International law and your enemies (potential or otherwise) can’t catch you if you fly fast enough! With this in mind, spy-planes which fly over (or close to) enemy territory scooping up illicit visual and electronic information, tend to be very fast. With every air defence radar, interceptor and surface-to-air missile out to get them they evolved into the fastest, highest-flying, aircraft in the world. Here are ten, truly incredible, reconnaissance aircraft that were axed before they entered service. 

10. 7RF-4X Mach 3 Hellraiser 

In the 1970s, the Israeli air force wanted a reconnaissance aircraft capable of carrying the extremely impressive HIAC-1 camera. The F-4 was considered, but the G-139 pod that contained the sensor was over 22 feet long and weighed over 4000 pounds – and the Phantom did not have the power to carry such a bulky store and remain fast and agile enough to survive in hostile airspace. One solution was to increase the power of the engines with water injection, something that had been done for various successful F-4 record attempts. This combined with new inlets, a new canopy and huge bolt-on water tanks promised a mouth-watering 150% increase in power. This would have allowed a startling top speed of mach 3.2 and a cruising speed of mach 2.7. This level of performance would have made the F-4X almost impossible to shoot-down with the technology then in service.

The F-4X would also have been a formidable interceptor – something that threatened the F-15 development effort, causing the State Department to revoke an export licence for the RF-4X. Even with the increase in power, the Israeli air force was still worried about the huge amount of drag, but a solution came in the form of a slimmed-down camera installation in a specially elongated nose. This meant the interceptor radar had to be removed, which assuaged the State Department’s fears and the project was allowed to continue. However, worries from the F-15 project community returned (as did worries about how safe the F-4X would have been to fly) and the US pulled out. Israel tried to go it alone but didn’t have enough money, so the mach 3 Phantom never flew.

9. Tsybin RSR Reactivnyi Strategicheskii Razvedchik

Attacking the United States in the 1950s was daunting prospect for the Soviet Air Force. The Cold War USA, with its infinitely deep pockets, was defended by a vast integrated air defence system with a well-equipped air force. In 1954, the US deployed the world’s first operational surface-to-air missile system, the Nike Ajax. High altitude subsonic bombers had gone from the ultimate weapon to vulnerable prey.

On 4 March 1954, Pavel Tsybin (a designer working in missile development who had developed tactical assault gliders in the War) sent the Government a proposal for a manned supersonic long-range bomber capable of a speed of 3000 km/h, with 30,000 metre ceiling and a practical range of 14,000 km. Such an aircraft would be virtually invulnerable. However, it soon became apparent that the technical challenges for the ramjet-powered bomber were insurmountable. Tsybin suggested a smaller design that could also be used for reconnaissance. The solution to meeting the strategic range requirement was to air-launch the aircraft from a Tu-95 ‘Bear’ heavy bomber or from atop the abortive Bartini A-57, a vast bisonic bomber capable of sea launch (which Hush-kit will be covering in greater detail soon.)

The challenges of keeping the design small and light enough for air-launch another proved insurmountable issue. It was not possible to carry something as a heavy as a contemporary thermonuclear bomb, and so it was re-tasked to the unarmed reconnaissance role. Conventional operation from runways was the obvious solution to the illiberal weight restrictions; this ruled out ramjets propulsion, as aircraft on the ground begin their take-off run at zero airspeed (or air flow speed) and ramjets require a high air flow speed to function. The design was now to be powered by turbojets. It was intended to supercruise in excess of Mach 2 at a height of 20,000 m (65,600 ft) with a  range of 3760 km (2,340 miles). In support of this project a smaller aerodymanic testbed, the NM-1, was flown in 1958. This proved largely satisfactory (unlike Britain’s comparable Bristol 188) though it lacked the required manoeuvrability to avoid surface to-air missiles. The design was refined and became the R-020. Five airframes were completed by 1961, lacking only engines. But the aircraft was not to be. In April of the same year, Premier Khrushchev cancelled the programme. It is not known exactly why it was axed but there are likely explanations: the similarly fast MiG-25 was by now in development; satellite technology was improving; Khrushchev preferred funding missile programmes.

The designer of the RSR  and NM-1, Pavel Vladimirovich Tsybin, died at work on February 4, 1992.  An outstanding contributor to the field of aeronautical and space technology, he survived the Soviet Union by only six weeks.

* A ramjet can theoretically be started at speeds as low as 100 knots but it does not start to produce any significant thrust until around mach 0.5. Regardless, the aircraft would still have required a way to reach the minimum 100 knots.

If you love aircraft we strongly suggest you buy a copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes 

8. Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche

In the early 1980s the US Army had a good think about their helicopters, and how vulnerable they were to modern air defence systems. A vast and ambitious programme was started to address this concern, dubbed the Light Helicopter eXperimental (LHX).

The LHX was required to replace the UH-1 ‘Huey’ in the utility role as the LHX-U, and the AH-1 Cobra and UH-1M in the gunship role as the LHX-SCAT. The SCAT would also supersede the OH-6A and OH-58C for the ultra-dangerous scout/reconnaissance mission sets. In 1982, the US Army had a force of around 2,000 utility aircraft, 1,100 gunships and 1,400 scout helicopters — any replacement could expect enormous orders. Such large numbers meant a big budget for researching new technologies, big profits for the winning contractor and global dominance in the field of military helicopters. The study that led to the LHX noted that there was a lack of original thinking in US Army aircraft procurement and that bizarre, exotic and unconventional approaches to the problem should been encouraged.The use of advanced materials, avionics and new concepts – like stealth and a single-pilot crew – were also to be encouraged.

One way to reduce vulnerability was to make the LHX faster than existing helicopters, and a top speed of 345 mph was suggested. This is extremely fast for a conventional helicopter, even today the fastest helicopters rarely go beyond 200mph (for reasons explained here). All major US helicopter manufacturers leapt into the fray, fiercely fighting to win the golden ticket of LHX. The entrants were quite unlike anything else built before or since.

