The Bf 109 G-series was developed from the F-series airframe although there were several differences. This series used the 1,475 PS Daimler-Benz DB 605. Modifications included reinforced wing structure, an internal bullet-proof windscreen, the use of heavier, welded framing for the cockpit transparencies, and additional light-alloy armour for the fuel tank and armouring of the radiators. It was originally intended that the wheel wells would incorporate small doors to cover the outer portion of the wheels when retracted. To incorporate these, the outer wheel bays were squared off. Two small inlet scoops for additional cooling of the spark plugs were added on both sides of the forward engine cowlings. A less obvious difference was the omission of the boundary layer bypass outlets, which had been a feature of the F series, on the upper radiator flaps.

The G-series was designed to adapt to different operational tasks with greater versatility, using field kits known as Rüstsätze. Special high-altitude interceptors with GM 1 high-altitude boost and pressurized cockpits were also produced.

The "new" Daimler-Benz DB 605A series was a development of the DB 601E engine utilised by the preceding Bf 109F-4. This was achieved through increasing the displacement and the compression ratio, as well as other detail improvements. The DB605 suffered from reliability problems during the first year of operation, forcing Luftwaffe units to limit maximum power output to 1,310 PS (975 kW) at 2,600 rpm and 1.3ata manifold pressure, until October 1943, when the full 1475 PS rating at 2800 rpm, 1.42ata manifold pressure was cleared for service use.

The early versions of the Bf 109G closely resembled the Bf 109F-4 and carried the same basic armament - however, as the basic airframe was modified to keep pace with different operational requirements, the basically clean design began to change. From the spring of 1943, the G-series saw the appearance of bulges in the cowling when the 7.92 mm MG 17 was replaced with the 13 mm MG 131 heavy machine guns (G-5 onwards) due to the latter's much larger breechblock, and on the wings (due to larger tyres), leading to the Bf 109G-6s nickname "Die Beule" ("The Bulge"). The Gustav continued to be improved constantly: cockpit visibility, firepower in the form of the 3cm MK 108 cannon was added to the basic design in 1943, and a new, enlarged supercharger for the DB605, an enlarged vertical stabilizer (G-5 onwards), MW-50 power boost in 1944. It has been suggested the added weight of the new engines and heavier armament adversely affected the handling characteristics of the Bf 109, especially since it already had a high wing loading. While technically the statement is true, it is somewhat unfair as analysis show only a modest increase in weight as a result of development, fairly comparable to the development trend with Western Allied fighters.

From the Bf 109G-5 on an enlarged wooden tail unit (identifiable by a taller fin and rudder with a morticed balance tab, rather than the angled shape) was often fitted. This tail unit was standardised on G-10s and K-4s. Although the enlarged tail unit improved handling, especially on the ground, it weighed more than the standard metal tail unit, and required that a counterweight was fitted in the nose, increasing the variant's overall weight.

With the Gustav, a number of special versions were introduced to cope with special mission profiles. Here, long range fighter-reconnaissance and high-altitude interceptors can be mentioned. The former were capable of carrying two 300 litre (66 Imp gal) droptanks, one under each wing, the latter received pressurized cockpits for pilot comfort and GM-1 nitrous oxide "boost" for high altitudes. The latter system was capable of increasing engine output for limited periods by 300 horsepower above the rated altitude and high altitude performance above of that of any Allied fighter in service in 1942-43.

The G-1 was the first of the G-series, starting production in February 1942. This was the first production Bf 109 with a pressurized cockpit and could be identified by the small, horn-shaped air intake for the cockpit compressor just above the supercharger intake on the left upper cowling. In addition the angled armour plate for the pilot's head was replaced by a vertical piece which sealed-off the rear of the side hinged cockpit canopy. Small, triangular armour-glass panels were fitted into the upper corners of this armour, although there were aircraft in which the plate was solid steel. Silica gel capsules were placed in each pane of the windscreen and opening canopy to absorb any moisture which may have been trapped in the double glazing. The last 80 G-1s built were lightweight G-1/R2s. In these GM-1 nitrous oxide 'boost' was used, and the pilot's back armour was removed, as were all fittings for the long range drop tank. A few G-1s flown by I./JG 1 are known to have carried the underwing, MG 151/20E 20mm cannon gondolas.

The G-2, which started production in May 1942 lacked the pressurization and GM-1 installation. The canopy reverted to one layer of glazing and incorporated the angled head armour used on the F-4, although several G-2s had the vertical type of the G-1. Several Rüstsätze could be fitted, although installing these did not change the designation of the aircraft. Instead the /R suffix referred to the G-2s Rüstzustand or equipment condition of the airframe, which was assigned at the factory, rather than in the field. There were two Rüstzustand planned for G-2s:

* G-2/R1: had one 300 litre drop tank beneath each wing, plus an ETC bomb rack under the fuselage, capable of carrying a 500 kg bomb and an auxiliary undercarriage unit beneath the fuselage.

* G-2/R2: a reconnaissance aircraft with GM-1 and camera equipment.

The rack and internal fuel lines for carrying a 300 litre drop-tank were widely used on G-2s, as were the underwing MG 151/20 cannon gondolas. Several G-2s were fitted with the ETC 500 bomb rack, capable of carrying one 250 kg bomb. The final G-2 production batches built by Erla and Messerschmitt Regensburg were equipped as tropical aircraft (often referred to as G-2 trop), equipped with a sand-filter on the front of the supercharger intake and two small, teardrop shaped metal brackets on the left side of the fuselage, below the cockpit sill. These were used as mounts for specially designed sun umbrellas (called Sonderwerkzeug or Special tool), which were used to shade the cockpit.

167 G-1s were built between February and June 1942, and 1586 G-2s between May 1942 and February 1943; one further G-2 was built in Győr, Hungary, in 1943.[43] Maximum speed of the G-2 was 537 km/h at sea level and 660 km/h at 7,000 m rated altitude with the initial – reduced – 1.3ata rating. Performance of the G-1 was similar, but above rated altitude the GM-1 system could be used for additional performance: 680 km/h could be achieved at 12,000 meters.

In September 1942 the G-4 appeared. It was identical to the G-2 in all respects, including performance, except that the much improved FuG 16 V.H.F. radio set was fitted. Up to July 1943, 1,242 G-4s were produced, and an additional 4 were produced in Győr and WNF factories in the second half of 1943. A pressurized version, G-3 was also produced, being identical to the G-1 in all except its V.H.F. radio set FuG 16. Only 50 were produced between January-February 1943.

In February 1943 the G-6 was introduced with the 13 mm MG 131s, replacing the smaller 7.92 mm MG 17 - externally this resulted in two sizeable blisters over the guns. These bulges reduced speed by nine km/h.

Over 12,000 examples were built well into 1944; the exact number being impossible to ascertain due to numerous variants and rebuilds. The G-5 was identical to the G-6 with pressurized cockpit, and of which 475 examples were built between May 1943 and August 1944. The G-5/AS was the first to be equipped with a DB 605AS engine for high altitude missions. GM-1-boosted G-5 and G-6 variants received the additional designation of /U2.

The G-6/U4 variant was armed with a 30 mm MK 108 cannon mounted as a Motorkanone shooting through the propeller hub instead of the 20 mm MG 151/20. The G-6 was very often seen during 1943 fitted with assembly sets, used to carry bombs or a drop tank, for use as night-fighter, or to increase fire power by adding rockets or extra gondola guns. During 1943, a number of improvements were gradually introduced for the type's benefit: armoured glass head-rest ("Galland Panzer") (early 1943), and the introduction of the clear-view "Erla Haube" canopy (autumn 1943) improved visibility, especially to the rear, and a taller tail unit improved stability at high speeds. The introduction of the WGr. 21 cm under-wing mortar/rockets and the 30 mm MK 108 cannon increased firepower. Certain production batches of the Gustav were fitted with aileron Flettner tabs to decrease stick forces at high speeds. Advanced radio/navigational equipment was also introduced. Subsequent Bf 109G versions were basically modified versions of the G-6. Early in 1944, new engines with larger superchargers for improved high-altitude performance (DB 605AS), or with MW-50 water injection for improved low/medium altitude performance (DB 605AM), or these two features combined (DB 605ASM) were introduced into Bf 109 G-6. Maximum speed of the G-5/G-6 was 500-510 km/h at sea level, 625-630 km/h at 6,600 m-rated altitude using the restricted 1.3ata boost, and when using the full 1.42ata boost 530 and 640 km/h respectively. Figures are without MW-50 or GM-1 boost.

The G-8 was a dedicated recon version based on the G-6. The G-8 had often only the Motorkanone engine cannon or the cowling machine guns installed and there were several subversions for short or long range recon missions with a wide variety of recon cameras and radios available for use.

The G-14, appearing in mid-1944 was basically a late-war Bf 109 G-6 with the aforementioned improvements standardized, and with MW 50 methanol/water injection increasing output to 1800 hp being a standard fitting. High-altitude models of the G-14 received the DB 605ASM engine and were named G-14/AS. There was increasing tendency to use wood on some less vital parts (e.g. on a taller tailfin/rudder unit, pilot seat or instrument panel) - not because of the shortage of strategic materials like aluminum as often suggested, but as it allowed freeing up metalworking capacity by involving of the woodworking industry of more parts.

The G-10 was an attempt to match the proven Bf 109 G-6/G-14 airframe with the new and more powerful DB 605D engine with minimal disruption of the production lines. Despite what the designation would suggest, it appeared in service after the G-14 and somewhat the K-4 in November 1944. Early production G-10s used fuselages taken from the G-14 production lines, this was probably a source of confusion as many authors still believe many G-10 were based on recycled G-series fuselages. The most recognizable change was the standardized use of the "Erla-Haube" canopy, sometimes referred to (incorrectly) as the "Galland" hood. [1] This canopy improved the pilot's view by reducing the number of support struts, which was often criticized before. The G-10 was produced in very substantial numbers, with some 2,600 G-10s produced until the war's end. The Bf 109 G-10, AS-engined G-5s, G-6s and G-14s as well as the K-4 saw a refinement of the bulges covering the breeches of the cowl mounted MG 131, these taking on a more elongated and streamlined form, barely discernible on the upper sides of the cowl panels, as the large engine supercharger required a redesign of the cowling.

A similar varying product was the Bf 109 G-12. This was a two-seat trainer version of the Bf 109 and was rarely armed with anything more than the two cowling machine guns. The space needed for the second cockpit was gained by reducing the internal fuel capacity to only 240 l thus they nearly always used the 300 l drop tank as standard equipment. The G-12 was built using a wide variety of G-series fuselages, many were G-2 based but several were built of rebuilt/repaired G-1, G-4 and G-6.

Bf 109G subtypes and variants

The base subtypes could be equipped with a Rüstsatz add-on standard field kits, in practice this meant hanging on some sort of additional equipment like droptanks, bombs or cannons to standard attachment points, present on all production aircraft. Aircraft could be modified in the factory with Umrüst-bausatz (Umbau) conversion kits or by adding extra equipment, designated as Rüstzustand, to convert standard airframes for special roles - a reconnaissance fighter or bad-weather fighter, for example. Unlike the Rüstsatz field-kits these modifications were permanent.

The Rüstsatz-kits were designated by the letter R and a Roman number. Rüstsatz-kits did not alter the aircraft's designation, so a Bf 109G-6 with Rüstsatz II (50 kg bombs) remained designated as Bf 109G-6, and not 'G-6/R2' - the G-6/R2 was a reconnaissance fighter with MW 50 - as suggested by most of the publications. The Umrüst-bausatz, Umbau. or Rüstzustand were identified with either an /R or /U suffix and an Arab number, i.e. Bf 109 G-10/U4.

Common Rüstsatz kits, Bf 109G

* R I belly bomb rack for 250 kg bomb

* R II belly bomb rack for 4 x 50 kg bombs

* R III belly drop tank (300 l/79 US gallons)

* R IV two 30 mm MK 108 underwing gunpods (not in operational use)

* R VI two 20 mm MG151/20 underwing gunpods

Common Umrüst-Bausatz [Umbau] numbers

* U1 Messerschmitt P6 reversible pitch propeller to be used as air brake, only prototypes

* U2 GM-1 boost, during 1944 several hundred converted to MW-50 boost

* U3 Reconnaissance conversion, in autumn 1943 G-6/U3 adopted as G-8 production variant

* U4 30 mm MK 108 Motorkanone engine-mounted cannon

Known variants

* G-0 (Pre-production aircraft, powered by a DB 601E engine)

* G-1 (Pressurized fighter, w. GM 1)

o G-1/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-1/U2 (High altitude fighter with GM-1)

* G-2 (Light fighter)

o G-2/R1 (Long-range Fighter-bomber or JaboRei- 2x 300 liter underwing drop tanks, one 500 kg bomb under fuselage, extended second tail wheel for large bombs)

o G-2/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-2/trop (Tropicalized fighter)

* G-3 (Pressurized fighter, as G-1 with FuG 16 V.H.F. radio; only 50 built)

* G-4 (Fighter)

o G-4/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-4/R3 (Long-range Reconnaissance fighter, with 2 x 300 liter underwing droptanks)

o G-4/trop (Tropicalized fighter)

o G-4/U3 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-4y (Command fighter)

* G-5 (Pressurized fighter)

o G-5/U2 (High altitude fighter with GM1 boost)

o G-5/U2/R2 (High altitude Reconnaissance fighter with GM1 boost)

o G-5/AS (High altitude fighter with DB605AS)

o G-5y (Command fighter)

* G-6 (Light fighter)

o G-6/R2 (Reconnaissance fighter, with MW 50)

o G-6/R3 (Long-range Reconnaissance fighter, with 2 x 300 liter underwing droptanks)

o G-6/trop (Tropicalized fighter)

o G-6/U2 (Fitted with GM-1)

o G-6/U3 ((Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-6/U4 (MK108 Motorkanone 30 mm engine cannon)

o G-6y (Command fighter)

o G-6/AS (High altitude fighter with DB605AS)

o G-6/ASy (High altitude command fighter)

o G-6N (Night fighter, usually with R6 and FuG 350Z Naxos)

o G-6/U4 N (as G-6N but with 30 mm MK 108 Motorkanone engine cannon)

* G-8 (Reconnaissance fighter as G-6/U3, camera installation behind cockpit)

* G-10 (Light fighter with DB605D/DM/DBM engine)

o G-10/R2 (Bad-weather fighter with PKS 12 autopilot)

o G-10/R5 (Reconnaissance fighter)

o G-10/U4 (Fighter, with MK 108 Motorkanone 30 mm engine cannon)

* G-12 (Two-seat trainer, built from various older G-1 to G-6)

* G-14 (Fighter; standardized late production G-6; MW 50 boost serial standard)

o G-14/AS (High altitude fighter with DB605ASM);

o G-14/ASy (High altitude command fighter);

o G-14y (command fighter);

o G-14/U4 (Fitted with MK 108 30 mm Motorkanone engine cannon)

Fictional variants

* G-1/trop (fictional tropicalised variant with 13mm MG 131)

* G-16 (fictional Ground Attack variant, claimed to be based on the G-14 with additional armor)

Erich Hartmann's Gustavs

We do not have any documentary evidence that Hartmann ever flew a Bf 109K. There are numerous color sideviews of his supposed last aircraft depicted as a K with the dopplewinkle, a wreath on the rudder with "300", supposedly marking his 300th victory, and then 52 more kill bars.

This sideview has been repeated ad infinitum based on a drawing in one of Karl Ries' Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings books. Based on current knowledge this sideview is fiction. While there may be a possibility of him flying a K-4, there is no documentary evidence that he did. Indeed, I./JG 52 flew mostly G-14 and G-10 aircraft in the last months of the war. The list of losses by the gruppe is, at best, rather incomplete. There are some half dozen K-4 losses listed in Fast's history of the Geschwader, some confirmed by the Quartermaster lists.

The nearest thing to a "last" aircraft flown by Hartmann we have is a photo of him next to a G-10. This aircraft is shown from the supercharger back to about frame 3. We can see that it is the "square panel" type G-10 built by Erla. It could be in the 150xxx or the 490xxx ranges. We can see the famous heart emblem with his wife's name under the cockpit. Also, we can see the front part of the doppelwinkle. It appears to be either in gray or light green, outlined in white. You can see this photo in B. Barbas' Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Aces. Other than this, we do not know what any other markings looked like. The time period of the aircraft appears to be in the spring of 1945.

There is always the possibility that someone may show up with a photo of Hartmann's last aircraft. According to his biography, his log books and photo albums disappeared when the unit surrendered to the Americans in May 1945

[1]Retrofitted Erla Haube Canopy

Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K Series: An Illustrated Study by Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike has some good photographs of erla haube canopies retrofitted to Bf 109G-6's; these show good detail of the hardware needed for this conversion.

Some G-6, G-8, and virtually all G-14 and G-10 aircraft were fitted with the so-called "Erlahaube" (made by Erla). There was no separate R or U designation for this canopy. Some G-6 and G-5 were retrofitted and the attachment details are slightly different.

Basically, the Erla Haube was built in two versions: The REPLACEMENT TYPE used the existing three-piece hood's mounting hardware. The PRODUCTION TYPE did away with the old mounting hardware. There are visual cues which easily differentiate which type of Erla Haube you are seeing, but they are too complicated to discuss here. Further, each type of Erla Haube had one or two possible antenna mast attachments.

The Erla Haube was retrofitted to Bf 109G-6's. It was standard equipment on late-build Bf 109-6's, and later versions of Bf-109's (G's and K's).

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

LINK

LINK

At Nagashino in 1575, Oda Nobunaga’s ranks of arquebusiers fired rotating volleys to decimate the charge of his opponent Takeda Katsuyori. Those of Takeda’s horsemen who reached Oda’s lines were held off by pikes, in an echo of European tactics of the era.

In Japan, the Onin Wars of 1467–76 had set in train a period of political fragmentation when local warlords, the daimyo, built up independent domains. The first arquebuses were introduced in Japan in 1543 by Portuguese traders (Fernão Mendes Pinto), who landed by accident on Tanegashima, an island south of Kyūshū in the region controlled by the Shimazu clan. By 1550, copies of the Portuguese arquebus were being produced in large quantities, and they were often seen on the battlefields all over Japan.

Units of musketeers (teppotai) played a crucial role in the unification of Japan under Oda Nobunaga, who captured the royal capital of Kyoto in 1568 and conquered most of Japan before his death in 1582. During this campaign, Nobunaga employed 3000 arquebuses in a field battle, protected by field fortifications. Lord Oda Nobunaga placed three lines of ashigaru armed with these weapons behind wooden palisades and prepared for the cavalry charge of his opponent.

Battles in Japan at this time became more similar to the pitched encounters of European armies than the challenge and counterchallenge of elite samurai warriors that characterized earlier warfare there. Japanese armies showed considerable technical and tactical ingenuity; at Osaka in 1576, Nobunaga had seven ships constructed, shielded by armed plates, which were armed with canons and muskets, creating a very early version of an ironclad; while at Nagashina in 1575, Nobunaga’s musketeers fired in ranks in rotation, some years before the practice became established in Europe. The three-line method allowed two lines to reload while the other would fire. Such tactics allowed a balance of mass firepower to compensate for poor accuracy with a reasonable rate of fire.

Yet the final unification of Japan under the Tokugawa after 1600 meant that military conflict, and with it the impetus for technical development, declined. Already in 1588, the “Sword-hunt Edict” had ordered the confiscation of all weapons held in private hands, including firearms, contributing to a demilitarization that would leave it ill-equipped to face western intruders in the 19th century. It is one of the most effective examples of disarmament and voluntary renunciation of technology.

