mesmerising three-day seminars on story. Wanting to know how I want make readers feel – over the course of a whole book, but also scene by scene – is almost a starting point. Once I’ve figured that out then the research that follows sort of arranges itself organically in my as I get deeper into it.”
Most of your books are about British aviation subjects, why is this and how important is the warplane to British mythology and self-identity?
“I can’t speak French and I have only limited American. And old warplanes do seem to be strangely important to the way this country sees itself, don’t they?”
Which aircraft is most like you and why?

“Victor K2. Like me, it could have arrived straight out of Flash Gordon – and it possesses a massive hose.”

Rowland White interviews Hush-Kit

Why did you start Hush-kit and what did you want to that wasn’t already being done?
“I had been made redundant and needed something to do to stop me going mad. My friend Eva suggested I start a blog, I think she wanted me to work more on my humorous writing — and was disappointed to find out I’d dedicated it to aircraft! I guess I was interested in breaking the unwritten rules of how aircraft are discussed, but equally inspired by what I loved in the aircraft books of the 1980s. I was frustrated that a subject as exciting as aviation was generally written about in a very boring way. And I was very uncomfortable with how the subject is often hijacked for nationalistic or militaristic purposes. Also, was there a reason humour was outlawed from aerospace writing?

Listicles are often frowned upon, but I think they’re brilliantly accessible… so what happens if you get insiders to help you with them? Behind many of the top 10s are anonymous contributions from some pretty interesting people. Initially I struggled to get interviews with the people I wanted but over time it got easier. The chance to interview soviet interceptor pilots and Iranian Tomcat aces (for example) was a thrill! There’s still a a load of pilots I’m desperate to talk to.”
What magical combination of different elements makes up the perfect Hush-kit article? “There’s a few different style of Hush-Kit article, some quite serious and some quite silly. One thing I’m interested in is giving sensible answers to childish questions that I wondered as an 8-year-old, an example being the chance to ask a Spitfire/Typhoon pilot which of his aircraft would win in a dogfight. The articles I like best communicate a real story in an entertaining way. There are many pitfalls, and if you are not careful it’s easy to unquestioningly share manufacturers’ PR spin, nationalist jingoism or use too much jargon (all things I’ve been guilty of at times). Well informed stuff with a sprinkle of humour makes me happy! I think writers sometimes worry that silliness will undermine the serious stuff, but trusting the intelligence of your readers gives you greater liberty.”

Which aircraft has been the most unlikely success story and why? “The F-4 Phantom II. The success of the Phantom is a lesson in the importance of persistence. It started life as a ‘Super Demon’ (McDonnell’s taste for supernatural names was wonderful) – a reboot of a less than stellar design… and went on to conquer the world. It was an interesting design in many ways, arguably putting power and avionics/weapon systems above aerodynamics. Makes you wonder if a British Super Javelin could have became an equally successfully polished turd.”
Tell me which aeroplane best represents each of the ten deadly sins

“Great question, I’ve just listened to the brilliant Stephen Fry podcast on the 7 deadly sins so sin is very much on my mind:

Pride

I will not risk saying Tejas..how about the new British Tempest project?

Greed

KC-46 Pegasus.

Lust

Panamarenko’s ‘The Aeromodeller’ of 1971. A 28-metre-long airship made of glued strips of PVC film with an underslung cabin of rattan palm sprayed in silver. He planned to live there permanently in the air, with Brigitte Bardot. In 1971 Panamarenko tried to test fly the airship to Arnhem, and may have had plans to pick up Bridgette Bardot (who I am pretty sure was completely unaware of the plan).  The Dutch aviation police didn’t approve of this dangerous enterprise — in an untested, possibly unflyable machine — and informed Panamarenko of this by telegram. Panamarenko didn’t give a shit for the Dutch aviation police and attempted to take-off. But was thwarted by a storm.

Envy

Qaher 313?

Gluttony

“Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s A380. I think Idi Amin sent a 727 to the UK to pick up his weekly Fortnum & Mason’s hamper –– and whisky. There is also many stories of military aircraft flying unnecessary ‘shop runs’. I have it from a reliable source that a Marienflieger Tornado flew a mission to Norway in the 1980s to pick up some smoked salmon.”