The utility requirement was dropped from LHX in 1988, and by 1991 the Sikorsky-Boeing collaboration had been selected as the winner. This aircraft, the Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, first flew in 1996. The 200 mph 11,000Ib Comanche was a very sleek machine with weapons and undercarriage stowed internally to minimise drag and, more importantly, radar cross section. Three Hellfire (or six Stingers) missiles could be held in each of two weapons bay doors complemented by a trainable 20-mm GE/GIAT cannon. It was intended that the two-person helicopter could sometimes be crewed by one, but this proved dangerous in practice (the single person attack helicopter has proved unpopular-  the sole operational example being the Russian Ka-50).

It was the first known helicopter designed with a high degree of low observability and was extremely sophisticated, but despite the $7 billion spent, it was not to be. It required substantial modifications to be survivable against modern air defences, dwindling orders were pushing the unit price up and the US Army thought it wiser to invest funds into upgrading existing platforms and into developing unmanned scouts that could do the job without risking a pilot’s life. Some also wondered how useful radar stealth was for an aircraft that would often be slow and low enough to be targeted optically. After a 22 year effort, the Comanche was axed in 2004.

Life after Comanche 

Not all was lost, however. The LHTEC T800 turboshaft developed by Rolls-Royce and Honeywell for the Comanche has seen considerable use. It powers the Super Lynx 300, AW159 Wildcat, Sikorsky X2 (an experimental co-axial pusher), T129 ATAK gunship and even serves (as a boundary layer control compressor) on a vast flying boat – the ShinMaya US-2.

A stealthy reconnaissance and attack helicopter seemed like a good idea. Unfortunately it turned out to be wildly expensive and a mite too specialised. It was terminated after around $7 billion had been spent on it. Some technology developed for it was useful for the US secret stealth helicopter force. Its specially developed engines found employment with a variety of choppers including the Lynx Wildcat.

7. Avro 730 ‘The British Blackbird’

In 1954 the British Air Staff  issued a requirement for a new reconnaissance aircraft to spy on the Soviet Union. Studies concluded that survivability would necessitate a cruise speed of mach 2.5 at an altitude of 60,000 feet. The maximum speed was to be Mach 3, around two and half times the then standing air speed world record of 755mph set by a F-100 Super Sabre the preceding year. This was a huge ask for late ’50s engine and materials technology, and that’s not even taking into account the 5,000 nautical mile range that was also demanded. To meet these targets it was to have four (later eight!) turbojet engines carried in two pods on the wings.

As well as standard reconnaissance, the 730 would act as a pathfinder for Britain’s V-force bombers, scanning the ground with the Red Drover sideways looking radar (SLAR). The aircraft was to be fitted with a Red Drover sideways looking radar as its primary reconnaissance sensor. Studies revealed the radar could be smaller than anticipated, leaving the design in the unusual position of being underweight and with space to spare. As this was the 1950s, where the solution to any military equipment question was the addition of genocidal weapons of mass destruction, it was decided to arm the 730 with a stand-off missile with a 1-megaton warhead.  A high-speed bomber requirement was also being studied at the time, so it made sense to merge the projects into the new RB.156 requirement of October 1955. Avro (creators of the Lancaster and Vulcan bombers) had been entrusted with the project, known as Type 730, and the first flight was planned for 1959. Work had begun on the first fuselage when it was announced the type was cancelled, which followed Duncan Sandys’ infamous 1957 White Paper that decreed manned military aircraft to be obsolete.

6. Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A

Most American taxpayers are blissfully unaware that they coughed up an eye-watering $1.67 billion for the E-10, before it was cancelled in 2007. It was conceptually comparable to the F-35, using high technology to be all things to all men. It was ambitiously planned as a multi-role military aircraft to replace the Boeing 707-based E-3 Sentry and E-8 Joint STARS, the Boeing 747-based E-4B, and the RC-135 Rivet Joint . This noble quest for McNamara-esque commonality has a bad history in military procurement (other ‘jacks of all trade’ included Britain’s disastrous SA80  and the US’ wrong-headed TFX programme.) The usual conclusion universal weapon projects is an expensive maintenance–heavy single-use system — with a radically different variant for another purpose — supported by superior designs optimised for single tasks.

The E-10 was based on the Boeing 767-400ER commercial airplane, a bad choice of airframe if the unfortunate Pegasus tanker project is anything to go by.  The E-10 finally disappeared at the end of FY2007 as budget pressures and competing priorities pushed it completely out of the budget. Significantly, the USAF maintained funding for the MP-RTIP radar and may eventually put the radar on the E-8, or restart a project to put it on a 767.

Boeing held on to the E-10 prototype until it was sold to Bahrain in 2009 for conversion into a VIP transport. As a facetious aside, including the figure spent on
this airframe before its new life would make it the most expensive VIP transport in history, surpassing even the Airbus A380 ‘Flying Palace’!

5. Republic XF-12 Rainbow

In many ways, the XF-12 Rainbow was the most advanced piston-engined aircraft ever built, and it was also one the most beautiful. Disobeying comedians’ rule of threes — the Rainbow  ‘flew on all fours’: four engines, 400 mph cruise, 4,000 mile range, at 40,000 feet. It was the only four-engined piston-engined aircraft to achieve 450mph. Intended to serve in the high altitude reconnaissance role, this superb aircraft arrived too late: fast high altitude flight was now the domain of jets.

4. Beriev S-13 ‘U2ski’ 

On 1 May 1960, CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers flew a spy mission over the Soviet Union.  The intruding U-2, which had taken off from Pakistan, was shot down by a local air defence system over the Urals. The well-known aftermath played out on the international stage, and several quieter stories took place behind the scenes. One of these less publicised activities was the Soviet attempt to build their own U-2s.