Matchlocks

The first improvement to this simple design, which created the matchlock, saw the addition of a serpentine (so-called because it was S-shaped and resembled a snake) which held a length of string (or “slow-match”), treated with saltpeter to keep it alight. The serpentine was pivoted around its center; pulling back on its lower arm pushed its upper arm forward, touching the glowing end of the string into the priming powder. The latter lay in a pan outside the barrel, but was connected to the main charge of powder and ball by a touch-hole. The chief advantage of this design was that one man could use it on his own. A trigger was added later, to act upon 14 the serpentine by way of a connecting sear, along with a spring that held the match off the pan until positive pressure was applied to the trigger. A version was also produced in which the spring worked the other way (when the sear was released, it propelled the match forward)—but the impact often extinguished the match.

Despite various improvements, however, the matchlock remained a cumbersome and unpredictable device. Far more reliable was the wheellock, invented around 1500, which used a wheel turned by a coiled spring to strike sparks from pyrites into the pan. Though complicated, it made it possible for the gun to be used one-handed and for it to be held ready for use.

LINK

LINK

Calibre 35: Army Firetruck Opel Blitz . Great conversion!

During the thirties and forties it became necessary to have mobile fire fighting units available. Prototype TFL 15 is based on our Opel Blitz 3-ton chassis and was produced by various companies. Some of these vehicle had 4-wheel drive. The tank holds 2500 litres per minute. These vehicles, which were originally produced before the war can still be seen in service with only small changes added.

Opel "Blitz" (Kfz.305) (4 x 2) During World War Two the German Army adopted and intensively used many types of cargo truck, but without doubt the three-tone Opel "Blitz" was the most famous of all Wehrmacht vehicles. With more than 100,000 built, these trucks with the Blitz's characteristic lightning emblem on the radiator front panel became symbolic of Germany's conquests. Its tire tracks could be seen in the great city squares of Europe; in the fields of France and also in the endless sands of the African desert; and it even overcame the infamous Russian mud. These trucks had a reputation of hardiness and being easy to repair which made them a legend.

The story of the Opel "Blitz" began in the mid-1930s when the new German National Socialist government instigated a program of economic modernization with a clearly expressed militaristic direction. At this time the American General Motors concern had already owned the Opel factories for ten years and Opel had quickly become a major German car manufacturer, with a great family of different vehicle types. One of their most successful designs was the Opel "Blitz" S whose production started in 1936. When the 'Western dam' construction began, more than 10,000 trucks of different types were involved. It was the original competition for military cargo trucks and the result was that the Opel "Blitz" won. The Opel factory received a massive order for this new standard Wehrmacht vehicle.

The European conflict which started on September 1st, 1939, gathered pace with many fronts opening up, and obviously huge numbers of trucks were needed. Many thousands of civil Opel "Blitz" S produced before the war was drafted into army units. These civil trucks were brought up to army standard Kfz.305 - the official military designation for the Opel "Blitz". In all about 140 different army modifications were installed on the Opel "Blitz" chassis during the war years - they became radio cars, repair stations, fuel trucks, and even some exotic types like mobile laundries or printing-houses. Many other vehicles like staff buses or fire trucks were also based on the Blitz chassis.

From 1937 up to 1944 nearly 140,000 vehicles were built, among them 82,356 standard army Blitz S trucks, 14,122 with a long wheelbase and also 8,363 with a low-level base. In 1942 another famous manufacturers, Daimler Benz AG was involved in Opel "Blitz" license manufacture. Mercedes-built trucks were visually identical to the standard Blitz but had their own designation, Mercedes L701. License production started only in 1944, when the main Opel factory in Russelheim was destroyed by Royal Air Force bombing.

From the first days of war the Opel "Blitz" was very popular in the army. These trucks were integral to the organization of Panzer Divisions but unlike all other German trucks they used gasoline, and tanks used the same fuel. Ground pressure was low and the Blitz could overcome some obstacles which other types, even three-axle trucks, had problems with. Operation and repair in the field was very easy.

The Eastern campaign demonstrated another advantage of the Opel "Blitz", whose gasoline engine could be easily and simply started with boiled water in very cold weather conditions, when diesel-fuelled trucks typically failed. Large numbers of trucks of this type were taken into the Red Army as trophies, and if the condition of the vehicles was satisfactory, they were used without any problem. Some Opel "Blitz"es even took part in Russian-Japanese battles in eastern China in 1945.

This truck became a legend in the army and the absolute favorite among drivers. Some of them were convinced that Germany lost the war because the available quantity of Opel "Blitz"es was too little.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

A feng shui compass has a lot more information than just the cardinal directions on it.

The three inventions Bacon considered world transformers—paper and printing, the magnetic compass, and gunpowder—were also cited by Karl Marx as the inventions that prefigured capitalist economics. Bacon regarded the origins of these inventions as "obscure and inglorious." They all came from China.

At the beginning of the second millennium A.D., China was an advanced scientific and technological society, and would continue to dominate for another three or four centuries. To a visitor from another continent it might seem that China had invented everything anyone could ever need and beyond. Besides Bacon's big three, other Chinese technological feats included cast iron, porcelain, sternpost rudders for ships, canal lock gates, stirrups and harnesses for horses, fishing reels, hot-air balloons, the seismograph, whiskey, gimbals, the umbrella, crank handles, kites, mechanical clocks, paper money, convertible bank notes, and many agricultural innovations, such as row cultivation, the iron plow, and the seed drill. The Chinese also spun off, with glorious abandon, oddities such as the south-pointing carriage, fantastical fireworks, magic mirrors, and a rocket-propelled toy called an "earth rat."

The invention we most associate with ancient China is gunpowder. In the ninth century A.D., during the Tang dynasty, Chinese priests described a new compound they'd created by combining charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur in the proper proportions. Long before the first written observations of these investigations, the Taoist alchemists were down in the basement mixing up variations of these ingredients, often blowing themselves to smithereens. Later Taoist literature strongly recommends that investigators not mix these chemicals, especially with arsenic, since some who had done so set their beards on fire, seared their fingers, and burned down the house.

One hypothesis holds that gunpowder was invented by alchemists searching for a drug of deathlessness, or for the metallurgical key to the making (and faking) of gold. One can imagine, wrote Joseph Needham, these alchemical adepts "mixing everything off the shelves in all kinds of permutations and combinations to see what would happen, whether perchance an elixir of life would be formed."

Saltpeter was recognized and isolated at least by A.D. 500. It seemed almost inevitable, wrote Needham, that "the first compounding of an explosive mixture would arise in the course of a systematic exploration of the chemical and pharmaceutical properties of the substance."

In Science Since Babylon, Derek de Solla Price says that while science must follow what seems to be a dictate of nature rather than a property of our mental perspective, technology is an arbitrary property of a civilization. A technology evolves within a culture and its particular demands and preoccupations, intertwined with that society's particular environment. That being so, it is not surprising that the Chinese were the first to invent gunpowder.

The Chinese were fascinated and preoccupied with preparations of perfumes, gases, airborne poisons, noxious bombs, explosions, and flaming eruptions. From the Ch'in and Han dynasties onward (221 B.C.—A.D. 220) they burned incense; fumigated for health reasons, to rid their houses and books of insects and pests; and produced smoke ritually to drive out demon spirits. Smoke, detonations, and loud explosions were intrinsically associated with the spirit world. Militarily, they used toxic smoke screens generated by pumps and furnaces in siege warfare from the fourth century B.C., or perhaps earlier.

The Chinese did (and do) love fireworks, and created them in a huge variety of Catherine wheels, Roman candles, and many other styles. Fireworks flourished at the dynastic courts, with colored lights and balls of flame. Rockets and rocket-composition gunpowder must have been used in these displays as soon as they were discovered.

Around 1040 Tseng Kung-Lang published a gunpowder formula to be used in a variety of weapons, including an incendiary arrow, an incendiary bullet, a burning bomb with a hook to catch on wood, a bomb to be hurled by a trebuchet (a Chinese version of the catapult), and a hand grenade. By the mid—tenth century, the fire lance, or fire spear, had appeared.

The oldest image of a fire lance and a grenade is on a silk banner from Tun-huang from about A.D. 950 now hanging in the Musée Guimet in Paris. The banner depicts the meditating Buddha. Surrounding him are Mara the Tempter and her minions, who hurl things at the Buddha in an attempt to distract him from attaining enlightenment. One of her demons, sporting a headdress of three striking snakes, aims a cylinder from which flames spout forth horizontally. Another is in the act of throwing a weak-casing bomb from which flames are starting to fly.

The fire lance consisted of a tube mounted on the shaft of a lance and filled with a mix of gunpowder, toxic chemicals, lead pellets, and pottery fragments. When ignited it spouted flame and sparks for about five minutes, frying the enemy in streams of fire. Made first from bamboo tubing, the fire lance used homegrown materials. Like the natural abundance of saltpeter in the ground, the plentiful growth of bamboo was a factor in the development of firearms. As a natural tubing, Needham maintains, the stem of the bamboo is the ancestor of all barrel guns and cannons. Later the tube was made of cast iron and bronze.

The fire lance played a large role in the wars between the Sung and the Juchen Tatars from around 1100 onward. By the middle of the thirteenth century, the Sung and Mongols were locked in combat, and by 1230 we find written descriptions of destructive explosions in the campaigns, and accounts of continuing advances in the development of barrel guns and cannons. At first, soldiers held fire lances. The southern Sung made them in much larger diameter, perhaps a foot across, and mounted on legs with wheels. It is with these that the first bronze or iron barrels appeared, using high-nitrate gunpowder and a projectile—a cannonball or bullet—that completely filled the barrel. The true gun or cannon probably appeared in the 1280s, three and a half centuries after the invention of flamethrowers.

By 1288, Chinese soldiers under Mongol command were using weapons that had made the transition from fire lance to gun. A bronze barrel found at a battle site in Manchuria was meant to fit on the end of a wooden shaft. It was designed for an explosion at the base of the barrel, not for slow burning from the barrel mouth. The bronze has thicker walls and a touchhole in the area where the explosion would occur. The thickening of gun barrel walls around the point of the explosion became a distinctive characteristic of Chinese guns. Another prototype, designed for mounting in a fortification, looked like a vase or bottle.

The array of gunpowder weaponry developed by the Chinese starting in the ninth century is of Strangelovian proportions: the "thunderfire whip," a fire lance in the shape of a three-foot-long sword that discharged lead balls the size of coin; the "vast-as-heaven enemy exterminating Yin-Yang shovel," with a broad crescent-shaped blade that emitted poison as well as lead pellets and flames. There was a huge battery of fire lances called "the ingenious mobile ever-victorious poisonfire- rack." Later there came the "cartwheel gun," which had thirty-six barrels radiating from its center like the spokes of a wheel but was small enough that a mule could carry two.

For mortars you had "the flying, smashing, and bursting bombcannon." By the eleventh century there was the "thunderclap bomb," hurled from a trebuchet that terrified enemies' horses while starting fires. Thunderclaps were also made in the form of grenades that could be hurled by hand. A new improved bomb in the twelfth century was the "thundercrash bomb," with an iron casing to cause maximum shrapnel damage. The Chinese were just getting started. They let a thousand bomb varieties bloom: some packed with anti-personnel material, poison bombs, gaseous bombs, bombs filled with human excrement. There was also the "bone-burning and bruising fire-oil magic bomb," the "magic fire meteoric bomb that goes against the wind," the "dropping from- heaven bomb," and the "bees-swarm bomb releasing ten thousand fires."

By 1277 the Chinese had developed land mines; one was called "the ground-thunder explosive camp." Some of the trigger mechanisms of these land mines were kept secret until the seventeenth century. The Fire-Drake Artillery Manual, published in 1412, describes the "submarine dragon-king," a complex wrought-iron sea mine carried on a submerged wooden board. This device for blowing up ships featured a burning joss stick floating above the water that determined the fuse ignition time.

In 1245 Pope Innocent IV sent an ambassador to the great khan's capitol in Mongolia, most likely to check out the fabled firepower the Mongols had picked up from their enemies to the south. Soon thereafter other Europeans visited, including one Willem van Ruysbroeck, a Franciscan who returned to Europe in 1257 and told his associates about gunpowder weapons. The following year, Europeans began experimenting with gunpowder. Other Westerners discovered gunpowder the hard way, in their warring with Islamic nations. In 1249, Crusaders ran into an Islamic counterattack of incendiary devices and grenades in Palestine. The effect was horrific.

The Europeans learned quickly. A picture of the bombard, a small bulbous cannon that fired arrows, appears in a 1327 manuscript, On the Majesty, Wisdom, and Prudence of Kings, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Chinese drawings of bombards reveal sets of them mounted on a carriage, similar to the first European ones. Copies? "If so, it would mean the purely propellant phase of gunpowder and shot, [the] culminating stage of all gunpowder uses, was attained in China with bottleshaped bombards before any knowledge of gunpowder itself reached Europe," says Needham. It appears that the entire line of development took place in China first, and passed to Islamic nations and then to Europe. The export of gunpowder and guns to the West led to the utter transformation of Europe.

This was not the first time inventions from China had revolutionized Europe. The widespread use of the Chinese stirrup in the early Middle Ages had given birth to the knight, a warrior now able to stabilize himself on his horse. The advent of gunpowder blew away that knight, perched like a big immobile target on his horse. Gunpowder that could punch holes in the heaviest fortifications signed the death warrant for the castle and Europe's aristocratic military feudalism.

While Europe was broken into hundreds or thousands of small economic and social units, the Chinese usually lived under a powerful centralized administrative authority with close internal commerce and a unified language, writing, and religion. (The operative word is "usually." In between stretches of order, barbarians kept barging in from the north, and there were, according to Alfred Crosby, "periods of godawful instability.") " Maintaining stability required military strength, hydraulic control, transportation systems, a calendar, land measurement, technology, map drawing, palace building, and other construction technologies to display the images of imperial power.

Metallurgy and metal manufacturing was a unifying technology. The Chinese "industrial-dynastic-military complex" was a voracious consumer of iron and steel products. Records from the eleventh century show a single order for nineteen thousand tons of iron just to make coins. The million-men-plus army maintained by the Sungs was a giant maw for iron and steel: two government arsenals manufactured thirty-two thousand suits of armor a year.

A superb bronze and cast-iron metallurgy was part of what the physiologist Jared Diamond calls an autocatalytic process, one that catalyzes itself in a positive-feedback cycle, proceeding ever faster once it is started. Long before iron and bronze casting provided the receptacles for gunpowder weapons, the early mastery of cast iron led to the sharp axes that opened up vast areas to forestry; it provided craftsmen with honed chisels, awls, saws, and other tools of a firmness previously unknown. Cast iron allowed new kinds of construction for buildings and bridges and the hard rotary bits for a deep-drilling industry not seen in the West until the seventeenth century. From around the sixth century B.C., the Chinese were adept in cast-iron forging in special vertical blast furnaces. With the vertical furnace, iron and steel technology in China diverged from that of other regions of the world and followed a unique path.

The Chinese were blessed with clays with high refractory qualities, which they used for the walls of their blast furnaces, thus intensifying the heat. They discovered that phosphorus reduced the temperature at which iron melts. By the fourth century B.C., the Chinese were able to cast iron into ornamental and functional shapes. In the West, blast furnaces are known to have existed in Scandinavia by the late eighth century A.D., but cast iron was not widely available in Europe before 1380. By the third century B.C., the Chinese had discovered annealing (heating then cooling) techniques for making a malleable, nonshattering cast iron. Plowshares could survive hitting large rocks; swords could clang with impunity. So plowshares, longer swords, and even buildings were eventually made of iron. During the Han dynasty (206 B.C.—A.D. 220), iron was of such interest to the officials that in A.D. 119 the rulers nationalized all cast-iron manufacture. During the Han there were forty-six Imperial Iron-Casting Bureaus throughout the country where bureaucrats supervised the mass production of cast-iron goods.

Chinese iron making inspired a continuous stream of inventions. First were the agricultural tools: cast-iron hoes in the sixth century B.C. and a new model in the first century B.C. called the "swan-neck" hoe capable of weeding around plants without damaging them; the moldboard plow was invented in the third century B.C. Called the kuan, it was made of malleable cast iron, with a central ridge ending in a sharp point to cut the soil, and with wings that sloped gently up toward the center to throw the soil off the plow to reduce friction.

Again, the introduction of Chinese iron agricultural tools to the West revolutionized European culture. Intensive hoeing and the iron plow were perhaps the greatest technological advantages China held over the rest of the world. "Nothing underlines the backwardness of the west more than the fact that for thousands of years, millions of human beings plowed the earth in a manner that was so inefficient, so wasteful of effort, and so utterly exhausting, that this deficiency of sensible plowing may rank as mankind's single greatest waste of time and energy," writes sinologist Robert Temple. Throughout the first millennium B.C., the Chinese refined the iron plow. When the newfangled plow (along with the Chinese seed drill) finally arrived in the Netherlands and England in the seventeenth century, it instigated an agricultural revolution.

The Chinese were making steel by the second century B.C., although they were probably not the first civilization to do so. They furthered metallurgical technology with at least two inventions that were to be reinvented centuries later in the West. One is what we call the Bessemer steel process today, invented in England by Sir Henry Bessemer in 1856. Bessemer's work had been anticipated a few years earlier by William Kelly, who brought four Chinese steel experts to a small town near Eddyville, Kentucky, in 1845. The experts taught Kelly the secrets of steel production that had been used in China for more than two thousand years.

In short, the Bessemer process is the removal of carbon from iron. Cast iron is brittle because it contains a large amount of carbon, about 4.5 percent. To get steel, one removes most of the carbon. (For wrought iron, nearly all the carbon is removed.) As carbon is removed, the metal gets more supple. Steel with high carbon is strong but is more brittle than lower-carbon steel. The Chinese used different carbon contents to great effect. For example, the back, blunt edge of a saber might be made of wrought iron, for elasticity, while the cutting edge would made of harder steel. The Chinese removed carbon from cast iron by blowing oxygen on it, a technique similar to the one "discovered" by Henry Bessemer in the nineteenth century. The Chinese technique is described in the classic work Huai Nan Tzu, published in about 120 B.C.

In the fifth century A.D., the Chinese invented another steel manufacturing process, in which cast iron and wrought iron were melted together to yield steel. In the modern world this is called the Siemens process, invented in 1863 in England. The Chinese were doing it fourteen hundred years earlier. It is more properly called the Ch'iwu Huai Wen process, in honor of the metallurgist who made sabers of "over-night iron" by baking wrought and cast iron together for several days and nights.

With a variety of irons and steels of differing hardness and flexibility, the Chinese did more than build spiffy swords. They used wrought iron, for example, to construct the world's first suspension bridges, possibly as early as the first century A.D., using chains of wrought-iron links instead of woven bamboo. By comparison, the first suspension bridge in the West of any size was built in 1809 across the Merrimack River in Massachusetts.

Chinese metallurgical advances made possible a whole range of innovation. In A.D. 976, for example, an engineer named Chang Ssu- Hsun invented the chain drive for use in a large mechanical clock. The Chinese were fascinated with chains and clocks. Since the first century A.D., they had used iron-linked chain pumps and the common sprocket chain to transmit power in clocks and elsewhere.