Wrath 

“Project Pluto. A nuclear-powered nuclear weapon delivery vehicle. To quote wikipedia “It was proposed that after delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing secondary damage from radiation.” that’s after it has already delivered nuclear bombs. It then crashes, to further curse the ground with even more radiation. I mean that’s particularly spiteful even for a nuclear weapon. Not sure I agree with Yuval Noah Harari that having instant genocide ‘in a jar’ is a good idea.”

Sloth 

“The Bristol 188. Designed to explore flights at sustained bi-sonic plus speed, it couldn’t go past mach 1.88. To put this in perspective, it was a high-speed research aircraft that first flew three years after a faster aircraft (the EE Lightning) had entered actual frontline service.  Still, it looked magnificent with is beautiful stainless steel construction and huge engine pods. At the same the Americans were flying around at over Mach 3 with a titanium aircraft.”
Which career of an aircraft design that never entered service do you spend most time thinking about. How did it pan out? “There’s a few here. I’d like to know more about the Nimrod MRA.4. A few billion (perhaps four) spent and nothing much to show for it apart from a ‘capability holiday’ (no fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft for a nation surrounded by sea) and a later multi-billion order for a US aircraft. Then there’s all these (potentially) brilliant cancelled British fighters”
Who – living or dead – would you most like to write a piece for Hush-kit and why? “There’s a question! Brian O’Nolan on the F-35? P.G. Wodehouse spending an afternoon drinking with R.J. Mitchell?  Hunter S. Thompson on krokodil reporting from Zhukovsky? Leonora Carrington flies with Iranian Tomcats? Elsa Hildegard Baroness von Freytag-Loringhoven on biz-jet reviews?”

Which aviation conundrum keeps you up at night and why? Is it possible to love to love killing machines without losing part of your soul? And, does USAF need to be so incredibly huge? What’s the logic behind a low-visibility roundel?

If Hush-kit were a helicopter what would it be and why? There’s a gulf between what it would like to be and what it is! It would perhaps like to be a Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne of a parallel universe where the thing worked well and entered service. Though actually I think we would be the Romanian IAR 317 (what happens when a shopping trolley falls in love with an Alouette). Just remembered I’m supposed to be plugging our new coffee table book which is crowd-funded and is going to be magnificent, you can order it here.

Round the world in a Graf Zeppelin or an Empire Class Flying Boat? “Zeppelin! I don’t smoke anymore, but if I did, the Hindenburg’s smoking room looked amazing. Unsurpassed luxury and elegance!”
What should I write next? Persuade me.

“The story of babies conceived by factory workers in partly-made Lancaster bombers? There’s something very uplifting about that I think.”

When Defying Hitler author Greg Lewis took to Twitter to tell the story of the B-17 crew saved by an anonymous forced labourer who sabotaged shells made for the Luftwaffe, the story went viral. Today he asks how widespread was such sabotage in German aircraft factories and considers the risks faced by those involved.

In the summer of 1978 two former members of a B-17 crew met to discuss their escape from death in a raid on Kassel in Germany in 1943.

Sitting on a porch in Tarrytown, New York, co-pilot Bohn Fawkes turned to his navigator Elmer “Benny” Bendiner and said: “You remember that we were hit with 20-mm shells?”

Benny said that of course he did but that was not unusual. It happened whenever they got jumped by a German fighter.

Bohn leaned forward and Bendiner could see that a “revelation was on the verge”.

Yes, but remember the shell that hit the gas tank? Bohn said.

Benny said he did. All the crew had talked about it like it was a miracle. And to them it was, because somehow their plane – Tondelayo – had not been blown out of the sky by an explosion. Just unbelievable luck, they assumed, and carried on with their duties.

That’s not quite the full story, Bohn told him now, 35 years later. He said the morning after the raid he’d checked with the ground crew and was told there had been not one but 11 unexploded shells in the gas tank.

Eleven unexploded shells in the fuel when just one should have been enough to blow the B-17 apart.

Bohn said the shells had been sent to the armorers to be defused but had then been rushed away by an intelligence officer.

Bohn had tracked down the officer and had hounded him until eventually he had told Bohn the full story – before swearing him to secrecy.

Bohn wanted to tell his old friend now.

He said that as the armourers had opened each shell they had found no explosive charge. Each shell was empty, harmless.

Except one. Inside that one was a carefully rolled piece of paper with a note written in Czech by a labourer forced to make the shells for the Luftwaffe.

The note said: “This is all we can do for you now.”