Powers’ U-2 was broken apart by the missile’s impact, but the debris remained relatively intact. The retrieval of these parts inspired a frantic Soviet effort to reverse-engineer a fleet of their own U-2s. As well as allowing accurate assessment of this enemy aircraft, the homegrown ‘U-2skis’ were expected to be used for aerial reconnaissance, weather research and intercepting high altitude US spy balloons. The Beriev design bureau was given the task, and the project was designated S-13.

The U-2’s engine, the Pratt & Whitney J75-P-13, was reverse engineered as the Zubets RD-16-15.  By 1 April 1961 the first S-13 fuselage was completed. It appears the project was going well, but on 12 May 1962 it was cancelled. Analysis revealed that modern air defence systems could make mincemeat of slow high-altitude aircraft, and the aircraft would be too vulnerable. Aerial intelligence was better provided by spy satellites, complemented by high-speed reconnaissance aircraft, such as the MiG-25 then in development. Although no S-13 aircraft flew, the programme gave insights in materials and manufacturing methods that were then used new Soviet aircraft designs. The technology from fallen reconnaissance aircraft is still harvested in the modern age, notably in the case of Iran and the RQ-170.

3. Project Isinglass

Project Islinglass was a CIA study started in 1966 inspired by a proposal from McDonnell Douglas for an invulnerable spaceplane. The manned aircraft (an unmanned variant was also proposed) would be dropped from beneath the wing of a B-52 mothership, light its rocket engine and climb to near orbital speed. It would then fly over the Soviet Union at such a high speed and altitude it would be impossible to shoot-down. Indeed, detailed simulations showed the inability of the latest, and even notionally superior SAMs , to stop Isinglass. Even equipping the SAMs with nuclear warheads wouldn’t help them to kill it.

According to documents only declassified in 2004, the aim of Isinglass was:” To establish the feasibility and initiate development of a high performance rocket engine, hypersonic boost glide vehicle’ and camera system capable of providing quick reaction wide swathe high quality photography of highly defended denied areas. This system will perform at speeds in excess of Mach 20.0 and at altitudes over 200,000 feet’ and to “To flight test three aircraft and produce eight operational aircraft and camera systems for deployment in FY 1971”

There were three things counting against the invincible Isinglass; there was no official CIA or NRO requirement for such a machine; the price would have been astronomical, for only eight aircraft it was expected to be $2.6 billion USD  (inflation adjusted US$ 20.67 billion in 2019); its trajectory could well have made it looked like an intercontinental ballistic missile and triggered World War III.

2 Antonov An-71 Madcap

Inspired by the success of the Israeli Air Force’s E-2 Hawkeye in the 1982 campaign in Lebanon, the Soviet Union went about creating its own tactical airborne early warning and control aircraft – the Antonov An-71.

An operational requirement was formulated in 1982, with the aim of creating a land-based AEW&C aircraft at least as capable as the E-2C. The aircraft was required to have an endurance of at least 4.5 hours and the ability to detect low-flying aircraft and other low-observable aerial targets – and track 120 of them at a time.

After considering the An-12 and An-32 as platforms for the new surveillance aircraft, Antonov opted for the short take-off and landing (STOL) An-72 Coaler. While the ‘saucer’ rotodome was conventional, its position on top of the tail was radical. The tail fin itself was swept forward to compensate for centre-of-gravity changes; the T-tail was replaced by a low-set horizontal tail. To ensure there was enough power despite the weight of all the internal systems, an additional small turbojet was buried in the rear fuselage. Those onboard systems were to be operated by a mission crew of three, in addition to two pilots and a flight engineer.

Briefly, consideration was given to developing a carrier-based version of the Madcap, but there was no way to successfully fold the wing for hangar stowage and the thrust-to-weight ratio was inadequate for a ‘ski jump’ take-off. Instead, the Soviet Navy opted for the more conventional Yakovlev Yak-44 project, which, in the event, never progressed beyond a mock-up.

Work on the land-based An-71 continued and a first flight followed in July 1985. Another prototype was completed before the programme was axed, the victim of the demise of the Soviet Union.

It’s hard to say whether the An-71 could ever have been a success, but flight trials demonstrated generally good flight characteristics and avionics performance – the radar was shown capable of detecting 400 targets over land of water within a range of 230 miles and simultaneously tracking up to 120 of them. With its rough-field performance, the Madcap might have been a very useful force-multiplier for Soviet tactical aviation operating over Europe’s Central Front in a late 1980s Cold War scenario.

— Thomas Newdick, Editor of Air Forces Monthly

1. Convair Kingfish

An air of mystery surrounds the Convair Kingfish, a proposed replacement for the U-2. The U-2 had been getting tracked by Soviet air defences as soon as it became operational in 1956, and its shelf-life was reduced from two years to six months. The CIA, its main customer, tasked Convair and Lockheed to come up with a spy plane that flew higher, faster and, crucially, with the lowest possible radar cross section (RCS).

Convair already had the putative B-58 which carried a large external pod for a nuclear weapon. In 1957, the B-58B Super Hustler was proposed, carrying an additional ‘parasite’ aircraft instead of the pod. This would be hauled to at least 35,000 ft where its three ramjet engines could be started, jettisoning its rear portion as it launched from the mother plane. Small, very fast, and high-flying, it was a logical candidate for a reconnaissance platform. For the CIA project, the concept was reduced to a single aircraft, code-named FISH or First Invisible Super Hustler (best Blaxploitation movie never made?). It could reach a speed of Mach 4 at 75,000 ft, climbing to 90,000 ft as it burned off fuel. In order to handle the heat generated, the leading edges of the nose and wings were built of a new “pyroceram” ceramic material.

This proposal was rejected, as the concept relied on unproven ramjet engines and required launching from a mother plane that did not yet exist. The Kingfish was Convair’s next attempt, keeping the stainless-steel honeycomb skin and the use of pyro-ceram material, with engine inlets made of fiberglass. It was sleek, with the classic Convair delta wing design and a pair of J58 engines mounted within the fuselage. Even the intakes and exhausts were arranged to reduce RCS.