Chang Ssu-Hsun's successor, the even more famous clockmaker Su Sung, also adopted the chain drive for his huge astronomical clock, in 1090, calling it the "celestial ladder." The first European chain drives were made in the eighteenth century, and in 1897, chain drives became the basis of the bicycle. It is ironic, Temple comments, given that bicycles are a leading form of transportation in China, that only a few Chinese have any idea that the chain drive was a native invention nine hundred years in advance of its application in Europe for the bike.

The first completely printed book is thought to be the Buddhist Diamond Sutra, completed in A.D. 868 and now preserved in perfect condition in the British Museum. A scroll 17.5 feet long and 10.5 inches wide, it contains the text of a Sanskrit work translated into Chinese. There were also large print runs for ordinary books. Calendars and horoscopes were as popular then as now. In fact, so many astrological calendars were being privately printed that in 858 the governor of the Szechwan province tried to ban them. They were sold under the counter in marketplaces before the Board of Astronomers could approve and issue them. The prohibition spurred sales of these calendars, which contained weather forecasts, prophesies for lucky and unlucky days, edifying sayings, and other Farmers' Almanac types of things.

Writing is the unification technology par excellence of civilization. Chinese writing is preserved from the second millennium B.C. but probably began earlier. The Hsia dynasty, c. 2205—1766 B.C. and shrouded in legend, may have had rudiments of literacy. Inscriptions from the Chou dynasty from 1100 to 221 B.C. record the conquest and absorption of non-Chinese-speaking populations by the Chinese states. (Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss wrote that ancient writing's main function was to "facilitate the enslavement of the other human beings.")

Although writing evolved around the same time in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the Chinese writing of 1300 B.C. had unique signs and principles that lead most scholars to think it evolved independently. The preserved writing of those times consists of religious divination and ritual inscription about dynastic affairs incised into "oracle bones." Before paper's invention, words were written on various materials—on grass stalks by the Egyptians, earthen plates by the Mesopotamians, tree leaves by the Indians, sheep skins by the Europeans, and even on tortoise shells and shoulder blades of oxen by the early Chinese. Then the Chinese invented paper.

The oldest surviving piece of paper in the world comes from a tomb near Sian, in Shensi Province. It was made sometime between 140 and 87 B.C. from pounded and disintegrated hemp fibers.115 From this and other fragmentary evidence it is clear the Chinese knew the general mechanics of papermaking one thousand years or more before the Europeans. (Paper is not that complicated. It's a layer of disintegrated fibers in a watery solution pressed onto a flat mold. The water is drained away, the layer is dried, and you have paper.)

Although most early Chinese paper was made of hemp, in the second century A.D. a court official named Cai Lun produced a new kind of paper from a mix of bark, rags, wheat stalks, and other things. Perhaps the first recycled paper, it was also the first modern paper. It was fairly cheap, thin, light, strong, and suitable for brush strokes. The Chinese also used paper for clothing, shoes, and toilet tissue, which amazed the Europeans when they first saw it. They invented wallpaper, kites, umbrellas, paper money, the paper-folding art of origami, and more. Paper reached India in the seventh century, and the Islamic nations a hundred years later. For five hundred years the Arabs jealously guarded the secret of papermaking from the Europeans, but sold paper to them at a hefty profit. Paper manufacturing did not come to Europe until the thirteenth century, when the Italians took it up.

The beginnings of printing are lost in history. About two thousand years ago in the Western Han dynasty (206 B.C.—A.D. 28), stone-tablet rubbing was the favored way to spread Confucian texts or Buddhist sutras. The practice of block printing began in the Sui dynasty (A.D. 581—618): one engraved writing or pictures on a wooden board, smeared the board with ink, then printed the image on pieces of silk (or, later, paper) page by page. During the Tang dynasty (618—907), the technology spread to Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

Block printing was cumbersome, with boards that were sometimes useless after one printing. A single mistake in carving could ruin a whole block. Between 1041 and 1048, Pi Sheng (sometimes called Bi Sheng) invented movable type. He carved single characters on pieces of fine clay as thin as the edge of a copper coin, which he slow-baked until extremely hard. He then set the type in an iron frame and stuck it to an iron plate with a mixture of resin, wax, and paper ash melted over fire. A plate thus prepared could print hundreds or thousands of sheets of paper. Each piece of type could be removed to be used again.

The first record of Bi Sheng's invention is found in the 1086 book Dream Pool Essays by the scientist-encyclopedist Shen Kua. It was not unusual for a chronicler to own fifty thousand books, he wrote. To pub lish books with Chinese characters, a printer might need up to 360,000 pieces of type. In the centuries that followed, the Chinese used wood, enamelware, or metal type more commonly than clay.

The American physicist and essayist Philip Morrison noted in 1974 that when Gutenberg first set the Mainz Bible in print, "Chinese libraries already held editions of printed books older than Gutenberg's product is now." For every Book of Songs or Analects the West has, wrote Morrison, there are ten thousand printed texts from every period of China. The Mongol armies pressing into Russia, Poland, and Hungary in the thirteenth century reached the borders of Germany not long before printing surfaced there. Johannes Gutenberg printed his now famous Bible using movable type in 1456.

Perhaps the non-western world peaked too soon, technologically speaking. By inventing a method of vulcanizing rubber a thousand years before Goodrich or originating the Bessemerizaton of iron a thousand years before Bessemer, these ancient inventors may have given the West a chance to "reinvent" and rename their innovations. Today we view technologically oriented societies as being superior. We see exploration and the ability to conquer as exponents of superiority.

There is an old skit from the TV comedy show Saturday Night Live in which extraterrestrials land their spaceship on earth and demand that humans bow down to them. It becomes quickly apparent that the extraterrestrials are stupid and ignorant. They eventually admit that they didn't invent their spaceship; they found it. Imagine the reaction of the Aztecs to the conquering Spaniards, treating their wounds by pouring hot oil on them and praying, while the "backward" Amerindians used early antibiotics. Cortés and his men had guns; they had found them in China. As New York Times writer Gail Collins put it, "The Chinese . . . had toothpaste, while people in Europe barely had teeth."

The seafaring ways of the Europeans have often been attributed to superior technology, but, in fact, the Chinese invented a staggering number of shipbuilding advances—fore-and-aft rigging, the lateen sail, the sternpost rudder, and watertight bulkheads, to name a few. With those advances and the compass, the Chinese could have theoretically gone anywhere the Europeans did—and long before. Indeed, while Columbus was making the rounds of the courts of Europe seeking funding for his adventures, Chinese maritime technology was advanced enough for Chen Ho, chief admiral and eunuch of the Ming emperor, to send to India and then to East Africa fleets of vessels armed with cannons and manned with thousands of sailors and passengers.

It is this admiral, suggests Alfred Crosby, who should be acknowledged as the greatest explorer in the age of exploration. "If political changes and cultural endogeny had not stifled the ambitions of Chinese sailors," writes Crosby, "then it is likely that history's greatest imperialists would have been far easterners, not Europeans." The Chinese could have made arduous journeys around the world on any seas they wanted, had they had a reason to do so. Western European economies offered nothing China could not acquire much closer to home at much less cost.

So as it happened Chen Ho did not sail east, and Christopher Columbus sailed west, "greedy to find the gold of Cathay and the courts of the Grand Khan as described by his countryman Marco Polo, who had traveled by different means and from the other direction," as the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it.

LINK

A World War II–era Messerschmidt Bf-109 airplane undergoes testing in a wind tunnel at Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Goering c. 1940

On the outskirts of Braunschweig lay a large area of woodland, surround­ed, in the more open countryside, by a few scattered farm buildings. At least, that is how it appeared to aerial reconnaissance. But this innocuous little corner of Germany was actually something quite different - under­neath the camouflage. This was the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Goring, the Goring Aerial Weapon Establishment, and it was one of the leading centres of top-secret develop­ments. None of the central buildings was visible from the air, as they were all below tree level and the branches of the forest covered them completely. There were at least forty secret weapons establishments in this one unit, most of them devoted to the improvement of armour and the test­ing of ballistic projectiles. A large supersonic wind tunnel was built, and - for topographical reasons - the air intake had to be on open ground. So the German specialists erected a dummy farm-house to occupy the site, complete in every detail; and on one end (where the air intakes were) was a small out-house. Its roof slid sideways in its entirety to reveal the jet ducts when the device was going to be in use, and then they were quietly and unobtrusively slid back again after­wards, leaving the supporting beams standing rather conspicuously along­side. But no-one ever noticed.

And so it was that this immense establishment was erected and kept in full operation throughout the war without anyone knowing about it; two bombs did fall near the site during the entire war, but they were errors on bombing raids aimed at the town nearby.

***

Just before the Nazi seizure of power a corporatist research policy was evident in aviation. All three parts of the research system pursued their own interests. This corporatist research policy is all the more remarkable as at the same time the presidential regime and the rise of National Socialism were wearing away the basis of political corporatism in its liberal variant (cf. Abelshauser 1984). The world economic depression hit the aviation industry particularly hard. Those firms with a weak capital base, which were dependent on demand from the state, had only survived the 1920s thanks to generous public subsidies. When these were cut back as part of the deflation policy of governments after 1929, many companies faced bankruptcy (cf. Budraß 1998: 273–91). The cuts in state development programmes also affected aviation research. The ambitious expansion programme of the DVL was a victim of the Reichssparkommissar (Reich Savings Minister) cuts. The AVA also suffered under the financial crisis. It had to do without the large 6-metre-diameter wind tunnel which had been planned since the middle of the 1920s. However, the idea that aeronautical research was robbed of its chance to develop is exaggerated. In comparison to the existential crisis that was facing industry, research survived the crisis relatively unscathed. Reich subsidies only sank in 1932/3 to 75 per cent of their 1928/9 level. Up to 1931 the level of personnel was actually increased and thereafter redundancies were kept below average (Trischler 1992c: 161–9, and for the following: ibid. 174–206 ).

However, the scientists perceived the policies of the Reich government in a completely different way. They got the impression that the parliamentary democratic state was generally not in a position to meet their demands. Parliament and state bureaucracy seemed to be unable to see the necessity of supporting an improvement of research installations and facilities. Scientists generally tend to judge themselves against their colleagues at home and abroad. The German aeronautical science community looked to America, which since the 1920s had been a shining example of well-equipped and organized research. The German scientists were forced to sit in silence while in Great Britain, France, and particularly in the United States the foundations for excellent research opportunities were laid, while in Germany, working with obsolete equipment, it was hardly possible to conduct model tests on new aircraft types. In consequence, and as a reflection of what was happening in German society as a whole, scientists ceased to accept the Weimar Republic as a valid form of government and began looking for alternatives.

Thus, the destruction of parliamentary democracy by the National Socialists was largely well received in the aeronautical scientific community. With undisguised satisfaction the scientists noted that aeronautics was granted autonomy in the new Third Reich. With the appointments of the former director of Lufthansa, Erhard Milch, to undersecretary and Adolf Baeumker as the head of the research department of the newly formed Reichsluftfahrtministerium (Reich Aviation Ministry, henceforth RLM), hopes increased that the importance of research would finally be recognized by the state. Baeumker had gained the trust of the scientists in the 1920s as the official responsible for aviation research in the Reichsverkehrsministerium (Reich Transport Ministry). The son of a well-known Munich philosophy professor, he seemed to guarantee the autonomy of science and an unbureaucratic approach to new ways of organizing research.

Prandtl and his colleagues were not to be disappointed. Only weeks after the Nazi seizure of power, the AVA got permission to construct the large wind tunnel, a request the centre had petitioned for in vain for almost a decade. The increase of the budget for aviation by more than 40 million Reichsmark from the job-creation programme made it possible for the DVL to carry out plans for expansion which had been gathering dust since the late 1920s. Aeronautical scientists soon discovered that even their most outrageous demands were met. Research installations which had previously been unthinkable were suddenly approved without question. The financing problem, which had always been the limiting factor of research, no longer seemed relevant.

The expansion of the DVL alone consumed over 28 million Reichsmark by the beginning of the Second World War, a huge amount, inconceivable by the standards of the Weimar era. At the outbreak of the war the institute had highly modern research facilities, of which only two of the most spectacular need to be mentioned here. The big wind tunnel opened in 1934, had eliptical dimensions of 5 × 7 or 6 × 8 metres and enabled coolers, transmission, propellors and engine casings of large dimension to be tested. Another technological innovation was the Trudelwindkanal of 1934/5 which was shaped like an enormous egg. In a vertically rising air stream of 4 metres in diameter and 40 m/s hung a model in free movement in front of a camera. The huge dimensions of this wind tunnel were trumpeted by Nazi propaganda. This was the expression of a sort of technological romanticism and the production ethic of National Socialism (cf. Rabinbach 1976; Friemert 1980). The staff of the centre increased threefold within a two-year period. On the eve of the Second World War, the centre had almost 2,000 employees, an expansion in personnel which strained its internal structure. In 1936, the facility was expanded both horizontally and vertically. Between the management and the departments new intermediate hierarchical levels were installed. The autonomy of the departments was cut back, thus enabling the DVL to take on larger projects, so that there was an improvement in the quality as well as the quantity of research.

The AVA in Göttingen expanded just as rapidly. Before the Second World War it looked like a building site. Its new wind tunnel was so enormous that Lufthansa and Luftwaffe pilots used it as an aid to navigation. Hardly was the first cold tunnel for testing icing on highflying aircraft ready than work began on an even bigger icing tunnel. In this tunnel an altitude temperature of minus 60 degrees Celsius und 0.1 bar pressure could be simulated. Its insulation required the entire annual Portuguese cork harvest (Wüst 1982: 33–4). With the purchase of the nearby disused limestone quarry and aircraft hangars including testing equipment, the centre spread right across the middle of Göttingen.

In 1937, after a long, acrimonious debate, the RLM and the Kaiser- Wilhelm-Gesellschaft agreed to make the AVA independent and separate from the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Strömungsforschung. As a terminological compromise the name Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft was adopted. In return for generous financial support from the RLM, the centre now had to work exclusively on aeronautics. The staff grew from 80 employees in 1933 to over 450 by 1936, and to approximately 700 in the last year of peace. Albert Betz had to admit that he could no longer run such a rapidly expanding research concern and in 1939 a separate administrator began to work at his side. Within half a year the AVA had changed fundamentally. Out of a straightforward institute of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft there had grown a varied and complex research undertaking. Highly modern research facilities were being used or built. In order to be able to handle the rush of orders from the aircraft industry, the wind tunnels were being used in shifts around the clock. Like the DVL, the AVA corresponded to a large degree in size, structure and working methods to the criteria by which we judge big science. The ministry withdrew the scientific head, Albert Betz, from the administration and replaced him with someone they trusted.

The ‘great scientific expansion’ of the pre-war period (Simon 1947: 24) remained decentralized. Besides the expansion of existing centres, new centres were planned in the mid-1930s. In March 1935, with the proclamation of German air sovereignty, the Nazi government stopped pretending it had no air force (Luftwaffe) and thereby broke the bonds of the Versailles Treaty. The Air Ministry dictated the goal to be attained: Göring’s insistence that ‘German aeronautical research will have to reach the production levels of the leading foreign nations at the latest by 1938 and then take the lead in several important areas’ gave the research department of the RLM new room for manoeuvre. In the internal struggles for power and influence as well as in the negotiations with experts from the military, industry and science, and with competing departments of the polycratic regime, Göring’s stated goal was used as a trump card. The personal support of the second most powerful man in the Nazi regime overcame all those obstacles which faced the research department (Baeumker 1944: 31).

Decentralization remained the characteristic of German aviation research. The effort of the DVL to concentrate everything except the AVA in Berlin-Adlershof would have had many advantages. The building of completely new centres absorbed resources and energies which might have been more effectively used by concentration. The Air Ministry had other concerns, however. The AVA and DVL were reaching their physical limits and could not be protected from enemy air attacks within cities like Berlin or Göttingen. The DVL was anyway considered to be too big to guarantee effective research. A ‘healthy decentralization of research across the whole Reich territory’ would allow cooperation with regional industries and the full exploitation of personnel resources (Baeumker 1944: 43–4). Hence new establishments were set up, among them the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Research Establishment for Aviation, henceforth DFL).

Apart from the building of new centres there was a second model for institutional growth. An existing group of researchers could be taken as the core around which a diversified institute was built. A third variant appeared after 1939. Thanks to the Blitzkrieg, Germany gained control of important foreign research centres. The potential of these establishments, among them the Etablissement d’Expériences Techniques des Chalais Meudon near Paris, which housed Europe’s largest wind tunnel, was channelled into the research landscape of Nazi Germany.

The biggest and most important of these new or extended centres was the DFL. Whereas the DVL was devoted to applied research, the DFL was planned as a centre for basic research. A huge research centre shot up on the green fields outside Brunswick. Wind tunnels of various sizes in the classical Göttingen design were added to research instruments that had hitherto not been able to measure the parameters and phenomena in ballistics and aerodynamics. A cross-section wind tunnel, for example, allowed the study of the influence of side winds up to a speed of 200 m/s on flight to be tested (Blenk 1941: 465). Within just a few short years, the DFL grew into an array of highly advanced laboratories and facilities. Adolf Baeumker, head of the Air Ministry’s research department, hit the nail on the head, when in 1942 he stated that the DFL was the largest research project so far realized in Germany (cit. after Trischler 1992a: 174).

The foundation, building and running of the centre in Brunswick were the basic model of research policy in Nazi Germany. The Air Ministry set the long-term goals: accelerated basic research in those areas of use to military aviation like high-speed engine research and weapons. The building of the research centres showed obsessive concern for secrecy and protection against air raids. The setting of the scientific goals, however, was the responsibility of the scientists. The fact that the state controlled the organization of science but not its actual processes meant that scientists enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. The precondition for this cooperation between state and research was the readiness of the scientists to go along with the general political line of the national regime. In fact an analysis of the research work at the DFL shows the high degree to which this new centre fitted in with the rearmament aims of the regime (Trischler 1992c: 213–22).

Even more impressive than the DFL were the regime’s plans for the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt München (Munich Aeronautical Research Establishment, henceforth LFM). As the Stuttgart aircraft firm of Ernst Heinkel began work on jet engines in 1936, research into engines looked like being taken over by industry. The research centre in Brunswick was still under construction and thus was not able to realize its function of producing new ideas and technical innovations in this revolutionary area of aircraft construction. In the Air Ministry, plans were drawn up for a new research establishment in the south of Germany which was to be dedicated to basic research into jet engines. After the Anschluß with Austria, Munich was chosen as the site. The nearby Ötztal with its natural resource of water power offered favourable conditions for the planned high-speed wind tunnel with a power of 75,000 kW, in which tests on high-performance engines up to flight speeds could be carried out. With tunnels of this size the Nazi regime hoped to compensate for the apparent superiority of the United States in this strategically important technology. But with the outbreak of the war the building of the Munich centre was postponed. In mid-1940, however, the American Congress passed legislation to encourage engine research. The Nazi regime, despite a shortage of capacity, was determined to catch up. New high-speed tunnels with 8 m diameter as well as test beds for rocket and jet engines were conceived and the building of the facility began. Although the construction of the LFM at Ottobrunn near Munich and Ötztal took the lion’s share of the available funds after 1941, the most important projects did not get beyond the basic construction stage before the end of the war. Like a giant shadow – a relic of Nazi giganticism – pieces of the large apparatus stuck out of the idyllic world of the Ötztal (Trischler 1992: 262–9; Hansen 1987: 187–217).