The crews’ lives had been saved by someone they would never know. And the worker would never know that he/she had saved ten lives.

I came across this story in Elmer Bendiner’s marvellous 1980 memoir, The Fall of the Fortresses, while researching the lives of USAAF crews flying out of England during WW2.

It stopped me in my tracks but nothing prepared me for the reaction it would get when I shared it on Twitter. The actions of a hero risking their lives to help someone they would never know struck a chord.

For some people it found a new relevance in these days of the Covid-19 pandemic when we are all being asked to stay inside to save the lives of others – perhaps strangers – across society. But it also set me thinking about other instances where sabotage might have helped aircrew – sabotage not by trained agents of the OSS or SOE but by foreign labourers forced to work for the Nazis. It’s an immensely difficult area to research. Such sabotage was naturally secretive, and many would not survive to tell the tale.

It was also possible for myth to develop. For instance, it has been claimed the note in Bendiner’s story also included the words: “Using Jewish slave labour is never a good idea.” But these words are not in Bendiner’s original account in his book.

The Nazis put the use of forced labour at the heart of its war industries. They gathered up huge numbers from territories over-run in eastern Europe and Russia, but also from the Netherlands, Belgium and France, where round-ups would encourage many young men to join resistance groups.

According to Nicolas Stargardt in The German War, there were just under 8 million foreign workers in Germany by the summer of 1944. Huge numbers worked in agriculture and on the railways but it was factories which would become the focus of resistance and sabotage.

In Defying Hitler I wrote about some of the 500 Jewish people of Berlin who were forced to work at Siemens-Schuckertwerke, an aircraft parts factory which spread across a two-hundred-acre site in the northwest of the city. The workforce contained at least two groups of anti-fascists, led by the inspirational Herbert Baum, the jazz musician Heinz Joachim, and a young toolmaker named Heinz Birnbaum. All had actively opposed the Nazis since before they even came to power and would coalesce as a single resistance group under Baum.

Baum and Joachim spread anti-Nazi feeling and encouraged dissent, while as a sub-foreman Birnbaum worked out which of the workers might help him carry out small acts of sabotage: pouring sugar into a machine’s transmission to make it seize up and change the measurements on a job ensuring it had to be done again. These things could only be done sparingly and not repeated by the same person so Birnbaum took care to recruit as many helpers as he could.

Baum and his French Catholic friend, Suzanne Wesse, also wrote pamphlets encouraging sabotage and such was their success that Baum teamed up with Robert Uhrig, a thirty-eight-year-old toolmaker who controlled a large factory-based resistance network of his own, carrying out small acts of sabotage at factories in a number of cities, including Hamburg and Essen. He concentrated on infiltrating workers – mostly non-Jews – into armaments and aircraft factories.

Both the Baum and Uhrig groups were eventually uncovered and huge numbers were executed. With the urgent need for fighters to defend the Reich, German aircraft factories demanded full commitment from the forced labourers it treated badly and fed poorly. And so one of the most basic forms of resistance a worker could do was to slow down the pace of work.

According to Detlev J.K Peukert’s Inside Nazi Germany this may have become widespread and, while it was usually punished as ‘idling’, it often became viewed as sabotage. Every month the Reich compiled statistics for the numbers of arrests and foreign workers made up the largest category.

Peukart uses just one month of the war – December 1941 – to highlight the situation inside Germany, at a time when the number of foreign workers was about a third what it would be by the time of D-Day.

During that single month the Gestapo recorded 7,408 arrests for refusal to work and another 2,043 for ‘opposition’.

These are nameless people now, who downed tools in a state which allowed no opposition, and who through their own principled dissent carried out an act of resistance. The Czech worker who sabotaged the shells which struck Bendiner’s aircraft might have hoped and prayed that their failure to fill the 20mm shells would save an Allied airman but they probably never imagined their note would be discovered.

If it was a miracle that the B-17 survived, it was also a miracle that this wonderful act of humanity was revealed. And so we are left to wonder if this brave and nameless individual also became a statistic in a Gestapo report? For arrest, deportation to a concentration camp, death? We are allowed to hope they survived but we will never know. Either way, they are a symbol of all those who show courage without expecting reward or recognition.

Greg Lewis is an award-winning writer and television producer. His most recent book is Defying Hitler: The Germans Who Resisted Nazi Rule (with Gordon Thomas)