But, in August 1959, Convair got the thumbs-down again, and Lockheed’s A-12 went into production. The Kingfish incorporated too many untried technologies, and concerns remained that Convair had sacrificed performance for RCS. Plus, Convair had a history of cost overruns, while Lockheed had shown it could be on time, under budget and, thanks to its secure Skunk Works facility, top secret. The Kingfish never saw light of day but, with a shape you can trace to the F-117 twenty years later, in many ways it was the birth of stealth.

— Oliver Harris, author of A Shadow Intelligence –

Special thanks to Oliver Harris & Thomas Newdick

SAVE THIS SITE!

If you wish to see more articles like this in the future please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. Hushkit.net depends on donations to carry on. The more you donate, the more you will get.

So, your ship has come in and you’re basking in unheralded wealth. It’s a problem all of us have to deal with at some time (right? Hope so). You’ve bought a big crazy house and the sports car you always dreamt of, where do you go from there? – the only way is up and that means a private jet. Join the ranks of the super rich, you might want to fly your own classic airliner like John Travolta or just settle for painting your surname on it in massive golden letters like Donald Trump. However even if you’re inordinately rich it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to fork out the cool $500 million that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia paid for his own private Airbus A380. And that’s before you’ve even gone anywhere, an A380 guzzles approximately $17,500 of fuel per hour, which is enough to make even Bill Gates think about taking the bus. But then most potential biz jet owners are unlikely to be in the market for an aircraft containing five king size bedrooms to choose from, each with its own ensuite bathroom and sitting room. Prince Alwaleed’s jet also features a throne for him to sit on while he travels through the sky. It’s possible that you’ve long been in the market for an airborne throne room but alas, very few biz jets actually feature them. Though most do have very comfortable seats. If you can scale down your ambitions a little, the following tips may be of use when you enter the market place for a new or used private jet.

Let’s start with the boring stuff: cash. If you are even considering dipping your toe into biz jet world it would seem to suggest that you are fairly well off, or at least know someone who is. But you might not have enough to shell out the full amount in used notes right this minute. Luckily there are many lenders with dedicated aviation financing plans so you don’t have to sweat the small stuff. You can work this out yourself or you might consider employing a dedicated finance broker. Financing a jet is a pretty complicated business so it’s as well to have someone around who knows the pitfalls. They will also know which lender to approach to get the best funding deal for any particular aircraft.

A biz jet is going to be an expensive purchase but that doesn’t mean you don’t want to get the best deal you can. Just like a car, there are benefits to looking at the used market. You’ll typically get more aircraft for your money but you need to look more closely at your potential purchase. It’s all very well for a fighter pilot to ‘kick the tyres and light the fires’ but it’s as well to pay a bit more attention when you’re the one who has to fork out for a main spar replacement because someone overstressed the airframe. Whilst there are relatively few aviation equivalents of the ‘one careful lady owner from new’ used car (having said that, Oprah Winfrey owns a Bombardier Global Express XRS), it’s worth looking for a corporate aircraft that has been the pride and joy of its owner and kept scrupulously maintained its entire life. Brand new aircraft are obviously more expensive but they generally come with a five year warranty, although Embraer sell their Legacy 650E with an impressive ten year warranty, which might save you money in the long run. If you do go down the used route then making use of a reputable aviation broker makes sense, they generally charge between three and five percent of the overall cost of the aircraft and can help with ongoing operational issues further down the track.

Once you’ve settled on the particular type you want, it’s worth doing some serious homework on that aircraft to avoid any pitfalls. Professional help is available, and frankly, no matter how much research you’ve done you’ll need to employ the services of a professional inspector. It’s particularly important to know your chosen aircraft’s maintenance cycles. That five year old Embraer Phenom might look like a bargain for a couple of million dollars but that won’t look so rosy if you have to spend another $250,000 on scheduled maintenance. No matter what aircraft you want to buy, if it’s used, insist on a pre-purchase inspection by a certified authority. In the US this would occur at a certified 145 repair station and there are, of course, worldwide equivalents. Usefully the EU and US honour each others certification standards which simplifies things, though if you’re based in the UK what happens to aircraft certification if and when the UK leaves the EU is anyone’s guess. Expect it to be expensive.

Do you even need to buy your jet? Leasing a business aircraft is a popular and comparatively economic alternative to ownership. It’s a good way to see if biz jet ownership is the right strategy for you without the undeniably large outlay required to take the plunge and actually buy an aircraft. Leasing takes two forms known as dry-leasing and wet-leasing, if you dry-lease an aircraft, it would generally be for a long term period. You don’t get any fuel or crew and have responsibility for maintenance and insurance. Wet leasing includes all these things and is usually for short periods or one-off trips.

Ultimately, although it invokes all the glamour of the genuine jet-set, the business aircraft is like anything else, do your homework, shop around, seek professional advice and you’ll find you may be able to do something that once seemed impossible.

— Ed Ward, more info here.

An air of mystery surrounds the Convair Kingfish, a proposed replacement for the U-2. The U-2 had been getting tracked by Soviet air defences as soon as it became operational in 1956, and its shelf-life was reduced from two years to six months. The CIA, its main customer, tasked Convair and Lockheed to come up with a spy plane that flew higher, faster and, crucially, with the lowest possible radar cross section (RCS).

Convair already had the putative B-58 which carried a large external pod for a nuclear weapon. In 1957, the B-58B Super Hustler was proposed, carrying an additional ‘parasite’ aircraft instead of the pod. This would be hauled to at least 35,000 ft where its three ramjet engines could be started, jettisoning its rear portion as it launched from the mother plane.

Small, very fast, and high-flying, it was a logical candidate for a reconnaissance platform. For the CIA project, the concept was reduced to a single aircraft, code-named FISH or First Invisible Super Hustler (best Blaxploitation movie never made?). It could reach a speed of Mach 4 at 75,000 ft, climbing to 90,000 ft as it burned off fuel. In order to handle the heat generated, the leading edges of the nose and wings were built of a new ‘pyroceram’ ceramic material.