The AMX-40 was a French prototype main battle tank. Its development began in 1983 as a clean sheet design. Four prototypes had been produced by 1986, and the design was offered for export notably to Spain.

The tank was of fairly standard configuration, with the driver at the front, the turret in the center, housing a gunner, commander and loader. With the engine at the rear. It's armament consisted of a 120 millimeter calibre smoothbore gun, with a coaxial 20 millimeter calibre autocannon. The tank was powered by a 1,100 horsepower V12 diesel engine coupled to an automatic transmission.

LINK

LINK

LINK

The Northrop XP-79 originated in 1942 as an idea by John K. Northrop for a high-speed flying wing fighter aircraft powered by a rocket engine. Near-sonic speeds were envisaged. The idea was somewhat similar to that which eventually produced the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket-powered interceptor in Germany.

The Northrop fighter project was to be powered by a 2000 pound thrust Aerojet rocket engine, with takeoff assisted by a pair of 1000 pound thrust rocket boosters which would be dropped after takeoff. Northrop proposed that this airplane be flown by a pilot lying prone in the cockpit, since it was hoped that this would reduce strain on the pilot during violent maneuver and would present a minimum silhouette to enemy gunners.

In January of 1943, the USAAF issued a contract for three prototypes under the designation XP-79. The availability of jet engines led to a decision in March to use two Westinghouse 19-B turbojets in the third prototype, which was redesignated XP-79B.

Since the layout of the fighter was so radical, it was thought that test glider prototypes be built to verify the validity of the concept. One of these was designated MX-324, and was fitted with a fixed tricycle landing gear. The MX-324 was towed into the air by a P-38 on July 5, 1944, and became the first American-built rocket-powered aircraft to fly.

Delays in the development of the Aerojet rocket engine caused the USAAF to cancel the two XP-79s, leaving only the XP-79B. The serial number of the XP-79B was 43-52437. The XP-79B was finally ready for flight testing in the summer of 1945. The pilot lay prone in an unpressurized cockpit situated between the two turbojets. The flying wing was of semimonocoque construction and was built largely of magnesium in order to save weight. Instead of conventional ailerons, the wing had air intakes at the tips for lateral control, in much the same manner as the XP-56. The aircraft was equipped with a pair of vertical tails, presaging the MiG-25 and the F-15. The retractable landing gear consisted of four wheels, two each in tandem.

The XP-79B was to use a rather unusual technique for destroying enemy aircraft. The wing leading edge was reinforced so that it could slice off the wings or tails of enemy aircraft by ramming them! And if that didn't work, the XP-79B was equipped with a more conventional armament of four 0.50-inch machine guns in the wing leading edge.

The XP-79B was transferred to Muroc Dry Lake in June of 1945. Flight testing was delayed by problems with bursting tires during ground taxiing trials. On September 12, 1945, test pilot Harry Crosby finally took the XP-79B up in the air for the first time. It flew all right for about fifteen minutes, but the plane then suddenly went into a spin from which it proved impossible to recover. Crosby attempted to parachute to safety, but his chute failed to open and he was killed. The XP-79B impacted in the desert and was destroyed in the resulting fire. Magnesium burns very nicely. :-).

Although the mishap that cost Harry Crosby his life could have been corrected, the USAAF decided to abandon the project.

Specification of the XP-79B:

Powered by a pair of 1365 lb. st. Westinghouse 19B turbojets.

Wingspan was 28 feet, length 14 feet, and height was 7 feet.

Wing area was 278 square feet.

Gross weight was 8669 pounds.

Estimated performance included a maximum speed of 547 mph at 20,000 feet, an initial climb rate of 4000 feet, a service ceiling of 40,000 feet, and a range of 993 miles.

The proposed armament of four 0.50-in machine guns was never fitted.

Sources:

1. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.
2. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

LINK

LINK

LINK

Dnepr Launch Vehicle

The SALT-I and SALT-II treaties authorized the use of decommissioned strategic missiles for spacecraft launches. In this context, the Yuzhnoye State Design Office proposed a design for a missile/space system, called the Dnepr, based on the 15A18 (RS-20B) missile, which was then being decommissioned. The project was supported by the National Space Agency of Ukraine and the Russian Space Agency.

An international corporation, Kosmotras, including the following Ukrainian and Russian enterprises, was established to pursue this project: the Yuzhnoye State Design Office, the State Enterprise Production Association Yuzhnyi Machine- Building Plant, the Khartron Joint-Stock Corporation, and the Design Bureau for Special Machinery. The resulting company took responsibility for developing, operating, and marketing the system. The project was based on the availability of a significant base of materiel that could be used to address the purpose at hand: more than 150 15A18 missiles on duty in launch silos and stored in arsenals, as well as the experimental 15A18 ground facility at Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Implementation of this project required some slight modifications to the missiles, including the onboard control systems and the launch support facility/launch facility at Baikonur Cosmodrome. The Dnepr launch vehicle is essentially a modified 15A18 in which the weapon section is replaced by a spacecraft payload. The high energy output and high orbital inclinations reachable by using the Dnepr launch vehicle will enable it to be used for placing communications, remote-sensing, and scientific satellites into low Earth orbit. The first launch of the Dnepr took place on 21 April 1999, placing the British UoSAT-12 spacecraft into orbit. The second launch of the Dnepr launch vehicle took place on 26 September 2000, placing the following five spacecraft into orbit: UniSat and MegSat-1 (Italy), SaudiSat-1A and SaudiSat- 1B (Saudi Arabia), and TiunSat-1 (Malaysia).

Treating space research as a highly valuable engine of scientific, technical, and economic progress, the Yuzhnoye Design Office, which began production of rocketry and space hardware more than 45 years ago, is continuing its space activities in developing new spacecraft launch systems for the Ukrainian national space program and other international space programs.

15A18 (SS-18 mod 4) Missile

The 15A18 is one of the most powerful ballistic missiles ever developed by the Yuzhnoye Design Office; it is designed to deliver 10 warheads weighing approximately 8.5 metric tons to a range of up to 11,000 km. The missile had a launch weight of 211.1 metric tons, a length of 34.3 m, and a case diameter of 3m. One such missile can destroy up to 10 arbitrarily located targets within an area several hundred kilometers across using the nuclear warheads carried by the missile. The 15A18 has the capability of high-accuracy strikes on enemy facilities even after multiple enemy nuclear strikes against 15A18 deployment areas.

The government task order for developing the 15A18 missile system was issued on 16 August 1976. The new missile was to be based on the 15A14 missile system, and the main reason for developing the new system was to modernize the 15A14 for increased military effectiveness and increased launch-facility hardening. The improved 15A14 missile was designated the 15A18. The task order called for increasing the yield of the nuclear warheads, improving the effectiveness of the missile-defense countermeasures used, increasing the target accuracy, increasing the range, and increasing the dimensions of the area targetable by the reentry vehicles to meet certain specifications. This task was successfully accomplished.

These requirements were met through the following developments:

* high-strength reentry vehicles carrying higher-yield nuclear warheads;

* multipurpose missile-defense countermeasures;

* two-level weapons compartment that has clamshell fairing;

* high-energy output liquid-fueled reentry-vehicle stage separation units and missile-defense countermeasures; * missile control systems that have gyroscopes of enhanced accuracy and an improved onboard digital computer; and

* targeting systems that remain functional and ensure highly accurate targeting, even in the event of multiple enemy nuclear attacks on the 15A18 deployment area.

A launch silo that had improved hardening against nuclear explosions was also developed.

The 15A14 missile was used for the first and second stages of the 15A18 after several modifications. These missile stages have a highly compact layout to maximize the amount of propellant carried within the limited dimensions of the missile. The first-stage propulsion unit is a module consisting of four single-chamber RD-264 engines developed by the Design Bureau for Power Machinery (total thrust 4167.3/4524.4 kN and specific impulse 2877.3/3123.5Ns/kg at sea level and in vacuum, respectively). The second stage uses an RD-229 single-chamber, fixed, main engine and an RD-0230 four-chamber steering engine (total thrust 760.3kN and specific impulse 3193.5Ns/kg in vacuum). Both of the second-stage engines were developed by the Design Bureau for Automated Chemical Equipment. To increase the specific impulse, the RD-264 and RD-0229 engines had a closed-loop design in which the gas-generator output used to operate the turbopump assemblies was also burned in the combustion chambers.

The RD-864 engine on the RV bus was developed by the Yuzhnoye Design Office (thrust 19.6kN and specific impulse 2848 Ns/kg). It is a four chamber, liquid-fueled engine built to a new design; before engine start-up, the chambers are moved outward from the body of the bus and are stopped at a certain specific angle to the longitudinal axis of the bus so that the stage appears to be drawn forward. This simplified the system for separating the warhead unit and missile-defense countermeasures system components from the RV bus.

The first stage is controlled during flight by gimbaling the RD-264 engine, and the second stage and reentry stage are controlled by gimbaling the RD-0230 and RD-864 steering chambers. The chambers are gimbaled using hydraulic actuators where UDMH is the working fluid (the UDMH is fed by the turbopumps for each of these respective engines).

The tanks were prepressurized before engine start-up using a chemical pressurization system based on injecting a metered amount of oxidizer into the fuel tank and fuel into the oxidizer tank. In-flight pressurization of the first two stages of the missile used hot gas produced in special gas generators. The reentry stage used a gas-cylinder-based pressurization system.

The missile stages and warhead were separated by using braking systems on the first and second stages based on the impulse generated by blow off of pressure from the fuel tanks in each missile stage.

The missile was launched mortar-style from a launch canister placed in the silo. Launching the missile mortar-style provided the following advantages: substantial simplification of both the shock-absorption system for the surface test and launch equipment and the launch-silo design; improved protection against nuclear blast effects; reduction in launcher cost; and a reduction in the time required for launch silo construction and for placing the missiles into military service. The missile was flight tested at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. The flight testing program for the 15A18 included 19 launches, of which 17 were successful.

Yokosuka D4Y3 of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This version introduced the Mitsubishi MK8P Kinsei 62 radial engine, which avoided the reliability problems of the earlier Aichi Atsuta engine.

Overview of Models

Well-proportioned and purposeful in appearance, the Yokosuka D4Y possessed an excellent performance and owed much of its concept to the German He 118, for whose manufacturing rights Japan negotiated in 1938. Designed as a fast carrier-based attack bomber and powered by an imported Daimler-Benz DB 600G engine, the D4Y1 was first flown in December 1941; D4Y1-C reconnaissance aircraft were ordered into production at Aichi's Nagoya plant, the first of 660 aircraft being completed in the late spring of 1942. The first service aircraft were lost when the Soryu was sunk at Midway. Named Suisei (comet) in service and codenamed 'Judy' by the Allies, many D4Yls were completed as dive-bombers, and 174 Suiseis of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Koku Sentais were embarked in nine carriers before the Battle of the Philippine Sea. However, they were intercepted by American carriers, and suffered heavy casualties without achieving any success. A new version with 1044-kW (1,400-hp) Aichi Atsuta 32 engine appeared in 1944 as the D4Y2 but, in the interests of preserving high performance, nothing was done to introduce armour protection for crew or fuel tanks, and the sole improvement in gun armament was the inclusion of a 13.2-mm (0.52-in) trainable gun (replacing the previous 7.92-mm/0.31-m gun) in the rear cockpit. This version suffered heavily in the battle for the Philippines. Problems of reliability with the Atsuta (DB 601) engine led to adoption of a Kinsei 62 radial in the D4Y3, and this engine was retained in the D4Y4 which was developed in 1945 as a single-seat suicide dive-bomber. A total of 2,038 production D4Ys was completed.

D4Y3

These early versions of the D4Y were difficult to keep in service because the Atsuta engines were unreliable and difficult to maintain in front line service. From the beginning some had argued that the D4Y should be powered by an air-cooled radial engine, a type Japanese engineers had experience with and trusted. The aircraft was therefore fitted with the reliable Mitsubishi MK8P Kinsei 62, a fourteen-cylinder two-row radial engine. This version was the Yokosuka D4Y3 Model 33.

Flight trials showed that performance was roughly the same as the D4Y2, the gain being easier maintenance and greater reliability. Although the new engine improved ceiling and rate of climb (over 10,000 m, and climb to 3,000 m in 4.5 minutes, instead of 9,400 m and 5 minutes), the higher fuel consumption resulted in shorter range and a slower cruise speed, while the bulky engine obstructed the forward and downward view of the pilot, hampering carrier operations. These problems were tolerated because of the increased availability of the new variant. Late production aircraft also received provisions for RATO units (Rocket Assisted Take Off) to improve take-off from smaller aircraft carriers.

MODEL

D4Y3 Model 33

1,560 hp (1,163 kW) Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 radial engine adopted.

D4Y3a Model 33A

D4Y3 with the rear cockpit 13mm machine gun.

Number built: 536 D4Y3 plus unknown out of 215 built by Dai-Juichi Kaigun Kokusho at Hiro

Susei Carrier Bomber Model 33 Official designation for the D4Y3
Redesignated aircraft

Susei Carrier Bomber Model 33A Official designation for the D4Y3a
Redesignated aircraft

The D4Y5 Model 54 was a planned version designed in 1945. It was to be powered by the Nakajima JK9C Homare 12 radial engine rated at 1,825 hp (1,361 kW), would have a new four-blade metal propeller of the constant-speed type, and would have more armor protection for the crew and fuel tanks.

601st Kokutai

The 601th Ku was essentially formed as a carrier flying group for the 1st Air Division (Taiho, Zuikaku, Shokaku). The number "6" meant the carrier flying group in IJN. But Taiho and Shokaku were sunk in the Battle of Saipan in June, 1944; the 601th was omitted from the 1st Mobile Fleet before the Battle of Philippines in October 1944.

The 601th was reformed for the "new" 1st Air Division (Shinano, Unryu, Katsuragi) of the 2nd Fleet led by Vice Adm. Ito, there was NO chance for the carrier division to fight after the Battle of Philippines.

Shinpuu (Kamikaze) Tokubetsu Kogeki-tai's 2nd Mitate-tai of the 601 Ku, which was led by Lt.Murakawa, included D4Ys, but I'm not sure they were D4Y3s or D4Y4s. This group attacked USS Bismarck Sea and USS Saratoga during the Battle of Io Island.

• Asahi Journal, Volume 4, Number 3
• Famous Airplanes of the World No. 145 Carrier Bomber Suisei
• Famous Airplanes of the World No. 69 Navy Carrier Dive-Bomber Suisei "Judy"
• Model Art No. 406 Camouflage & Markings of Japanese Navy Bombers in WWII
• Japanese Aircraft Interiors 1940-1945 by Monogram Technical Publications
• Profile Publications No. 241 Aichi D3A (Val) & Yokosuka D4Y (Judy) Carrier Bombers
• 
  

LINK

LINK

11K69 launch vehicle.

11K68 launch vehicle.

11K69 (SL-11) and 11K68 (SL-14) Launch Vehicles

OKB- 586 began developing the 11K68 and 11K69 launch vehicles in August 1965 pursuant to a government decree. The USSR Ministry of Defense, the main party interested in developing these launch vehicles (LVs), hoped to use them as delivery systems for both long-term or tactical space-based reconnaissance systems and anti-satellite defense systems. As a result, these launch vehicles had to be extremely flexible and rapidly launched. The 8K69 missile was selected as the basis for both LVs. Virtually identical versions of the first two stages of this missile were used in both the 11K68 and 11K69 LVs. This led to standardization of many launch-support-facility and launch-facility components for these LVs, as well as a reduction in development cost.

There were various reasons behind selecting the 8K69 missile as the basis for the 11K68 and 11K69 launch vehicles. The 8K69 missile, which could place orbital warheads into Earth orbit, could already, after some modification, place other spacecraft into orbit. Additionally, the 8K69 had a relatively high total energy output and could place payloads of up to 3000 kg into low Earth orbit. It could also be readied for launch fairly rapidly, thereby laying the groundwork for meeting the 11K68 and 11K69 requirements for flexibility and rapidity of launch.

Another consideration was the fact that the first and second stages of the 8K69 were already in final development as part of the 8K67 missile and the necessary series production facilities had been established for them. This enabled reducing the one-time development costs for the 11K68 and 11K69 LVs. These considerations served as the basis for the decision to base the 11K68 and 11K69 LVs (which later came to be called, respectively, the Tsiklon-3 and Tsiklon- 2) on the 8K69 missile.

The 11K69 LV is an 8K69 missile in which the orbital warhead has been replaced by one of two nose units containing either a reconnaissance spacecraft or an anti-satellite system. The anti-satellite system consisted of a guidance stage [developed by the Central Machinery Design Bureau (TsKBM), Chief Designer V.N. Chelomei], and an anti-satellite weapons system (developed by Comet Design Bureau, Chief Designer A.I. Savin). Each of these standard 11K69 payload types can be placed under a standard nose fairing.

The launch vehicle is assembled in the Launch-Support-Facility Test and Assembly Building, with the launch vehicle and nose units in horizontal position. The 11K69 LV is transported to the launch pad in assembled form using a custom transporter-erector. Various assemblies installed on the transporter-erector ensure proper mating (or demating) of all pneumatic lines, hydraulic lines, electrical lines, and mechanical joints, the appropriate lines and connections to the launcher are made as the transporter-erector moves over them. The LV is placed into vertical position using the transporter-erector, which is also used for all further servicing (no gantry tower is used).

The 11K69 LV marked the first use of a safe, automated, crewless launch system that completely eliminates any need for operations personnel in the vicinity of the launch facility during the most hazardous launch operations. This system of operations also led to a substantial reduction in the amount of time required to prepare the LV for launch. The 11K69 space launch system was developed in cooperation with the Design Bureau for Transportation Machinery, the Elektropribor Design Bureau, and various other organizations. The space launch system for the 11K69 LV was located at the Baikonur Cosmodrome (Scientific Research Test Site 5). Standard 11K69 launches have been performed since 6 August 1969. This LV holds a unique record in rocketry and space history. All 103 launches of this launch vehicle have been successful, and the 11K69 is still in regular use.

The 11K68 LV differs from the 11K69 LV in that the former has a newly developed third-stage, nose fairing, and interstage-skirt section. This interstage-skirt section consists of an inverted frustrum of a cone because the mating diameter of the nose cone was greater than that of the second-stage instrument bay. The nose cone is intended to protect the spacecraft and third stage from external effects during ground and flight operations. The nose cone consists of a conical cylindrical ‘‘clamshell’’ whose two halves are held together by a special locking device embedded in the longitudinal surface of the nose cone. Once the dense layers of the atmosphere have been traversed, the mechanical linkage between the two halves is severed, and they are jettisoned from the launch vehicle.

The third stage of the 11K68 launch vehicle includes a spacecraft adapter, an instrument section, fuel/tail section, RD-861 main engine, 11D75 vernier thruster, a control system, and a telemetry system. To reduce the weight of the third stage, the instrument compartment uses a space-frame design. In addition to the control system devices, the instrument compartment also houses a spherical high-pressure tank containing helium used by the propellant-tank pressurization system. The telemetry system instruments are mounted on the exterior of the instrument section, along with the all-riveted spacecraft adapter structure. The third stage uses a number of engineering design solutions tested during basic design of the orbital-weapon-unit (OWU) braking engine assembly on the 8K69 missile. Like the OWU, the third stage was sealed. The third stage also used the same propellants as the OWU, nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. The third stage can be stored for several years in the fueled and gas-filled state and transported to the launch pad in this state as part of a launch vehicle. This engineering design solution led to a significant reduction in launch preparation time. Both the third stage and the OWU used a toroidal fuel compartment that had a fixed main engine mounted in the interior cavity. The thruster was also fixed and was mounted in the third-stage tail compartment.