This proposal was rejected, as the concept relied on unproven ramjet engines and required launching from a mother plane that did not yet exist. The Kingfish was Convair’s next attempt, keeping the stainless-steel honeycomb skin and the use of pyro-ceram material, with engine inlets made of fibreglass. It was sleek, with the classic Convair delta wing design and a pair of J58 engines mounted within the fuselage. Even the intakes and exhausts were arranged to reduce RCS.

But, in August 1959, Convair got the thumbs-down again, and Lockheed’s A-12 went into production. The Kingfish incorporated too many untried technologies, and concerns remained that Convair had sacrificed performance for RCS. Plus, Convair had a history of cost overruns, while Lockheed had shown it could be on time, under budget and, thanks to its secure Skunk Works facility, top secret. The Kingfish never saw light of day but, with a shape you can trace to the F-117 twenty years later, in many ways it was the birth of stealth.

— Oliver Harris, author of A Shadow Intelligence  

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

SAVE THIS SITE. YOUR DONATIONS KEEP THIS SITE GOING

PAYPAL

PATREON

Donate

You may also enjoy Ten incredible cancelled Soviet fighter aircraft, Ten worst Soviet aircraft, Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft, Fighter aircraft news round-up,  11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versusTyphoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US

Described as a ‘royal merciless game-changer’, the Sukhoi Su-30 ‘Flanker’ is a monster: a long-ranged, well armed, unbeatably manoeuvrable fighter uniquely equipped with 3D thrust-vectoring control (TVC) enabling it to perform seemingly impossible aerobatics in the sky. We spoke to  IAF Gp Capt Anurag Sharma to learn more about flying and fighting in the Russian superfighter. 

What were your first impressions of the Su-30?
“I was awestruck at the size of this monster! I caught a glimpse of it at Bangalore Airshow in 1997 (I was part of the inaugural day fly past in a Jaguar formation). There it stood in the lineup….. majestic, mighty and muscular! Head and shoulders above the crowd! Even the Air Display by the Russian Test Pilot was a show stopper. The M2000, F-16 etc were just no match for this beauty.”

“Another mission that stand out is a group combat mission that was pitching a Su-30…against three F-16… End score one F-16 claimed without loss.”

What’s the difference between a K and MKI and which is better?
“Su-30K was basically the Su-27 UB (trainer version) modified to be a two-seater fighter and the Su-30 MKI is a two seater upgraded version of Su-30K. While the two maybe classified into the same family and have few physical differences (canards, nosewheel, thrust vectoring and glass cockpit); the operational philosophy of the two aircraft is vastly different because of the much-upgraded operational capability of the MKI.

The Su-30 K was basically an air defence fighter of the 3.5 Gen that could drop dumb bombs (albeit in large quantities). But the MKI is a multirole fighter in the real sense of the word. The enhanced avionics package, weapons, near AESA airborne interception radar that permits simultaneous Air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting puts the MKI in a league of its own. The fly-by-wire system of the MKI allows carefree handling viz-a-viz Su-30K. The Su-30 K was handling with care especially in the low speed regime whereas the MKI is carefree handling all the way!

Personally, my heart is with the Su-30K! perhaps because I grew up on it. Attempting to master the Su-30K was a challenge in itself because you had to develop “seat of the pants feeling” in an aircraft that was not carefree handling (as you would expect a FBW aircraft to be). The avionics package, information presentation was rudimentary and presented great challenges as an operator. I think that is what made it special. The skill of the pilot counted more on that type.

But given a choice, I would pick the MKI for a combat fight. The total package of the MKI is a force multiplier in combat!!! Hands down!!

Which three words best describe it?
“Royal, merciless, game-changer.”

5. What is the best thing about it?
Ans. As a fighter pilot, you look to emerge victorious in every battle; the Su-30 gives you that confidence. Rest is up to you!

And the worst thing?
“Haven’t found one yet!”

How you rate the Su-30 in the following categories?

“A. Instantaneous turn– at high speeds, a shade slow, but once you get her to 650-709 Kmph- as goos as any. With thrust vectoring- unparalleled!

B. Sustained turn– depends upon the load and altitude. At medium altitudes with AA loads only very good and matches any other 4/5 gen fighter ac.

C. High alpha- Exceptional! Requires skill but once you know what to do- she’s a beauty!

D. Acceleration. The Su-30K was faster because it was lighter but the MKI is good when it comes to low speed combat against F-16/F-18/ Mirage 2000 class of aircraft. Acceleration also depends upon the load carried.”

Interview with IAF MiG-25 pilot here

Climb rate

The Su-30K had a greater reserve of power; even in the MKI, ROC is very good for its huge size. You can feel the acceleration when she climbs!

What was your most memorable mission? 

“Well there have been many over the years but a few that stand out are as follows: –

(a) DACT with F-16 Block 60*of  Republic of Singapore Air Force.

(*Ed: think these are actually Block 52)

The strongest adversary that we could possibly face in our life as a fighter pilot was the F-16 of PAF (for obvious reasons). So the excitement of facing an F-16, even in a mock combat was unbelievable. The weight of the mission was overbearing! Perhaps that’s what makes it special. As the combat commenced, we manoeuvred for our lives and in very little time the situation was in our favour! The desperate calls from the F-16, “Flare, Flare, Flare!” are very distinctly audible in my ears even today! From that day, the anxiety that prevailed over facing an F-16 in combat was gone forever…. Vanished! It was clear what the outcome would be!”

“Another mission that stand out is a group combat mission that was pitching a Su-30 & one MiG-21 BISON against three F-16 . As luck would have it, the BISON did not get airborne and now the game was one Su-30 vs three F-16 in a BVR scenario. Again, we pushed the envelope, manoeuvred between 3000 ft to 32000 ft, pulling up to 8 g, turning, tumbling, firing and escaping missiles in a simulated engagement. The crew co-ord between us in the cockpit and the fighter controller on the ground was the best that I have ever seen! The results in a mock combat are always contentious but with ACMI, they are more reliable. End score one F-16 claimed without loss. When we got out of the cockpit we were thoroughly drenched in sweat and tired from the continuous high G manoeuvring but all smiles for the ecstasy that we had just experienced.”

Which aircraft have you flown DACT against and which was the most challenging?
“In the Su-30 I have flown DACT with RSAF (Royal Singapore Air Force) F-16, M-2000 H /5[ FAF], MiG -29 amongst the ASFs. I think the most challenging was the M2000 in France. The carefree manoeuvrability of the Mirage its nose profile and avionics package perhaps gave it an edge over the others. The F-16 beyond the initial turn loses steam, the MiG -29 is very powerful but conventional controls maybe …. . A good Mirage guy can manoeuvre more carefree.”

Typhoon pilots say they ‘trounced’ the Su-30 in DACT exercises, yet Su-30 say the reverse? What is the truth?
“Well I wasn’t part of that exercise but some close friends were. The story goes both ways especially when you are engaged in friendly exercises with fixed rules of engagements! I think it’s an even fight and the man behind the machine would make the difference! Such a contest gets any fighter jock drooling!”

How easy is to fly? What is the hardest thing about flying it?  
“Basic flying is not very difficult including exercises such as AA refueling. But it’s a Herculean task to reach a level where you can exploit it to its fullest especially in large Force Engagements (LFE) The capability of the aircraft outruns you by miles. In fact, at times even 7 Multi-Function Displays (MFD) and two aircrew are insufficient to achieve what she can do for you!”

Is TVC useful in air combat? If so, how should it be used?
“Most people think that it’s not! My suspicion is that’s because it requires skill to put it to good use. Once two beasts of this kind engage in combat, it goes down to the wire and in the low speed regime the TVC allows you just the edge you’ve been looking for. Just 300m is enough to get to the right angle and Boom!”

How would you rate the cockpit?
The cockpit is Russian! hey don’t build the aircraft around the pilot like the western manufacturers do! So the ergonomics leave a lot to be desired. The HOTAS could be designed much better. But ask anyone who hasn’t flown other types and he’s okay with this!
Have you fired live weapons- if so, what was it like? 
Yes,! AA missiles, LGB,  and Runway denial weapons. Weapon delivery is really exciting! The adrenaline rush, the cold sweat that trickles down your temples when you press the trigger are a different feeling altogether. They are really expensive and hence the opportunity comes rarely. The thing that worries you most is that you don’t want to be the dumbass when it comes to firing Smart Weapons

I think the AA missile is the best! When the weapon leaves your wing, the plume, noise and shear power of the accelerating missile is breathtaking.

How confident would a Su-30 pilot feel going against a modern USAF F-15C? 
“As far as the platform is concerned, he’s got a better baby in his hands. No doubt!”
What is the greatest myth about the Su-30?
“That it’s too big to manoeuvre!”

How combat effective is the Su-30?
“A game changer!”
 How reliable and easy to maintain is it?
“Reliable – yes!  Maintenance- extensive!

What tips would you give new pilots coming onto the Su-30?
“It’s like a Tapasya (Sanskrit word meaning total selfless commitment. Dedication, commitment and patient hard work will reveal the true pleasures of flying to you! Early days are tough, just hang in there, get over the hump and you will experience heavenly pleasure that only fighter pilots have been blessed with.

How much post-stall manoeuvring can the average squadron pilot do? Is this a rare skill?
“Independent manoeuvres – they do it from day one (it’s that easy!). Relative manoeuvring in relation to an adversary in the sky requires extensive training and skill development! The manoeuvres can be counter productive in not done correctly.”

What is the hardest manoeuvre to pull off in a Su-30? 
“A downward combat manoeuvre with TVC at low levels against a manoeuvring target.”

As a personal opinion: What should the Indian Air Force procure and what should it get rid of? 

“Well, the Old Gen’ aircraft are already being phased out and The IAF is in the process of procuring the Rafale (a great choice!) The LCA development and large-scale induction into the IAF is no-brainer! It must be done but the platform should be a qualitative addition as well! Just adding numbers is not the right answer. Self-dependency is critical for India’s growth and rise as a major power on the World stage. There is a huge prospect of joint development with other major manufactures around the world such as BAE that have been traditional defence suppliers for IAF.”

Interview with an IAF MiG-27 pilot here

Tell me something I don’t know about the Su-30?

*the dragon in the Avatar film

“Very good! It allows off bore targeting and that coupled with TVC gives a good angular advantage to the Su-30 in combat!”

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

SAVE THIS SITE. Your donations keep this site going

PAYPAL

PATREON

Donate 

You may also enjoy Ten incredible cancelled Soviet fighter aircraft, Ten worst Soviet aircraft, Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft, Fighter aircraft news round-up,  11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versusTyphoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US

This interview would not have been possible without the kind help of Angad Singh 

Sadly we are well behind our funding targets. If you wish to see more articles like this in the future please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. 

“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  

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

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.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

I can only do it with your support.

What is the best looking aircraft currently in production?

I look forward to seeing your choices!

Regional manager of a medium-sized carburettor company, Ian Burchill, still refers to British defence giant BAE System as ‘BAe’ despite its ‘e’ becoming an ‘E’ almost twenty years ago. 

Speaking in anonymity from his Lincolnshire home, a colleague of Ian reported Mr Burchill’s misdemeanours to Hush-Kit. “He likes to talk about planes when he’s drunk – he’s furious that TSR-2 was cancelled and he even donated £300 to ‘Vulcan to the skies’ when he was behind in his mortgage repayments. Often his boring pub chats spill into a Facebook messenger discussion. We first noticed his use of ‘BAe’ in March 2015 and assumed it was a typo. I politely didn’t mention it – though I did use the correct version in my reply. Since then he has used it 543 times.” Despite an attempted intervention in 2017, Ian remains adamant. We called Ian and he didn’t really listen to us. He replied that the English Electric Lightning was better than anything flying today and opined that the aircraft “..would still be in service today if it wasn’t for Jeremy Bloody Corbyn.” Witnesses who saw Ian later that day said he spent the afternoon in a state of reverie gazing at his Spitfire calendar and swearing about the EU.