By contrast with the OWU, the third stage toroidal fuel section was cylindrical rather than conical and had one and a half times the volume. A common intermediate bottom plate divides the section into an upper cavity for the oxidizer and a lower cavity for the fuel. The cavities include baffles to prevent propellant oscillation, intake assemblies, and other fittings. Fine-mesh mist extractors were used to support propellant feed into the main engine during startup under weightless conditions.

The RD-861 main engine is an improved version of the RD-854 engine used in the OWU and has a higher total energy output (thrust 78.1kN, specific impulse 3374 Ns/kg) than the RD-854. However, its main features are its ability to be fired twice under weightless conditions and extended operational life. These features enabled using a two-impulse spacecraft launch trajectory that had an elliptical transfer orbit and resulted in the ability to increase the altitude of the orbits that could be reached, as well as the mass of the spacecraft that could be placed in such orbits.

The RD-861 main engine is a single-chamber, liquid-fueled engine that has an open-loop turbopump-based propellant feed system; the generator gas used to operate the turbopumps is discharged through eight nozzles operated by the third-stage flight-control actuator system while the main engine is in operation.

The 11D75 vernier thruster is an improved version of the OWU thruster on the 8K69. Just as for the main engine, both the number of times the thruster can be operated and the operating lifetime have been improved; the functions performed by the thruster were also expanded. It was used for attitude control and stabilization of the third stage and also to support main-engine restart in weightless conditions. To this end, the thruster was equipped with two special nozzles to create a micro-overload in the longitudinal direction for approximately 100 seconds until the third-stage main engine restarted. The 11D75 thruster has an independent fuel system that is filled from the primary thirdstage fuel tanks while the first two stages of the 11K68 launch vehicle are in flight. The RD-861 and 11D75 engines were developed by the Yuzhnoye Design Office.

The 11K68 control system consists of two interconnected systems; one has equipment installed in the first- and second-stage instrument sections, and one has equipment installed in the third-stage instrument sections. The control system for the first two stages of the launch vehicle supports prelaunch preparations, launch, and flight-control functions until third-stage separation, and the second control system controls the third stage during subsequent spacecraft orbital insertion phases. The control system for the first and second stages of the LV was developed by the Elektropribor Design Bureau; that for the third stage was developed by the Kiev Radio Plant (now the Kiev Radio Plant Production Association) Design Bureau. Like the 11K69, the 11K68 was operated in horizontal mode. Like the 11K69, preparation of the 11K68 for launch was automated using standardized assemblies, command lines, actuator lines, and data lines.

The ground facility for these launch vehicles was developed by the Design Bureau for Transportation Machinery and located at the Plesetsk Test Site. To date, there have been 119 launches of the 11K68 launch vehicle; 114 were successful. Several launches have supported the deployment of up to six spacecraft in one flight. More than 10 different types of spacecraft have been deployed into a variety of orbits using the 11K68.

In 1945, the US Army Air Forces issued a requirement for a light bomber aircraft. In February of 1946, a design competition was announced based on the USAAF requirements.

On April 1, 1946, the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore, Maryland proposed a straight-winged, six-seat attack bomber powered by two TG-110 turboprops and two I-40 turbojets. The aircraft promised a maximum speed of 505 mph, a cruising speed of 325 mph, and a combat radius of 800 miles. The Martin design won the competition, and was assigned the designation XA-45 in the attack series.

In the spring of 1946, the USAAF revised its requirement, calling for an aircraft with better performance for all-weather, close-support bombing. The revised characteristics called for a redesignation of the Martin design as XB-51. A fixed-price letter contract issued on May 23, 1946 called for two XB-51s, to be accompanied by wind tunnel models and mockups.

The military characteristics specified in 1945 and 1946 were revised yet again in early 1947. The XB-51 was now pictured as a low-altitude attack aircraft and the combat radius requirement was reduced. The company designation of Model 234 was applied to the project.

The aircraft that finally emerged was powered by three General Electric J47 turbojet engines, one in the tail fed by a top air inlet and two in nacelles underneath the forward fuselage. The wings were swept back at 35 degrees and had six degrees negative dihedral. The wings had variable incidence to enhance performance for takeoff and landing The wings were fairly advanced for the day, having spoilers instead of ailerons and sporting leading-edge slots and full-span flaps. The crew was two, consisting of a pilot seated underneath a bubble type canopy and a navigator seated behind him within the fuselage. The landing gear was similar to that of the B-47--consisting of a set of tandem dual mainwheels which retracted into the fuselage and supported by a set of small outrigger wheels which retracted into the wingtips. An unusual feature was the use of a rotatable bomb bay door on which the bombs were mounted. When open, the weapons bay load was essentially the same as with external stores, but without the speed restrictions.

The XB-51 prototype (46-0685) flew for the first time on October 28, 1949. It was the USAF's first high-speed, jet-powered ground support bomber.

Phase I tests, which lasted until the end of March 1951, indicated that the design required relatively few modifications. Phase II tests, carried out between April and November 1950 confirmed these findings. Martin test pilots flew the XB-51 for 211 hours in 233 flights. Air Force pilots carried out 221 hours of test flights.

The second XB-51 (46-0686) flew for the first time on April 17, 1950. It was fitted with an armament of eight 20-mm cannon in the nose, with 160 rpg. Up to 10,400 pounds of bombs could be carried, but the basic mission consisted of the delivery of 4000 pounds over a 475-mile radius.

In 1950, following the beginning of the Korean War, the USAF perceived a need for a night intruder bomber to replace the Douglas A-26 Invader. The XB-51 was entered in the contest, along with the North American B-45 Tornado and the North American AJ-1 Savage. Foreign entries included the Avro Canada CF-100, a twin-jet all-weather interceptor, and the English Electric Canberra. On December 15, 1950 a Senior Board of officers recommended that the XB-51 and the Canberra had the best potential as a night intruder. Although a relatively large aircraft, the XB-51 was highly maneuverable for its size. At low levels, it had a very satisfactory turning radius in the speed range of 280-310 IAS. However, its low limit load factor of 3.67 G severely limited its capability during tactical operations, and was generally considered unsatisfactory. The XB-51 was nearly a hundred knots faster than the Canberra at low level, its maximum speed of Mach 0.89 below 30,000 feet made interceptions of the XB-51 by aircraft such as the F-86 extremely difficult. However, the endurance of the XB-51 was much poorer than that of the Canberra, with the Canberra being able to loiter for 2 1/2 hours over a target 780 nautical miles from its base. The XB-51 could loiter only one hour over a target 350 nautical miles from its base. Despite the prospect that improved jet engines would eventually be available, there was little prospect that the range and endurance of the XB-51 would improve sufficiently to meet the loiter time requirement. In addition, it was thought that the small outrigger wheels on the XB-51 might be troublesome at hastily-prepared forward air bases. In early 1951, a flyoff at Andrews AFB finally settled the issue, and the Canberra was declared the winner. On March 23, 1951, 250 examples of the Canberra were ordered under the designation B-57A.

The XB-51 program was cancelled in November of 1951. However, Martin was not all that upset, since they were awarded the contract to build the B-57.

Flight tests with both prototypes continued after program cancellation. The second XB-51 (48-686) crashed on May 9, 1952 during low-level aerobatics over Edwards AFB, killing its pilot. The first prototype XB-51 continued on with various other test work. Extensive tests on high-speed bomb release were carried out, and the tail configuration, variable incidence wing, and bicycle-type landing gear provided much useful data. The XB-51 even starred in a movie--the film "Toward the Unknown" starring William Holden in which it was assigned the spurious designation "Gilbert XF-120". The aircraft was totally destroyed on March 25, 1956 when it crashed on takeoff from El Paso International Airport.

Specification of Martin XB-51:

Engines: Three General Electric J47-GE-13 turbojets, each rated at 5200 lb.s.t. Performance: Maximum speed 645 mph at sea level. Cruising speed 532 mph, landing speed 153 mph. Service ceiling 40,500 feet. Initial climb rate 6980 feet per minute. Normal range 1075 miles, maximum range 1613 miles. Weights: 29,584 pounds empty, 55,923 pounds gross, 62,457 pounds maximum. Dimensions: wingspan 53 feet 1 inches, length 85 feet 1 inches, height 17 feet 4 inches, wing area 548 square feet. Armament: Eight 20-mm cannon with total ammunition capacity of 1280 rounds. Normal bombload was four internal bombs of 1600 lb. each or two external bombs of 2000 pounds each. Maximum bombload of 10,400 pounds.

Sources:

1. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.
2. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History, 1988.
3. Martin B-57 Canberra, The Complete Record, Robert C. Mikesh, Schiffer Military History, 1995.
4. E-mail from Nolan Tucker and Gene Cupples on crash of 685.

Joe Baugher

#

The B-51 had a 2-man crew, the Pilot, who sat up under the canopy, and the Navigator/Shoran Operator, who occupied a position behind and below the pilot, buried within the fuselage.

There were two XB-51s built. Both crashed. But, here's the oddball part: Both crashed after the XB-51 program was canned. The XB-51s flew in the late '40s. The Air Force held a fly-off to determine a Douglas B-26 replacement, with emphasis on Night Intruder operations as they were done in Korea. The eventual winner was a U.S. re-engineered version of the English Electric Canberra. (Other aircraft in the flyoff were the B-45, the Canadair CF-100, the B-51, and the Noth American AJ and A2J Savages). The XB-51s were kept around and used following the Canberra selection as testbeds for a number of the advanced features they had incorporated into their designs - some of which, like the rotary bomb bay, ended up on the U.S> built B-57. The crashes occurred several years after the program was over, and both were attributed to Pilot Error. (Loss of control during a series of low altitude high-speed rolls, in one case)

In a way, there's a lot of irony here. The B-51 was the most advanced light bomber built in the '50s. It could outperform any of its competitors, and, in fact, performed very much like an F-86 Sabre that could carry 10,000# of bombs (And 8 20mm, and a bunch of rockets). Glenn Martin had soured the relationship of his company with the Air Force, however, both by poor management in the production of the B-26 Marauder, and in siding with the Navy during the "Who should carry the Nuclear Deterrent" wrangling. (He was also personally abrasive as all get out) The B-57 was a better choice for a visual-only direct-delivery Night Intruder, but that's not the role it was used in. By the time the Korean War ended, B-57s were being used as Nuclear Strike (Victor Alert) aircraft, using LABS techniques to deliver Mk 7 bombs. The B-51, with its higher speed, and higher wing loading, giving a smoother ride at low altitudes, would have been a LABS bomber without parallel. Its big fuselage would also have allowed the development of comprehensive recon suites, and elint/jamming platforms.

I remember one of the highlights of my teen years involved the XB-51. Labor Day weekend was a traditional big air show in Detroit. This one year, maybe '54 or '55, the Air Force had the last segment of the show (the services alternated the order of appearance throughout the weekend). The last flyby was announced. Chuck Yeager was bringing the XB-51 in from WPAFB.

Now, because of a serious crash at the previous year's show, originally there had been strict altitude and speed limits on the flybys. But the Navy and AF got into a competition starting Saturday. By Monday all stops were pulled. As the XB-51 flyby was announced, you could see a black smoke cloud forming above the tree line at the far side of the field (what is now Detroit Metro). Then, the cloud started dipping down lower. As it went by it was by far the lowest flyby yet. And there was a little fuzzy mirage-like distortion above and below the nose. After the pass he pulled it up vertical and slow rolled out of sight. The paper the next day said he was clocked at 701 mph. - Don Stauffer from Minneapolis

LINK

LINK

8K69 missile

8K69 (SS-9 mod 3) Missile—The Basis for the 11K69 and 11K68 Launch Vehicles

The Government task order for developing the 8K69 missile was issued on 14 April 1962, simultaneously with the task order for developing the 8K67. The 8K67 was given an accelerated development schedule. Many of the requirements for the 8K67 and 8K69 missiles were either very similar or identical, so the decision was made to standardize these missiles in areas where the engineering design solutions were consistent. Thus, both stages of the 8K67 were used in the 8K69, after a few slight design modifications, mainly related to the fact that the 8K69 used a warhead different from the 8K67.

The 8K69 was developed as a countermeasure to U.S. deployment of the Safeguard missile defense system, which protected U.S. territory against missile attack from the north. This missile had several unique features. It had unlimited range and could reach targets from any direction; therefore, it could deliver a nuclear warhead to any area of the United States by evading the missile defense system (and rendering it useless). At the time, these features led to calling the 8K69 a ‘‘global missile.’’ The 8K69 warhead could come in from various directions by being placed into Earth orbit at various azimuths and then reentering from orbit and hitting the target.

Like the 8K67, the 8K69 was a two-stage monocoque design in which the stages were on top of each other and stage separation occurred around the circumference of the missile (launch weight 181.3 metric tons and length 32.65 m). Both missile cases were cylinders 3m in diameter. Both stages (and the warhead) used the same fuel/oxidizer pair: unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (fuel) and nitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer). This fuel/oxidizer pair gave the missile a high total energy output and also substantially increased the guaranteed military readiness lifetime (to 7 years).

The first stage consisted of four sections: a stage transition section, an instrument section, a tail section, and propellant-tank section. The second stage had three sections: an instrument section, a propellant section, and a tail section. The second-stage propellant tanks were combined into a single section that had three spherical-segment bottom pieces. The second-stage instrument section was conical. All ‘‘dry’’ sections (stage transition section, instrument sections, and tail sections) in the missile and the warhead section were riveted, whereas the fuel tanks were welded. The fuel-tank design used molded panels and molded stock hollow frames, which led to a substantial reduction in the number of processes required, as well as an overall simplification of the tank fabrication process. To reduce the structural weight, light, high-strength aluminum alloy was used for all missile and warhead sections.

The first-stage propulsion system consisted of an RD-251 main engine and an RD-855 steering engine (total thrust 2651.6/2974.3kN and specific impulse 2627.1/2945.9Ns/kg at sea level and in vacuum, respectively). Structurally, the RD-251 main engine consisted of three identical engines affixed to a single frame. Each of these engines had two chambers, a turbopump unit, a gas generator, a solid-fuel starter, automatic control systems, and various other components. The RD-251 engine was attached to a frame, which was in turn attached to the fuel tank bottom frame, and was enclosed by the tail section. Solid-fuel starters were used to start all three engines simultaneously within a few seconds of steering engine start-up. The engines could also be turned off simultaneously a few seconds before the steering engine, in response to a command from the command system.

The RD-855 steering engine controlled the missile in roll, pitch, and yaw. It consisted of four steerable chambers and a stationary turbopump unit, gas generator, solid fuel starter, automatic control systems, and various other components. The steering engine chambers were steered by using hydraulic actuators: UDMH was obtained from the motor turbopump unit as the working fluid. The steering motor was started and turned off by the missile control system in accordance with a timed cycle schedule. The steering engine chambers were mounted in four fairings on the exterior surface of the tail section. Two of these fairings also contained solid-rocket motors to decelerate the first stage after stage separation.

The second-stage propulsion unit consisted of an RD-252 main engine and an RD-856 steering engine (total thrust 9955.7kN and specific impulse 3093.1Ns/kg in vacuum). The RD-252 design and systems were similar to those used in the first-stage, two-chamber, liquid-fuel engine but had larger nozzles for a higher maximum altitude. Like the RD-251, the RD-252 was affixed to an engine frame that was in turn attached to the fuel tank bottom frame, and was enclosed by the second-stage tail section.

The RD-856 steering engine was designed to control the second stage, which operated in a less-dense atmosphere. Therefore, the engine had much lower thrust than the RD-855 but was similar in design and was based on similar systems. The second-stage engine was mounted similarly to the first-stage engine. The steering chambers were likewise housed in four compartments mounted on the exterior surface of the second stage. Solid-propellant motors were also mounted in two of the compartments; these motors were used for second-stage braking after warhead separation. Second-stage engine start-up and operation were supported by using a control system similar in design to that used for first stage engine start-up and operation. The main engines for both stages were developed by OKB-456, the steering engines were developed by OKB-586, and the retroengines were designed by the Iskra Machinery Plant in Moscow.

The fuel and oxidizer tanks for each stage were pressurized by using hot gases produced from the primary propellants using special gas generators (the steering-engine propellant feed system was a source).

The 8K69 autonomous onboard control system supported prelaunch missile preparation and silo-based launches. The control system also supported fairly high readiness and target accuracy. To improve the reaction time of the missile, the control system used gyro units that could be forced into operational mode. The orbital weapon unit (OWU) consisted of a relatively large single warhead, as well as a reentry stage and an interstage bay that connected the orbiting weapon unit to the second-stage instrument bay. The OWU reentry stage included an instrument bay that held the control system and toroidal fuel tanks; an RD-854 retroengine and vernier thruster were located in the interior cavity between the tanks. The RD-854 is a fixed, single-chamber liquid-fueled engine (thrust 75.5 kN, specific impulses 3063Ns/kg), that uses eight fixed exhaust nozzles to control the orbital weapon unit during braking maneuvers. This engine was started by using a pyrotechnic starter. The vernier thruster (8 nozzles, thrust 0.03 kN) was used for OWU damping after OWU separation from the second stage, for OWU trajectory stabilization during passive flight, and for OWU attitude stabilization before retroengine start-up. The RD-854 engine and thruster were designed by OKB-586. The control systems for the missile and orbital weapon were designed by OKB-692, and the gyro instruments were developed by NII-944.

The missile was silo-launched using the gas pressure generated by the first stage missile engines after they were started in the silo. The missile was launched from a stationary launch platform located inside the launch silo. After the missile left the silo, it was turned toward the target azimuth in roll using the first-stage steering engines. Missile-mounted hooks slid along guides in the launch canister to assure the safety of missile launches. In the interests of launch safety while the engines were in operation, the gas outflow from the first-stage engines was directed away from the missile by special baffles.

Ground-based firing-stand tests of the OWU reentry stage and aircraft based testing of the OWU reentry stage under weightless conditions were followed by development flight-testing of the 8K69 missile, which involved some 19 missile launches. Final design modifications of the first and second stages had already been made as part of the 8K67 missile development project, so flight testing of the 8K69 was limited in scope and basically involved integration testing of the OWU and missile. The 8K69 was accepted into armaments in 1968 and remained in military service for 15 years.

During World War I the British had also been experimenting with conversions of light cruisers to carriers, though when the war ended these studies were discontinued. The idea of a cruiser-hulled carrier kept generating interest, however. When the Washington Fleet Conference of 1921-22 imposed limits on the total tonnage of aircraft carriers for the great naval powers, and the 1930 London Fleet Conference placed further limits on the building of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, the idea of small carriers was rekindled. Several loopholes in the Washington agreement left the Americans with the chance to use up to 25 percent of the alloted cruiser tonnage for conversion to ships with flight decks. However, in the mid-1920s the Navy's General Board decided that it would not be a good idea to "sacrifice" a cruiser for a carrier that would displace less than 10,000 tons. The minimum displacement for a satisfactory carrier had to be 14,000 tons.

But the idea of a small, or light, carrier would not go away. In May of 1927, Lieutenant Commander Bruce G. Leighton wrote an impressive paper on light carriers. His forecast of possible use for these smaller vessels proved to be remarkably prescient. In his paper Leighton foresaw the use of these ships in antisubmarine warfare, fleet operations support, reconnaissance, attacks on enemy warships, and the reduction of enemy shore bases. Leighton was also concerned that the loss of the Lexington or the Saratoga, both just becoming operational, would seriously weaken fleet operations, whereas the small carriers could operate in groups, and the destruction of one would not be a serious setback.