Jack ‘Whopper’ McCain followed in the footsteps of his father (the war hero and senator John McCain), grandfather and great-grandfather, when he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. Here he describes flying and fighting in the Blackhawk and MH-60S ‘Sierra’ helicopter. 

“Even the routine flights where I was teaching students to land in the dust at night were hair-raising, especially given that my initial level of comfort in the dust was fairly low —something I forcefully beat out of myself. However, one flight in particular stands out to me. I was dash two (chock two or wingman) in an all American section (which was rare) because we were headed to bring a maintenance crew to fix an aircraft that had made a precautionary landing at an air-field called Tarin Kowt. I had never been to the field. On Halloween, on a flight we coined “spooky” because it was zero percent illum (no illumination at all) in the dead of night, with extremely bad weather in the area.

Despite out best efforts, we had to return to base because we were unable to maintain visual contact; we were north of Kandahar in mountains greater than 9000 feet, with clouds funnelling us into smaller and smaller valleys. The next night was still zero illum, but it was clear enough to make another go at it… so we took off. I was on the controls as the copilot, and my Aircraft Commander was a Pave Hawk pilot from the Air Force, and it was a mixed Army and Air Force crew in the lead. I had a UH-1 crew chief on the left gun and a very new Army crew chief on the right gun. I had trouble maintaining visual, but it was not as exacerbated as the night before. But because of the terrain, I was essentially chasing an infra-red light around the sky. Because of the visibility, we were worried about test firing, so we waited (too long) until we were almost into the mountain bowl where Tarin Kowt sits. This is also an area with no shortage of enemy activity. Right as we crossed into the bowl, my crew was cleared to test fire, and exactly at that moment was when things began to get… silly.

My left gun tested fine, but my right gun went ‘bent’ almost immediately. Simultaneously, the right gunner’s inter-communication system (ICS) went dead, so I began hearing a one-sided conversation about trying to fix the gun and the ICS. At the same time the lead aircraft, as briefed, drops to about 80 feet, but — not as briefed — accelerates rapidly. I watch the light I was chasing diminish, and dropped down, and sped up to try and catch him. While this was happening, I hear my crew chief trying to talk the other through getting the gun back up. It was about this time that someone — I don’t remember who —says —

“Hey, are those tracers coming our direction?”

Tracer fire was not uncommon, and was almost never effective, and it was not in this case. It was likely people with ‘noise complaints’ or just generalised shooting at noise. However, we were in a precarious position — with one bent gun. Still trying to catch up, and figure out just where the hell the airfield was, I finally hear the crew chief with the good ICS say —

“Fuck it, just stick your M4 out the window and we will fix it later.”

Innovative. The tracer fire died down as we approached TK, but the entire LZ was blacked out, and the GPS was taking us to a mid-point on the field, not the fuel-point. We finally made our short, inartful, approach, wanting to get on the ground quickly. We landed and begin refuelling, and then for some unknown reason the base starts launching illumination rounds in the general direction of the enemy. While at the same time, I could see an AH-64 not far off in the distance, vigorously shooting 30mm at something. I had been in the country 6 months at this time, and despite having been rocketed a few times (and having seen tracer fire) this was wholly new, it felt like an actual war. To cap off the Apocalypse Now scene-at-the-bridge vibe, after we repositioned, some ragged looking Army advisors materialised out of the dark to ask us vague questions and point to the areas they knew where the enemy was. Little did I know, that the spot we were standing in had no actual ‘wire’: it was essentially an open airfield. The base was protected, but not the flightline was not. Thankfully, I could not see this in the inky blackness. After the repairs were made, we returned via a different route as a three ship (a very uneventful flight). I learned to be very cognisant of my test-firing, and to ask the Afghan pilots where they thought the enemy was before we went anywhere. They often knew much better than we did because they flew in the area more often. They laughed when we showed them the spot we flew over, they were unsurprised we saw tracers —

“That is where the enemy was trying to sleep!”

Excellent.”

What is the best thing about the MH-60? 

“Flexibility. It is an aircraft that can do almost anything, and is exceedingly well suited to the utility role, and has been upgraded in ways that I doubt its original designers could have imagined. We are still coming up with new and interesting ways to employ it. I also deeply admire just how much survivability was a core premise in its design.”

How survivable as it could be? Should any kit be added to aid survivability?
“If you read about the initial design of the Blackhawk (there is an excellent book on it called Blackhawk: The Story of a World Class Helicopter) you’ll find out about its origins. After the large number of helicopter losses in the Vietnam War, the Army wanted survivability to be a key aspect of its next utility helicopter. Survivability is the DNA that makes up the airframe. Every system, apart from the transmission and tail-drive, is either double or triple redundant, making it difficult to down with ground-fire, unless the enemy is extremely lucky. There is always more kit you can add, but more stuff means more weight, and one of the secondary aspects that makes the Hawk so survivable is its agility and speed, which degrades with increases in weight. In Afghanistan, the 1970s A models we flew were not equipped with any of the aircraft survivability equipment I was used to in the Sierra, and while unnerving at first, it forced me to change my paradigm, and go back to the basics of flying. I learned, and eventually taught, that drilling reaction to contact, enroute, on infil, and in the LZ, over and over and over, can be as helpful…if not more helpful… than 90% of the survivability equipment installed in my more advanced aircraft. I also learned helpful and simple ways to explain concepts like how to avoid ground-fire. For example, bird hunting is a common activity in Afghanistan, so when training Afghan serviceman I used the tactics of birds as an example. A bird becomes harder to hit when it is lower, faster or at a better crossing angle. This was a simple solution to communicating a complex problem, and worked well. You must be well-trained on the  basics to survive. You can have the best most complex infil plan in the world, but if you can’t safely put the aircraft in the LZ, you have no mission.”