Flying-Deck Cruisers

About this time the Navy was quite taken with the idea of a "flying deck cruiser." This hybrid vessel of approximately 10,000 tons would be a cross-pollination of light cruiser and aircraft carrier. About 650 feet long, the forward half of this vessel would be a 6-inch gunned, triple-turreted cruiser. The after half would have a 350-foot angled flight deck (a design years ahead of its time), with hangar space for twenty-four aircraft. It was an imaginative concept. The only comparable designs actually built were the two Japanese battleships Ise and Hyuga, which were fitted with short flight decks in World War II.

As part of the Washington Naval Treaty, the battle cruisers Saratoga and Lexington were both converted into aircraft carriers. Unfortunately, these ships together used up nearly half the carrier tonnage quota allowed to the US Navy under the Treaty, so that less tonnage remained for future construction. Furthermore, a frugal Congress kept naval appropriations so small that no new carriers could be built. The result was that the Navy, well aware of the potential of the aircraft carrier for scouting and attack duties, began to consider aircraft carrier/cruiser hybrids. Given that resources were too scarce to have both, the hope was to combine the best features of both ship types into a single cruiser class. Within a few months of the conclusion of the London Naval Treaty, the Bureau of Construction and Repair was working on plans for what was called a flying-deck cruiser. The design was to incorporate as much carrier capability as possible while sacrificing the least amount of cruiser capability. All of this in a ship whose displacement could not exceed 10,000 tons.

Rear Admiral William A. Moffett - the “Father of Naval Aviation.”

In 1921, President Warren G. Harding appointed him as the first chief of the newly created Bureau of Aeronautics with the accompanying rank of rear admiral. Admiral Moffett was not a complete stranger to naval aviation. He oversaw flight training and aircraft maintenance instruction during World War I while at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and used aerial spotters with great success during gunnery exercises while commanding the Mississippi.

Moffett was an outstanding naval officer, and he devoted those same considerable abilities to the cause of naval aviation. From 1921 until 1933, he conducted a sustained campaign against traditionalists to convince the naval establishment of the value of airpower. Moffett sent airpower to sea aboard battleships and cruisers. He pushed the development of fleet aircraft carriers, airships, and the flying-deck cruiser. He fought to protect the careers of aviators and instituted the aviation observer program to lure senior officers into the fold of aviation. To win public support, Moffett entered naval aviators into popular air races, sent aircraft and airships on cross-country tours, and conducted exhibitions with aircraft carriers to keep naval aviation in the public eye. Moffett leveraged his political connections to remain in his post as bureau chief for an unprecedented twelve years and to garner congressional support to expand the nascent aviation program during years of lean budgets.

Not everything Moffett touched turned to gold. The flying-deck cruiser never left the drawing board. Light carriers could not launch enough aircraft to generate the massed attacks necessary for fleet engagements. The rigid airship never developed into a credible combat platform and died a lingering death. Ironically, Admiral Moffett met his end aboard one of the airships he so staunchly defended. He was killed in a thunderstorm on 4 April 1933 when the airship Akron crashed at sea off the coast of New Jersey.

The flying deck cruiser would never be built. When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the Navy became the beneficiary of a new emphasis on shipbuilding. With money now available for the construction of true carriers, the need for a hybrid carrier was gone. The idea of the flying deck cruiser, though kept alive until 1940, finally disappeared into the land of what-might-have-been.

IJN Hyūga

Hyūga was extensively updated and reconstructed from 1926 to 1928 and 1934 to 1936. After the disastrous Battle of Midway, the Japanese Navy considered plans to convert all battleships besides Yamato and Musashi into aircraft carriers. Ultimately, the Navy decided that only the oldest and least useful battleships should be converted into hybrid battleship/carriers. Hyūga was reconstructed at the Sasebo Navy Yard between 1 May and 1 October 1943. Hyūga and her sister ship Ise had their two aft 14 inch (356 mm) turrets (864 tons each) and barbettes (800 tons each) removed. They were replaced by a small flight deck and hangar to launch a squadron of aircraft. To compensate for the weight loss and to preserve metacentric height, the flight deck was covered with 8 inches of concrete. A single elevator was fitted.

Anti-aircraft weapons were also added to better fight off aerial attack. Her complement of 14 Yokosuka D4Y dive-bombers and 8 Aichi E16A seaplanes were catapult-launched but landed either on conventional carriers or land bases. The seaplanes could also be hoisted back on board by using cranes. Because production of aircraft was severely depleted by then and carrier trained pilots in short supply, Hyūga never carried the full complement.

IJN Carrier Division 4 at The Battle off Cape Engaño 20-25 October 1944
RADM C. Matsuda
No Aircraft Embarked
BBCV HYUGA—RADM T. Nomura
negligible damage from near misses
BBCV ISE—RADM N. Nakase
negligible damage from near misses
CL OYODO—CAPT Kakuro Mutaguchi
minor damage from two rockets and a near-miss bomb
8 dead, 12 wounded
CL TAMA*—CAPT G. Matsuda*
damaged by aerial torpedo, sunk by three hits from submarine JALLAO
all hands lost

The influence of Naval Arms limitation on U.S. Naval innovation during the interwar period, 1921 - 1937 Author: Kuehn, John Trost

CARRIERS AT WAR

11K65 (SL-8) Launch Vehicle

The second launch vehicle, designated the 11K65, was developed by OKB-586 pursuant to a USSR Government Decree issued on 30 October 1961. According to the stated requirements, the 11K65 launch vehicle would launch one (or more) spacecraft into Earth orbit. The orbits were required to be either elliptical or circular, the circular orbits had a maximum altitude of 2000km. Stringent requirements were also imposed on the accuracy of the resulting orbital parameters.

The spacecraft to be launched by the 11K65 were expected to remain active for long periods of time, and therefore would weigh more. In view of all these requirements, the 11K65 had to have approximately three times the total spacecraft launch capacity of the 11K63. Preliminary studies performed by OKB-586 indicated that such a launch vehicle could be built quickly and at minimal expense in terms of materiel, if the 8K65 missile were used as a first stage. Design optimization of the launch-vehicle parameters revealed that it would be desirable to design the second stage so that it would have the same diameter, use the same propellants as the first stage, and weighB24 metric tons. Placing such a stage on the 8K65 missile required partially modifying its frame configuration and developing a new interstage compartment that could bear the load of the second stage and also provide an outlet for the gas generated by the steering nozzles on the second-stage engine during stage separation. To reduce the length and weight of the second stage, it was decided to use a somewhat different design compared with that of the first stage. The second-stage fuel tanks were combined into a single cylindrical propellant compartment that had three spherical-segment bottom plates and a common intermediate bottom plate separating the propellant compartment into an upper cavity containing the oxidizer and a lower cavity containing the fuel. The instrument compartment was located above the propellant compartment, and a spacecraft adapter and clamshell nose fairing were attached to the top of the instrument compartment to protect the spacecraft against the air flow while the launch vehicle moved through the lower atmosphere and to protect the spacecraft during ground operations.

The requirements that the 11K65 reach a high-altitude circular orbit and launch heavy spacecraft into such orbits led to the use of a two-burn orbital insertion procedure for placing spacecraft into such orbits. In this procedure, the launch vehicle second stage and spacecraft were placed into an elliptical transfer orbit whose apogee was equal to the desired altitude of the circular orbit, and were then transited into the desired circular orbit. The problem came in obtaining the appropriate magnitude and direction of the velocity vector required for the second stage to reach the perigee of the elliptical transfer orbit and then the circular orbit. Implementation of this procedure affected the design concepts for the control system, the second-stage engine, and the propellant feed system.

The second-stage engine, which came to be known as the S5.23, actually consisted of two subengines: a single-chamber main engine and a four-chamber steering engine. The main engine was fixed relative to the missile. The four steering-engine nozzles were combined with the four small thruster nozzles to form four combined, steerable units mounted on the main engine. The steering engine enabled control of the second stage while the main engine was in operation; the thruster system was used for stabilization and attitude control of the second stage during the passive portion of the trajectory. This engine was developed by OKB-2 (now known as the Chemical Machinery Design Bureau) under the direction of Chief Designer A.M. Isaev. Features of the S5.23 engine included three thrust modes (vernier, intermediate, and primary) and the capability of reusing the primary-thrust mode. In primary mode, the engine thrust was produced by the main engine and its four steering nozzles and was equal to 157kN (specific impulse 2913.6Ns/kg). In intermediate-thrust mode, only the steering nozzles were used (thrust 5.4 kN). This mode was used during engine start-up and shutdown. The low-thrust mode (thrust 0.1 kN) was supported by the passage of gas produced in a special gas generator through small nozzles. Between the two engine firings, the fuel and oxidizer for the second engine firing, and for the engine firing in the stabilization/attitude control mode during the passive portion of the trajectory, was stored in two small tanks located on the outside of the second-stage propellant compartment.

The oxidizer and fuel tanks were pressurized by using compressed air and compressed nitrogen, respectively, stored in high-pressure cylinders.

The control system for the second stage was developed by OKB-692 under the direction of Chief Designer V.G. Sergeev. To meet the requirements for increased accuracy of spacecraft placement into orbit, relatively high-speed computers and high-accuracy control devices (that had increased throughput and special software and algorithms) were used for the first time. The engineering design solutions implemented for the 11K65 gave it the ability to place up to eight spacecraft that had a maximum total weight of 1500 kg into Earth orbit (circular orbit, altitude 200 km, and inclination 511) in a single flight. OKB-586’s role in developing the 11K65 was limited to preparing the preliminary design and design documentation, as well as fabrication and design/flight-testing of the first 10 launch vehicles. Due to the workload related to developing the new 8K67 missile, the 11K65 development task was transferred to OKB-10 (now known as the Academician M.F. Reshetnev Scientific Production Association for Applied Mechanics) in late 1962.

Development flight-testing of the 11K65 began on 18 August 1964 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome from a modified aboveground launch facility designed by the Novokramatorsk Machinery Plant Design Office. Routine 11K65 operations have been conducted at the Plesetsk Test Site since 1967 and the Kapustin Yar Test Site since 1973. Aboveground launch facilities that had movable gantries were built at each of these test sites. These launch facilities were designed by the Design Bureau for Transportation Machinery. Between 1965 and 1967, OKB-10 upgraded the 11K65 to improve its operational specifications, after which it was renamed the 11K65M (Kosmos-3). To date, there have been more than 500 launches of the 11K65 or 11K65M that carried more than 1000 Kosmos- and Interkosmos-series spacecraft into Earth orbit, including more than 130 DS-1P, Tselina, Tyul’pan, Taifun, and AUOS (‘‘automated universal orbital stations’’) spacecraft designed by OKB-586 (Yuzhnoye Design Office). The 11K65 remains one of the most reliable, highly productive launch vehicles in the Russian Federation inventory. For some time, a modified version of this launch vehicle, the K65M-R, has also been used for testing warhead units and missile-defense countermeasures.

Armour on Il-2-M-82

Armour on Il-2-Note M-82 radial engine isn't protected by any armoured plate.

Il-2 M-82

Between September 1941 and April 1942 an experimental Il-2 powered by an M-82 radial engine was tested extensively, but no production was undertaken.

When the German onslaught took the Soviet forces by surprise during operation Barbarossa, the Il-2 was already under development. Being under the guns of the Luftwaffe meant the possibility of production snafus for the aircraft in production. Certainly engines were of primary concern when factories were moved east out of range of the medium bombers. The radial engine M-82 was thought to be a satisfactory replacement should the usual AM-38 power plant not be available. Most of these engines had been produced in the city of Perm, far away from possible bombing by the Luftwaffe. The trick was to mate the engine to an airframe designed for an inline engine. This prototype flew in September of 1941 with some success. But due to center of gravity issues was never put into production.

In the summer of 1941 shortages of this engine prompted the design of the Il-2-M-82, also (confusingly –used later for the famous twin-engined bomber) known as the Il-4, powered by an air-cooled radial, the Shvetsov M-82. This was an excellent engine, but because of its larger diameter and a smaller weight it had to be installed ahead of the original engine position, and unprotected. The Il-2-M-82 had a redesigned, roomier two-seat cockpit, but nevertheless there was little room for the gunner to manipulate his UB machine gun, and the field of fire remained limited. The aircraft was usefully lighter than the Il-2 with AM-38 engine, but when the tests were finally completed enough AM-38 engines were available and converting factories to build the redesigned aircraft would have involved considerable loss in production.

8K65 (SS-5) Missile and 11K65 Launch Vehicle

The 8K65 became the second missile developed by OKB-586 within its new conceptual framework. The government task order for developing this missile was received in early July 1958. The goal was to develop, within 2 years, a missile that had twice the range of the 8K63, which was then in the final stages of development. This promised to be a more difficult effort than the 8K63 had been and would be made even more difficult by the fact that OKB-586 had already been working for a year and a half on developing the 8K64 intercontinental ballistic missile, for which OKB-586 had received the task order in December 1956.

However, gaining experience, OKB-586 enthusiastically began work on developing the 8K65. The only decision valid at that point was made: Use the engineering design solutions that had proved themselves during the 8K63 design effort, as well as several of the basic design solutions that lay at the core of the 8K64 design. It was decided to use a monocoque, single -stage design for the 8K65 similar to that for the 8K63, but using a higher energy propellant combination. The 8K63 used the same propellant combination used in the 8K64; unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) was the fuel, and AK-27I was the oxidizer. This propellant combination enabled a 15% increase in the total energy output of the 8K65 over the TM-185/AK-27I propellant combination. The use of UDMH enabled the entire missile to operate on only two propellants, thereby eliminating one deficiency of the 8K63—the fact that several propellants were required. One important quality of the propellants selected was that they would ignite on contact and thereby eliminated the need for an ignition propellant. This also simplified development of the turbopump-boost gas generators, which could use the same propellant combination.

The opportunity to use UDMH in the 8K65 resulted from the success achieved by the State Institute for Applied Chemistry (director V.S. Shpak) in researching this fuel and setting up the appropriate manufacturing facilities. However, the decisive factor enabling its use in the 8K65 was that the engine designers at OKB-456 had developed a two-chamber, liquid-fueled rocket engine (that had a thrust of 735 kN) that used this propellant combination. Two of these engines together as a single engine module [given the code number RD-216, whose thrust and specific impulse were 1481.3/1741.3 kN and 2413.3/2835.1Ns/kg, respectively (sea level/vacuum)], were used on the 8K65.

The increased range required a corresponding increase in the amount of fuel and oxidizer carried, and thus, an increase in the diameter of the missile. To standardize production, a diameter of 2.4m was adopted for the 8K65 main body; this was identical to the diameter of the 8K64 second stage.

The 8K65 was designed by virtually the same team of developers as the 8K63, and there were significant similarities to the 8K63 in both design and external appearance. Like the 8K63, the 8K65 was a single-stage monocoque design that had a conical warhead compartment (containing the same nuclear warhead as was used on the 8K63); a conical warhead mounting adapter, cylindrical fuel and oxidizer tanks; an instrument compartment containing the autonomous onboard control system that was located between the tanks; and a conical tail section that had a fixed RD-216 engine module. The 8K65 used exactly the same tank pressurization system, actuator-control design, and structural materials as the 8K63. Just as in the 8K63, the oxidizer tank was located forward of the fuel tank, and four fixed stabilizers were mounted on the tail section. The major differences between the 8K65 and the 8K63 were the new fuel; the increased fuel capacity; the larger diameter of the missile; the new, more powerful engine; and the new control system.

The 8K65 engines were ignited by taking advantage of the hypergolic nature of the propellants as they mixed in the combustion chamber, thereby simplifying the engine design. Using the same basic fuel/oxidizer components also enabled simplifying the gas generators used in the turbopump-boost system.

However, there were also some additional differences. For example, the cylindrical fuel tank fairings on the missile were made from reinforced molded panels. A system for simultaneously emptying the tanks (not available on the 8K63) was used to reduce the amount of unused fuel and oxidizer by synchronizing the consumption rates. This missile also marked the first use of a gyrostabilized platform, that gave the missile the same accuracy as the 8K63, despite the factor of 2 greater range. The warhead unit was separated by braking the missile body using solid-rocket motors mounted on the missile instrument compartment housing.

The 8K65 was twice as heavy as the 8K63, but was only 2.3m longer. It could deliver a warhead identical to that used in the 8K63 to a maximum range of 4500 km. Like the 8K63, the 8K65 was developed and placed into military service for use from surface and silo-based launch facilities. The silo-launched version had the code number 8K65U. Silo launches of the 8K65U were similar to those of the 8K63U; they involved the use of a launch canister and the gas pressure generated by the missile engines after being started in the silo. The 8K65 was flight-tested at the Kapustin Yar Fourth State Central Test Site. Forty-four launches of the 8K65 or 8K65U missile were performed as part of the flight/ development testing program. The 8K65 became the second, longest range missile in the Strategic Missile Forces arsenal. The 8K65 enabled targeting strategic facilities maintained by potential adversaries in Europe, Asia, and even Africa that were out of range of the 8K63. The missile remained on operational duty for 15 years, starting in 1962, and was decommissioned in 1987 pursuant to the INF Treaty.

The Matilda was the only British tank with enough armour to withstand German tank guns in the early years. After a brief moment of glory at Arras, it won its real reputation with the 8th Army in the desert.

A requirement for a British army 'Infantry' tank was first made in 1934 and the immediate result was the All Infantry Tank Mk I, later nicknamed Matilda I. This was a very simple and small tank with a two-man crew but with armour heavy enough to defeat any contemporary anti-tank gun. The small turret mounted a single 7.7-mm (0.303-in) Vickers machine-gun and the engine was a commercial Ford V-8 unit. Orders for 140 were issued in April 1937, but when the type was tried in combat in France in 1940 it revealed many shortcomings: it was too slow and under armed for any form of armoured warfare, and the small numbers that remained in service after Dunkirk were used only for training.

The Matilda I was intended only as an interim type before the A12 Infantry Tank Mk II became available. This project began in 1936 and the first examples were completed in 1938. The Mk II, known later as Matilda II, was a much larger vehicle than the Matilda I with a four-man crew and a turret mounting a 2-pdr (40-mm/1.575-in) gun and liberal belts of cast armour (varying from 20 to 78 mm/0.8 to 3.1 in in thickness) capable of defeating all known anti-tank guns. The Matilda II was slow as it was intended for the direct support of infantry units, in which role speed was not essential. Overall it was a good-looking tank and it turned out to be far more reliable than many of its contemporaries. And despite the light gun carried it was found to be a good vehicle in combat. The Matilda IIA had a 7,92-mm (0.312-in) Besa machine-gun instead of the Vickers gun.

The main combat period for the Matilda (the term Matilda II was dropped when the little Matilda I was withdrawn in 1940) was the early North African campaign, where the type's armour proved to be effective against any Italian or German anti-tank gun with the exception of the German '88'. The Matilda was one of the armoured mainstays of the British forces until El Alamein, after which its place was taken by better armed and faster designs. But the importance of the Matilda did not diminish, for it then entered a long career as a special-purpose tank.