And the worst?
“Visibility is my biggest complaint. It seems persnickety, but there is about three inches too much dashboard on both sides of the cockpit, making it hard to see the spot you are landing on (especially if you are steep or headed to the back of a small deck ship). There are techniques for getting around it, including yawing the nose off in the opposite direction of the seat of the landing pilot, and correcting near the ground, but these are band-aids. I would love a few more inches of plexiglass to see out of. And a Navy-specific drawback is the fact that despite having a full glass cockpit, coupling system, laser-ring gyro EGIs, and a suite of electronic wizardry, someone, somewhere, declined to outfit the aircraft with a moving map! The pilot and copilot mission displays even have a frustrating button labeled ‘map’, that does nothing… just to remind you that it was obviously not a pilot who signed off on the final buy!”

What were you first impressions of the Blackhawk?

“Everyone loves their first aircraft, and I am no exception, and I was very lucky in that I got to learn to love the same aircraft twice. I started training to fly helicopters in the TH-57, but was always yearning to fly the ‘hawk, what we call “learning to fly the big grey aircraft” (as opposed to the the orange and white livery of the helicopter trainers). The first time I got to fly the ‘Sierra'(MH-60S) —the navalised version of the UH-60M Blackhawk —was while I was still at Whiting Field. This was during a ‘fleet fly in’ where the Navy sends fleet aircraft to the training squadrons in order to help the students pick their future careers. I already knew it was the aircraft I wanted to, due the diversity of its mission. I knew I wanted to join the Helicopter Sea Combat Expeditionary community, because of their somewhat cowboy reputation. The outside of the aircraft is utilitarian, and its two big cargo doors on the sides give it a very open feeling. The longer I stared at the haze grey paint job, the more I came to love it, and I still prefer it to the Army black — or Afghan camo paint. What struck me most when I first gripped the cyclic and collective, was that it felt like they had actually been designed with the human hand in mind, as opposed to the WWII-style sticks in the TH-57. I was also amazed at just how much glass there was up front, two HUGE displays on both sides with all the flight information you need in a single glance. Picking it up into a hover the first time, most students over-control because they’re used to the TH-57, but the MH has a very advanced stability system, and is capable of an Embedded Global Positioning System coupled ‘hands-off’ hover. Hovering it, provided you allow the aircraft black magic to do its thing, is simple. But you do not have the same tactile feedback you get in the less advanced aircraft like the TH-57 or the MD530. I also had (and still have) the tendency to button-mash, holding down the trim-release button, which disables much of the assistance given to the pilot, though it does gives a micro-second of better responsiveness, (I am sure a very smart engineer reading this will cringe).

Unlike the TH-57, which was sometimes laborious to lift, the Sierra jumped off the ground, with the big 701C engines producing all kinds of power. It was obviously stripped down for the fly-in, and I would later learn that 23,500 lbs in a Sierra can make even the strongest aircraft feel lethargic. My first flight lasted all of five minutes, and consisted of some box patterns and a landing or two, but I became infatuated, and would only continue to fall further under the spell of the aircraft I dubbed the ‘Magic Carpet’. Later on in my career, to prepare to fly for the Afghan Air Force, I was fortunate enough to go to a small civilian outfit to make the transition to the UH-60A. It was staffed by former Special Operations and Experimental Test pilots, who knew the aircraft in a level of detail that was nearly super-human. The A model was even lighter than my Block II and III Sierras and didn’t have the same automatic folding rotor-head that the Sierra did, and therefore had wider roll limits, and much more responsiveness. I got to fall in love all over again, and see things in the aircraft I never imagined I would, including high-altitude training at 18,000 ft. My esteem for the brilliance of the design only grew and continues to as I keep on flying it. Overall impressions were, it is light, responsive to pilot input, powerful, and maintains a flexibility that is unparalleled in modern aircraft, and it is a pure joy to fly in any conditions, especially with the new 701D engines.”

To survive and to grow we need your contributions. We exist today thanks to our reader’s generous donations, it’s a team effort and you are a vital part. The next step is a regular podcast featuring interviews with famous pilots, histories of obscure aircraft types, aviation satire and the latest news. We want to entertain you at home or on your way to work. To do that we need more funds. Please donate here and let’s make this happen! 

“My favourite fighter was the Spitfire VIII with clipped wings. It had power and good armament. It could roll quickly and out-turn any enemy fighter we encountered.” 

 —  Robert Bracken, Spitfire, The Canadians

“The Mk VIII lacks the fame of its relatives.  It did not fight in the Battle of Britain as did the Mk I and II.  It was not built in the greatest numbers; that was the 6,787-fold Mk V.  It did not reset the balance against the Focke-Wulf 190 in 1942; that was the immortal Mk IX’s achievement.  Yet the Mk VIII deserves attention.  As was not uncommon in the tangled Spitfire family, the Mk VIII entered service 13 months after the Mk IX.  It was the intended successor to the (rather out performed) Mk V but necessity prompted the very successful interim option of the Mk IX that remained competitive from its introduction in mid 1942 to the end of the war. 

The Mk VIII was the most advanced Merlin powered Spitfire.  It was designed from the start for the two-stage 60-series engine and had a beefed up fuselage structure to handle the increased weight and power.  It carried more fuel (leading edge tanks) and had the retractable tail wheel (designed for the Mk III) that cut drag and cleaned up the aft lines. 

 Later versions featured the bigger fin and rudder (for lateral stability) with a better proportioned outline that the original, rather minimal design.  In short, it had the performance of the Mk IX and the best looks of any Spitfire, Merlin or Griffon powered.  It was suave, refined and very effective; the finest of the Merlin generation. 

Paul Stoddart served in the Royal Air Force as an aerosystems engineer officer and now works for the Ministry of Defence.  His interests include air power and military aircraft from the 1940s onward.  He is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.