One of the most important of these special purposes was as a flail tank for mine-clearing. Starting with the Matilda Baron and then the Matilda Scorpion, it was used extensively for this role, but Matildas were also used to push AMRA mine-clearing rollers. Another variant was the Matilda CDL (Canal Defence Light), which used a special turret with a powerful light source to create 'artificial moonlight', Matildas were also fitted with dozer blades as the Matilda Dozer for combat engineering, and many were fitted with various flame-throwing devices as the Matilda Frog, There were many other special and demolition devices used with the Matilda, not all of them under British auspices for the Matilda became an important Australian tank as well. In fact Matilda gun tanks were used extensively by the Australian army in New Guinea and elsewhere until the war ended in 1945, and they devised several flame-throwing equipments. The Germans also used several captured Matildas to mount various anti-tank weapons of their own.

It is doubtful if a complete listing of all the many Matilda variants will ever be made, for numerous 'field modifications' and other unrecorded changes were made to the basic design. The first Matilda was produced in 1937 but only two were in service when war broke out in September 1939. Some 2,987 tanks were produced by John Fowler & Co., Ruston & Hornsby, and later London, Midland and Scottish Railway, Harland and Wolff, and the North British Locomotive Company. Production was stopped in August 1943. But the Matilda accommodated them all and many old soldiers still look back on this tank with affection for, despite its slow speed and light armament, it was reliable and steady, and above all it had good armour.

Variants

* Matilda I (Infantry Tank Mk II)

First production model.

* Matilda II (Infantry Tank Mk IIA)

Vickers machine gun replaced by Besa MG.

* A few non-armored 'mild steel training tanks' were produced.

* Matilda III (Infantry Tank Mk IIA*)

New Leyland diesel engine.

* Matilda III CS (for Close Support)

Variant with 3 inch (75 mm) howitzer.

* Matilda IV (Infantry Tank Mk IIA**)

With improved engines.

* Matilda V

Improved gear box and gear shift.

* Baron I, II, III, IIIA

Matilda chassis with mine flail.

* Matilda Scorpion I / II

Matilda chassis with a mine flail.

* Matilda II CDL / Matilda V CDL (Canal Defence Light)

The normal turret was replaced by a cylindrical one containing a searchlight (projected through a vertical slit) and a BESA machine gun.

Australian variants:

* Matilda Frog (25)

Flame-thrower tank.

* Murray and Murray FT

Flame-thrower tank.

* Matilda Hedgehog (6)

A naval Hedgehog 7-barrel spigot mortar was mounted in an armoured box on the rear hull of several Australian Matilda tanks. The mortars were hydraulically elevated and electrically fired either individually or in a salvo of six, the fifth tube could not be fired until the turret was traversed to move the radio antenna out of the bomb's path. Each bomb weighed 30 kg and contained 14 kg of high explosive, the range of the bombs was up to 400 metres and aiming accomplished by pointing the entire tank as the mortars had no traverse independent of the hull of the tank.[2]

A Close Look and Personal Experience

The Matilda Mk II was highly feared by the Germans and Italians in the early North African campaigns. Its main gun, the 2pd was very effective against the Italians throughout the war, and could penetrate German tanks until they added "face-hardened" steel plates to their tanks. The added plates had the effect of shattering the 2pdr shell. Still there were few German tanks that could penetrate the Matilda II until the introduction of the HEAT rounds or the 75mm L/43 in the Pz. IV. The APCR rounds could also penetrate the Matilda, but since these rounds used critical Tungsten steel the sights for the round were set ONLY for short ranges, at which a hit was a near guarantee.

German respect for the Matilda can best be illustrated in an exchange between a German soldier and a British prisoner. The British prisoner said, "It is unfair for you to use an anti-aircraft gun (the 88) against tanks." To which the German replied, "It is unfair for you to have tanks that only the 88 can penetrate."

The Matilda was not a perfect tank, it had its drawbacks. I got into the driver's compartment years ago. It wasn't so much that I was entering a tank, but that I would putting on a tank. It was a tight fit. In the turret the crew varied from one to two. One crew member meant it shared the same disadvantage as the French tanks. That crew member had to be the commander, loader and gunner. In addition the cannon in the early British tanks lacked a geared elevating mechanism, instead had a shoulder pad that you fitted to your shoulder and adjusted the elevation by moving your body up and down. There was a tightening clamp that allowed you to adjust the tension and allowed you to lock in once you were on target, but it was still not a very desirable solution. Two people in the turret was an improvement of your duties, but it made the room for those men very tight. The Matilda was a small vehicle. Another disadvantage was the slow speed of the tank, generally 8 mile per hour. It didn't allow for rapid reactions to a mobile enemy. Still in attack the Matilda II was a formidable weapon. They were well armored and rather impervious to German 37 mm and Italian 37 mm AT fire. Though designed for infantry support they sported small caliber 40mm/2lb AT gun. Though better than the German 37mm and Ital 47 mm in armor piercing they were not produced with a HE shell. (Some ammunition was converted to use the Bofor's 40 mm HE AA shell though). I understand it was not as mechanically reliable as the Pz III but better than the M13/40 and overall not bad.

LINK

11K63 (SL-7) Launch Vehicle

Even the first few launches of spacecraft into low Earth orbit had demonstrated a wide variety of new opportunities to study Earth and near-Earth space using space-based instrumentation. These opportunities stimulated wide interest among scientists, businesspeople, and the military in obtaining information on Earth’s surface, Earth’s upper atmosphere, Earth’s magnetic field and cosmic rays, the interaction between these particles and Earth’s magnetic field, and the effects of space environment on objects launched into space.

This generated a requirement to launch a large number of spacecraft into low Earth orbit for various purposes. A need for low-cost launch vehicles therefore arose. The three-stage launch vehicle then (late 1950s) in use in the Soviet Union, the 8K72 Vostok, was not appropriate for frequent use as a launch vehicle due to the relatively high cost of launch, the relatively large amount of time required to prepare it for launch, and the fact that it was generally used to address more prestigious problems. Thus, in late 1959, OKB-586 embarked on an initiative to develop a two-stage launch vehicle based on the mass-produced 8K63 missile. This proposal was supported by the USSR Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Armaments, each of which were interested in the development of an inexpensive launch vehicle to address their specific needs using small spacecraft placed in low Earth orbit.

OKB-586 received the Government order to develop this launch vehicle, which came to be called the 11K63, in August 1960. The Government authorized the production of ten 11K63 launch vehicles and use of these vehicles to launch 10 spacecraft; each was for a different purpose and carried different instrumentation. Two of these spacecraft, designated the MS series, were developed by OKB-1, and the remaining eight spacecraft, designated the DS series, were developed by OKB-586.

The main tasks required for developing the 11K63 launch vehicle involved developing a second stage and aerodynamic fairing and adapting these components to a first stage that was virtually identical to the 8K63 missile. The second stage and aerodynamic fairing weighed B7.7 metric tons, giving the 11K63 launch vehicle a launch weight of 49.4 metric tons, and a length of 30 m.

The second-stage fuel and dry compartments of the launch vehicle were similar to the corresponding first-stage compartments. However, there were also several differences due to the fact that the second-stage RD-119 engine required liquid oxygen and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) as propellants. This engine had been developed by OKB-456 for use on the Vostok launch vehicle but ended up not being used for a variety of reasons. The RD-119 engine was fairly well developed and also had relatively good energy performance characteristics (thrust and specific impulse in vacuum 106 kN and 3454 Ns/kg, respectively). The existence of these additional propellants undoubtedly made operation of the launch vehicle more complicated, but the availability of a fully developed engine reduced the effort and time required to develop the launch vehicle.

Therefore, OKB-586 decided to use the RD-119 engine in the second stage of its first launch vehicle. The RD-119 engine is a fixed, single-chamber, liquid-fueled engine installed on the second stage in combination with several movable low-thrust nozzles used to control the second stage in pitch, yaw, and roll. The engine is started using a pyrotechnic device. Positive pressure in the oxidizer tank was maintained by evaporating oxygen in a heat exchanger mounted on the engine’s turbine exhaust pipe. Positive pressure in the fuel tank was maintained by using a mixture of producer gas and UDMH vapor. The RD-119 engine was only capable of single use operation; as a result, spacecraft were launched to place them directly into orbit—primarily low-level highly elliptical orbits. To increase the amount of UDMH that could be stored in the second-stage fuel tank, it was initially cooled to 451C. The second stage was mated to the first stage using a tubular beam that had a conical heat shield attached to the lower chord to protect the first stage from the exhaust of the RD-119, as it pushed away the first stage during the stage separation process.

The spacecraft was initially housed under a conical/cylindrical aerodynamic fairing (jettisoned during the boost phase of the flight after passing through the dense layers of the atmosphere). The spacecraft was separated by using pusher springs. Like the first stage, the second stage of the launch vehicle had an autonomous onboard control system developed by the newly established OKB-692 in Kharkov (now NPO Khartron-Arkos) under the direction of Chief Designer B.M. Konoplev). Initially, the 11K63 was to be launched from the 8K63U launcher at the Kapustin Yar Test Site, and an appropriate operational scenario was developed for the launch vehicle under this assumption (including use of a silo launcher that was shorter than the launch vehicle).

The first launch of the 11K63 from a silo took place on 27 October 1961. Both the first and the second launches were unsuccessful. Nearly 5 additional months were required to eliminate all of the problems. The third launch of the 11K63 took place on 16 March 1962 and was successful. The first spacecraft designed and built by OKB-586 personnel, the DS-2, had been placed into Earth orbit. After 37 standard 11K63 silo launches from the Kapustin Yar Test Site, all further 11K63 launches were from a new, aboveground facility at the Plesetsk Test Site, which was developed by the Design Bureau for Transportation Machinery directed by Chief Designer V.N. Sobolev.

There were several differences between the operational configuration of the 11K63 for silo launches and that for surface launches. During a silo launch, final assembly of the launch vehicle occurred during placement in the silo. The first and second stages (including spacecraft) were tested in the launch support facility, transported to the launch facility separately in the horizontal position, and then placed in the silo in the correct order. During a surface launch, final assembly of the launch vehicle took place in the launch support facility, and the assembled launch vehicle was transported to the launch facility, where it was raised into a vertical position using special equipment rather than the gantry.

The 11K63 could place a payload of up to 450 kg into circular low Earth orbit (200km altitude and inclination 821). The 11K63 became the first Soviet launch vehicle to be mass-produced. It was accepted for operational use in 1965, along with the DS-P1-Yu spacecraft (developed by OKB-586) and the new aboveground launch facility at the Plesetsk test facility. The 11K63 was launched a total of 165 times, of which 143 were successful. Numerous Kosmos- and Interkosmos- series spacecraft were launched using the 11K63. It was used for 16 years until the final launch on 18 June 1977.

At the end of the WW II, and in the late forties, Yugoslavia had quite a number of fighter types in service. One squadron of Spitfires MkVc Trop, and one squadron of Hurricanes were incorporated in the newly created Yugoslav Air Force from the RAF, along with three Spitfires Mk IXc left over by the British.

In late 1944 Soviet Union began training two newly formed units of Yugoslav airmen, one on YAK fighters, the other on Il 2 attack aircraft. The units were operational in the closing stages of WW II, in the spring of 1945.

Yugoslavia had at that time both YAK-1, and YAK-3 although the former was more numerous. YAK 9 was received later, as well.

Spitfires and Yaks were compared in mock dog-fights for example during the Sumadija maneuvers in 1949, immediately after the breaking up of relations with the USSR. An accident also occurred when one of the pilots flew into the ground. The Spitfire and the YAK were especially compared regarding the climb and turn radius, the former preferring to fly maneuvers in the horizontal plane, the latter being lighter exploiting the vertical maneuvers.

Due to the lack of spares which hit the air force in late forties, Spitfires were withdrawn first to recon duties, and later scrapped, while YAKs continued a bit longer, being more numerous.

At that time, which is also interesting, Yugoslavia had in service beside Spitfires, Hurricanes and Yaks, also the Me109G, and the domestic S-49A and S-49C (based on pre war IK-3) were delivered to bridge the gap until the jets came from the West in early fifties. In the early 50's came the P-47D Thunderbolt, too, which was the last propeller driven, single-engined single-seat fighter to serve in the Air Force, mostly as ground attacker.

End of WWII, and help of Soviet Union (1945-1948)

By early 1945, Yugoslav Partisan forces under Marshal Tito had liberated a large portion of Yugoslav territory from the occupying forces. The NOVJ partisan army included air units trained and equipped by Britain (with Spitfires and Hurricanes) and the Soviet Union (with Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9 and Ilyushin Il-2 aircraft) and a number of ad-hoc units equipped with aircraft captured from German Luftwaffe and Ustaše Air Force (Bf-109G, Stuka and many others).

On 5 January 1945 the various air units of the NOVJ were formally incorporated into a new Yugoslav Air Force (Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo - JRV). At the same time, a Yugoslav fighter group which had been under Soviet instruction at Zemun airfield became operational. From 17 August 1944, when the first Yugoslav Spitfire Squadron became operational, until the end of the war in Europe, Yugoslav aircraft undertook 3,500 combat sorties and accumulated 5,500 hours operational flying. Thus, when peacetime came, the JRV already possessed a strong and experienced nucleus of personnel.

On 12 September 1945 the Military Aviation Academy in Belgrade was established to train future pilots. The development of the JRV was further helped in late 1945 with the creation of the Aeronautical Union of Yugoslavia (Vazduhoplovnni Savez Jugoslavije - VSJ). This comprised six aeronautical unions - one for each constituent republic - with the joint aim of promoting sport flying and aeronautical techniques amongst the nation's young people. In June 1947 the first VSJ flying school at Borongaj (near Zagreb) started training pupils. Many future air force personnel were former members of the VSJ.

Break up relations with Soviets, US help (1948-1950's)

The organisation of the post-war JRV was based on the Russian pattern of Divisions, Regiments and Squadrons. Virtually all of the initial equipment was supplied by the Soviet Union - the aircraft captured during the war had quickly been retired. By the end of 1947 the JRV had reached a strength of some 40 squadrons of aircraft, and had become the most powerful air arm in the Balkans. In June 1948 Yugoslavia broke off relations with the Stalinist Soviet Union. The country was immediately subjected to extreme political pressure from the Soviet Union and its Balkan neighbours, and the JRV's previous sources of aircraft, spares and fuel were cut-off. The possibility of an invasion was taken seriously. The serviceability of JRV aircraft fell rapidly, with some aircraft being cannibalised to provide spares for the remainder. Renewed efforts to expand the small domestic aircraft industry met with some success - the Aero 2 and Type 213 Vihor trainers were followed into service by the S-49A single-seat fighter.

However, the first-line strength of the JRV was still declining, so in 1951 the Yugoslav Chief of Staff, Colonel General Popvic visited the United Kingdom to discuss the situation. It was agreed that a substantial shipment of aircraft would be forthcoming. In October 1951 the first de Havilland Mosquito F.B.6 fighter-bombers were supplied. The following year, 150 Republic F-47D Thunderbolt fighter-bombers were delivered from the USA under a Mutual Assistance Pact.

LINK

8K63 (SS-4) Missile.

The first strategic missile to embody the new concept developed under the leadership of M.K. Yangel was the 8K63 (SS-4). The Government task order for developing the missile was issued to coincide with establishment of the OKB-586 design bureau. The major responsibilities for development of the 8K63 missile/missile system were allocated as follows:

* OKB-586, Chief Designer M.K. Yangel—systems engineering of missile and missile system as a whole;

* KB-11, Chief Design Engineer S.G. Kocharyants—design of warhead and related equipment;

* NII-885, Chief Design Engineer N.A. Pilyugin—design of the autonomous onboard control system;

* NII-944, Chief Design Engineer V.I. Kuznetsov—design of gyroscopic instruments;

* OKB-456, Chief Design Engineer V.P. Glushko—design of RD-214 engines;

* Spetsmash State Special Design Bureau, Chief Design Engineer V.P. Barmin—design of aboveground and silo-based launch facilities.

These chief design engineers became the most active proponents of Yangel’s approach to missile system development.

The 8K63 consisted of a monocoque single stage that had a nose cone section for the nuclear warhead, cylindrical fuel tanks, an instrument section that had an autonomous onboard control system, and a conical tail compartment containing a fixed RD-214 four-chamber engine using TM-85/AK-27I high-boiling- point propellants. The AK-27I oxidizer is an iodine-inhibited mixture of nitric acid (70%) and nitrogen tetroxide (27%), and TM-185 is a modified-kerosene hydrocarbon fuel. At the time, these were the best-known high-boiling-point propellants that had an adequate production infrastructure.

The missile had a launch weight of 41.7 metric tons, a length of 22.1 m, and a body diameter of 1.652 m. Its RD-214 engine produced a thrust of 648/744 kN and a specific impulse of 2300/2640 Ns/kg (sea level/vacuum). TG-02, a xylidine/ triethylamine mixture, was used as an ignition propellant to ignite the fuel in the RD-214 combustion chamber. The engine turbopumps were operated using a gas generator mixture obtained by decomposing hydrogen peroxide in the presence of potassium permanganate. The oxidizer and fuel tanks were pressurized by compressed air and compressed nitrogen, respectively, stored in high-strength cylinders. Four adjustable graphite control vanes were used; one vane was placed in the exhaust of each engine chamber. The main body of the missile was constructed from a lightweight, high-strength aluminum alloy.

The fuel tanks were made from non-reinforced cylindrical shells mounted between two bottom plates that were segments of spheres. The oxidizer tank was mounted forward of the fuel tank to control the center of gravity during flight. Moreover, an intermediate bottom plate was also mounted in the oxidizer tank for the same purpose, so that additional oxidizer would flow from the top to the bottom portion of the tank as the oxidizer was consumed from the bottom portion. The oxidizer feed line ran through a tunnel pipe built into the fuel tank. A riveted instrument compartment was located between the two tanks. To shift the aerodynamic center of force closer to the center of mass, four fixed aerodynamic stabilizers were placed on the tail section of the missile.

This missile was flight-tested at the Kapustin Yar facility from July 1957 to December 1958. During this time, there were 24 launches of this missile, which confirmed that it was highly reliable. Some final design modifications were made, and the 8K63 missile was accepted into armaments for use with aboveground and silo launchers. The silo-launched version of this missile was assigned the code number 8K63U.

The requirement to develop both aboveground and silo-based launch facilities for this missile was largely dictated by the need to reduce the amount of time required for final development of the missile. Constructing a silo launcher would have required a large amount of time, so most test launches of this missile were done from a hastily constructed aboveground launch facility.

The tactical, engineering, and operational characteristics of the 8K63 represented a considerable advance over previous missiles. The 8K63 had a reaction time of 20 min and could deliver a 2.3-MT warhead to a maximum range of 2080 km. For some time, this was the main missile used by the Strategic Missile Forces (established December 1959). At the same time the 8K63 was on operational duty in the Strategic Missile Forces, it also served for 25 years as the primary launch vehicle for testing new technology and designs of warheads and antimissile defense systems. The 8K63 was decommissioned in July 1988 pursuant to the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).

All models illustrated above are the magnificent Geschützwagen Tiger für 17cm K72 from Trumpeter

Grille (Cricket Series) 17/21/30/42 [1]

Geschutzwagen "Tiger" fur 17cm K72, 21cm MRS 18/1 und 30,5cm GRW (Sf)

In November 1942, Krupp received order to design the vehicle (waffentrager) using Tiger II components, which was to be part of the "Grille" series. It was to be able to mount 170mm Kanone 72 L/50 gun which could deliver a 68 kilogram projectile up to 25500 meters in range or a 210 mm "Mörser" (a howitzer actually) with a maximum range of 16500 meters firing a 111 kg shell. Grille 17 had its armament mounted on the rail platform inside the hull allowing it to be dismounted at any time and used independent of the actual tank itself. The maximum elevation of the main gun was 65o and its azimuth just 5o at right or left. In order to achieve the 360o fully rotation the gun and its turntable had to be placed in the ground which was folded and carried in the back of the vehicle.

Next in the series was Grille 30. It would be armed with Skoda 305mm GrW L/16 mortar. Project of Grille 42 was under the development. It was to be armed with 420mm Grw mortar.

The lengthened chassis was shaped as the Tiger II but used a much less thicker armor, about 50 mm in the frontal plates and 30 mm at the sides.

Also in order to save nickel the vehicle was designed to use SM stahl which was 130 Kg/ square mm resilient compared with the 150 kg/ square mm of the Nickel alloy.

Each variant was also armed with two 7.92mm machine guns. It would be operated by the crew of eight (driver, commander, gunner, radio operator and four loaders).

Powered by Maybach HL230P30 or HL230P45, Grille would be able to travel at maximum speed of 42 km/h with range of 250km. Grille was 13 meters long (with gun), 3.27 meters wide and 3.15 meters high. Its armor protection ranged from 16mm (side) to 30mm (front). Grille 17 weighted 58000kg but only carried 5 rounds of ammunition. Grille 21 weighted 52700kg and carried only 3 rounds of ammunition.

The project was halted in February 1945, given the worsening in the war situation, which forced Albert Speer to get rid of any nonessential armored vehicle development.

One prototype with 170mm gun was almost completed in May of 1945, and was captured by British troops at Haustenbeck near Paderborn.

[1] In 1942, German designers started the development of a new series, which would utilize chassis and components of various tanks and use them as mountings for various heavy weapons. Designs of the Grille Series incorporated many new technical modifications in order to mount heavy weapons. Some vehicles of the Grille Series were designed to be weapon carriers - Waffentrager. Some of those vehicles reached prototype stage but none of them entered production planned for mid 1945. Model: Armament: Chassis / Components: Grille 10* 88mm Flak 37 (early) 88mm Flak 41 (late) Panzer IV / Sd.Kfz.9 Grille 10 88mm Flak 37/41. Panther Grille 10 100mm K. Panther Grille 10 105mm leFH 43/35. Panther Grille 12 128mm K 43/44. Panther Grille 15 150mm sFH 43/44. Panther Grille 17* 170mm K 72 L/50. Tiger II Grille 21* 210mm Mortar 18/1 L/31. Tiger II Grille 30* 305mm Mortar (GrW) L/16. Tiger II Grille 42* 420mm Mortar (GrW). Tiger II * reached prototype stage. Late Grille 10 with 88mm Flak 41 gun. (Versuchsflakwagen fur 8.8cm Flak 4 1)

Military missiles developed by the Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

Launch vehicles developed by the Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

Spacecraft developed by Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

This article begins with a brief history of the Yuzhnoye Design Office, one of the leading design bureaus in the Soviet Union and Ukraine. The Yuzhnoye Design Office designed numerous strategic missile systems, launch vehicles, and spacecraft. These will be detailed in future posts. One interesting aspect of this history involves the conversion of missiles into space launch vehicles by a team of developers led by the Yuzhnoye Design Office, well in advance of the officially announced USSR conversion effort.

Brief History

The M.K. Yangel’ Yuzhnoye State Design Office (initially known as Special Design Bureau 586, abbreviated OKB-586) was established on 10 April 1954 in Dniepropetrovsk, a city on the banks of the Dniepr River in central Ukraine. Mikhail Kuz’mich Yangel’ was named General Designer. Before this, he had been Director of the Scientific Research Institute 88 (NII-88) in Podlipki (now known as Korolev), a city near Moscow. In 1946, NII-88 became the USSR’s main center for missile development.

A group of missile specialists from the General Designer’s Department of All-Union State Plant 586 (the former Dniepropetrovsk Motor Vehicle Plant, now the State Enterprise Production Association Yuzhnyi Machine-Building Plant) formed the core of the newly established OKB-586. In 1951, Plant 586 started mass production of the R-1, R-2, and R-5 missiles developed by NII-88 and the NII-88 Special Design Bureau 1 (OKB-1), which was headed by General Designer Sergei Pavlovich Korolev. OKB-586 and Plant 586 joined forces to establish a missile design and production center where everything was under one roof. A nationwide network of developers and manufacturers for the components, systems, intermediate products, and hardware specified for use in OKB-586 missile production and development activities was also set up along with OKB-586 itself.

The Soviet Government’s intention was to have this newly established system of production and development facilities headed by OKB-586 become (relative to the existing system) a stronger, more productive scientific production cooperative for developing future USSR strategic missiles. The intent was to promote missile development and also to increase substantially the military effectiveness of the missiles themselves. Despite the success of NII-88 in developing the R-1, R-2, and R-5 missiles, high-level military and government personnel understood that these missiles and any others that could be developed using the same principles could not meet future strategic requirements. Each of these missiles had substantial deficiencies that prevented them from being used in real combat conditions.

The new team would eventually eliminate these deficiencies by developing future missiles within a completely new conceptual framework. This conceptual framework was based on several principles developed by NII-88 personnel in 1952 under the leadership of M.K. Yangel. These were the most important of the principles:

* development of a series of missiles having ranges consistent with strategic requirements;

* deployment of these missiles in hardened silo launchers constructed for concealment from the enemy;

* development of these missiles to use high-boiling-point propellants that could be stored long term and avoid using the low-boiling-point propellants previously used that had poor storage qualities;

* the use of autonomous onboard control systems protected against enemy electronic countermeasures and avoiding subsystems that might be vulnerable to noise.

The design concepts based on the high-boiling-point AK-27I and TM-185 rocket propellants developed by OKB-1 and Plant 586 General Designer’s Department personnel for the R-11 and R-12 missiles in 1952 confirmed that these principles were valid and sensible. The establishment of OKB-586 and the appointment of M.K. Yangel as its General Designer were evidence that the Government supported this new conceptual framework for developing new missile systems. This conceptual framework guided OKB-586 in all of its activities and was continually developed and enhanced, as various new development projects were implemented. In the process, OKB-586’s main mission became developing strategic missile systems capable of inflicting a highly effective second strike against any aggressor if the Soviet Union were the target of a nuclear attack.

Despite the organizational issues that arose during the establishment of OKB-586, a lack of essential equipment and experienced personnel, insufficient research on high-boiling-point propellants, delays in developing the rocket engine and autonomous onboard control system, and delays in constructing the silo launcher, the first medium-range missile system, the 8K63, was placed into service less than 5 years after OKB-586 was established. Two additional missile systems, the 8K65 medium-range missile and the 8K64 intercontinental ballistic missile, were placed into service at 2-year intervals. For some time, these missiles served as the primary weaponry in the USSR Strategic Missile Forces arsenal.

Within this brief period, under the leadership of M.K. Yangel, OKB-586 had become the USSR’s leading design bureau for developing the strategic missile systems that were most important to the USSR’s defense capability.

From 1954 to 1991, a total of 29 strategic missile systems were developed by OKB-586 (from 1966 on, known as the Yuzhnoye Design Office) and the team of engineers under the leadership of Academicians M.K. Yangel and V.F. Utkin. Thirteen of these systems were accepted for military service by the Strategic Missile Forces and became the backbone of their forces.

Some of these systems have no peers in missile technology. Examples include the 8K69, 15A14, 15A18, the 15A18 M, the 15Zh60 fixed solid propellant missile system 15Zh60, and the 15Zh61 rail-mobile missile system, all of which played an important role in enabling the Soviet Union to reach strategic parity with the United States and in negotiations of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties between the Soviet Union and the United States.

The four generations of missiles accepted into Missile Forces armaments are shown above, together with the dates when they were placed into service. Each of these missiles had a unique purpose and unique characteristics, and there were substantial differences in specifications. They were all developed at different times, and each embodies the scientific, technical, and economic capabilities of the country at the time they were developed. In spite of these differences, however, it is possible to identify some trends typical of all four generations of missiles. The service life of the missiles tends to increase, the capabilities of the missile-defense countermeasures improve, the total energy output increases, the range increases and the operational specifications of the missiles all improve from one generation to the next.

The missiles of the fourth generation possess the highest military effectiveness. Whether in silos or during active flight, these missiles are able to preserve their performance in the face of any countermeasures. They are equipped with a very effective multifunctional antimissile system, which in combination with high survivability during active flight allows them to overcome with a high probability of success even a future adversary missile defense system. As of now the four types of the most highly developed military missiles 15A18, 15A18M, 15Zh60 and 15Zh61 are still deployed in the Russian Federation.

In addition to the missiles described, from 1957 on, OKB-586 also developed a variety of space launch vehicles. The most predominant idea involved developing a missile-based launch vehicle. This approach would lead to a substantial reduction in one-time and recurring costs, as well as a reduction in launch vehicle development time due to the reduced amount of design and development work required and the ability to use the existing manufacturing infrastructure, the existing basic missile components available at the various manufacturing plants, and existing ground-based launch facilities.

This idea was implemented via the development of several launch vehicles based on the 8K63, 8K64, 8K66, 8K67, 8K68, 8K69, and 15A18 missiles; five of these launch vehicles—the 11K63 (Kosmos), 11K65 (Kosmos-2), 11K69 (Tsiklon- 2), 11K68 (Tsiklon-3), and Dnepr—were in actual use. These five launch vehicles are the subject of this paper. Two additional launch vehicles, the Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SL, were developed without using military prototypes. By contrast with the missile-based launch vehicles, all stages of these launch vehicles used liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and RG-1 kerosene as the fuel. A modified Zenit-2 first stage was used as a module in the Energia vehicle.

The space ambitions of the Yuzhnoye Design Office were also embodied in the design and successful development of Module E, the lunar-lander portion of the lunar spacecraft developed as part of the lunar program. Since 1960, OKB-586 and the Yuzhnoye Design Office produced a series of research, commercial, applied scientific, and military spacecraft (more than 70 different types). This count includes the following Kosmos and Interkosmos spacecraft: AUOS, Okean, Taifun, Tselina, etc. Approximately 400 spacecraft designed by the Yuzhnoye Design Office and manufactured by the Yuzhnoye Machine-Building Plant have been launched into space, many of them aboard launch vehicles designed in-house.

All design work at Yuzhnoye Design Office was performed under the direction of General Designer M.K. Yangel’ before October 1971 and under General Designer V.F. Utkin between October 1971 and November 1990. M.K. Yangel’ served as General Designer for the development of first-, second-, and third generation missiles, but did not live to see the 15A14, 15A15, and 15Zh60 missiles certified for military use; however, these latter missiles were also based on his ideas, which he had to defend at many levels, up to and including the USSR Defense Council. M.K. Yangel’ also attached a great deal of importance to space research. The 11K63 (Kosmos), 11K69 (Tsiklon-2), and 11K68 (Tsiklon-3) launch vehicles and Module E of the lunar spacecraft were developed under his leadership.

At his initiative, a spacecraft design bureau was established at OKB-586 in 1960, spacecraft were produced at the Yuzhnoye Machine-Building Plant. Approximately three dozen types of spacecraft and several hundred spacecraft were launched under his leadership. As Yuzhnoye Design Bureau Chief Designer, Vladimir Fedorovich Utkin had enormous influence on the development and delivery of the third- and fourth-generation missiles, as well as the Tsiklon-3 and Zenit-2 launch vehicles. The Energia launch-vehicle module unit and approximately 40 other types of spacecraft were developed under his leadership. The highly efficient and reliable Zenit-2 launch vehicle served as the basis for developing the Zenit-3SL Integrated Launch Vehicle core of the offshore launch platform developed under the Sea Launch program. Work on the Sea Launch project began on 25 November 1993 when an agreement was executed between the American aircraft and missile company Boeing, the Russian Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, the Norwegian company Kvarner, and two Ukrainian enterprises—the Yuzhnoye State Design Office and the State Enterprise Production Association Yuzhnyi Machine-Building Plant. Geosynchronous satellite launches via Sea Launch began on 28 March 1999 with a demonstration launch of the Zenit-3SL launch vehicle.

As before, development of future launch vehicles remains at the center of attention. A more powerful launch vehicle, the Tsiklon-4, has been developed on the basis of the Tsiklon-3. Work is currently underway on the Air Launch and Mayak projects, and various approaches for modernization of the Tsiklon-2, Zenit-2, and Dnepr launch vehicles are also being explored.

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. G

Panzer Mk IV D, E, F1, F2 and G models [1] were present. As the campaign went on the later models started arriving like the Mk IV specials with long barrels, version F2 and G's.

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf D

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. D/E Composite Variant

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. E

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. F1 Early, Middle, and Late 'Typs'

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. F2 Early, Middle, and Late 'Typs'

Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. G Early and Middle 'Typs'

The German Afrika Korps only started to receive Panzer IV with the L/48 75mm gun, arriving in front line units (in small numbers) for the battle of Alam Halfa 30 August 1942 (although by 1st Alamein their numbers had increased dramatically).

From early 1941, when the embryonic DAK armoured units first arrived in North Africa, they were equipped with the Panzer IV, Ausf C and D and then later, the Ausf E and F1, which were equipped with the 75mm KwK L/24 gun, which fired exactly the same HE projectile as
the Panzer IV, Ausf F2, (referred to as the "special" by the British) which was equipped with the 75mm L/43.

Panzerkampfwagen IVs, which were sent to North Africa (1941-43), were equipped with additional tropical filters (Tp) and improved ventilation system.

Actually there weren't that many Pz IVs with the DAK, short-barrelled or otherwise. The four Panzer Abteilungen with the DAK's two Panzer Regiments were organized along traditional mid-war lines, with one medium company (usually with L24 equipped Pz IVs) and three light companies with Pz III (either L42 or L60) At theoretical max strength - never attained for the DAK as far as I know - and allowing all DAK Pz IVs as F1s, that would still only account for a max of 88 Pz IVs with the DAK.

Chamberlain and Doyle state in their much-maligned book that the majority of Pz IV F1s were used to re-equip the 2nd and 5th Panzer Divisions, units which were never sent to North Africa.

However, additional L24 equipped Pz IVs formed part of the 10th Panzer Division shipped to Tunis as part of 5th Panzer Army. It's more probable that these tanks were F1s because the DAK was in North Africa before the first Pz IV F1s rolled off the production lines. All told, theoretical max Pz IV F1 strength of the 5th Panzer Army comes up to 45 tanks with the 10th PD, Pz. Abt. 190 and s. Pz. Abts. 501 and 504, not counting tanks which ended at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

I can trace 45 PzKpfw IV armed with KwK 7.5cm L/24 in North Africa in 1941. Most of these were Ausf D & E.

10 Pz.IV F2 delivered May 1942 actually 9, one broke down in Italy and came later.
18 More arrived in January 1942, these would have been of a higher proportion of Ausf F than in 1941.
22 Arrived in February 1942.
9 in April, but some would have been Ausf G
10 in May, but some/most/all would have been Ausf G
20 Arrived in Tripoli in August 1942.
12 Arrived in Tripoli in September 1942.

DAK Panzerlage 1941-42

In April 1941 the 5. leichte Division had 25 Pz I, 45 Pz II, 71 Pz III (mostly Ausf G), 20 Pz IV and 7 PzBefWg

The 15. Pz.Div had 45 Pz II, 71 Pz III (mostly Ausf G), 20 Pz IV and 10 PzBefWg

Totally 297 tanks and 17 command tanks.

On May 25, 1942 the 15. Pz.Div had 29 Pz II, 134 Pz III (3 with L/60 gun), 22 Pz IV (L/24) and 4 PzBefWg

At the same date the 21. Pz.Div (former 5. le.Div) had 29 Pz II, 122 Pz III (15 with L/60), 19 Pz IV (L/24) and 4 PzBefWg

Total strength: 355 tanks and 8 command tanks.

LINK

[1]Was there any difference between Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. F2 and Ausf. G

The F2 and the G were basically the same - the designation for the 7. Serie Pzkpfw IV with 7.5cm L/43 changed from F2 to G on 5th June 1942. From 1st July 1942, Wa Pruef 6 decreed that the old F1 was to be called the F and the old F2 was to be called the G.

The muzzle brake was just one of many non-diagnostic changes in production, like hull side doors in Pzkpfw III.

The F2 is basically an early G, so to speak. The F2 only existed from March 1942 until July 1942 when all F2's were renamed G's, from then on it was known as a G model. There really is no difference between an F2 and a G, since they are the same tank. The thing is, that there were modifications made during the production run.

The muzzle brakes are NOT how you tell the difference, since the G models had the single chamber muzzle brake until September 1942, when it was replaced by the double chamber muzzle brake. Likewise, the L/43 and L/48 guns are NOT how you tell the difference either, since the G model did not get the L/48 gun until April 1943.

Best way to look at it, is that the F2 and early G's are the same (since the F2 was renamed G anyway), then you have a line of G's with several modifications added, then in May of 1943, the H model comes out.

The Ju 52 trimotor, like the USAF C-47, was first built in the 1930s and remained in service for more than a quarter century. This transport made its maiden flight in April 1931, and three years later, a heavy bomber version appeared. The latter aircraft formed the nucleus of the Luftwaffe’s infant bomber force in the mid-1930s, and it was used during the Spanish Civil War.

The Ju 52 was obsolete as a bomber by 1939, but because of its durability, simplicity of design and handling characteristics, it continued to serve throughout World War II as a versatile workhorse of the German transport fleet. For a period, Adolph Hitler used a Ju 52 as his private transport. Ju 52s delivered the attacking forces and their supplies during the German invasion of Norway, Denmark, France and the Low Countries in 1940. Almost 500 Ju 52s participated in the historic airborne assault on the island of Crete in May 1941, and Junkers later supplied Rommel’s armored forces in North Africa.

Approximately 30 different countries have flown Ju 52s. The aircraft on display was donated to the museum by the Spanish government in 1971. Note: This particular aircraft is a CASA 352L.

Ju 52 and the SST Concorde

I have a rather amusing incident to share re the restored Ju-52 of Lufthansa [1]. A number of years ago (back in 1990 plus or minus one or two years), the now restored Ju-52 made a goodwill tour to London's Heathrow airport. When it was departure time, the Ju-52 found itself on the taxiway behind a British Airways Concord SST. Much to the amusement of the Ju-52 crew, the captain of the Concord requested permission to switch departure orders with the Ju-52. The captain of the SST did not want to miss seeing the Ju-52 take off - he obtained permission from the air traffic controller to let the Ju-52 pass him and take off first. It must have indeed been a wonderful sight to see.

[1] The Lufthansa Ju-52 with the famous registration D-AQUI is a confirmed classic. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t belong to Lufthansa anymore but to DLBS Deutsche Lufthansa Berlin Stiftung (German Lufthansa Berlin Foundation), and it now carries the registration D-CDLH.

LINK

Civil Use

The Junkers Company was an early constructor of aero-engines as well as airframes. In 1923 Junkers Motorenbau was founded, and in July 1936 the airframe and engine companies merged as Junkers Flugzeug-und-Motorenwerke.

Apart from designing and building orthodox gasoline engines, Junkers embarked on a long development programme of what were known as Schweral (heavy oil) or Rohal (crude oil) engines in other words diesels.

The five-cylinder FO-3 was produced in 1926 and this was followed in 1928 by the 750-hp six cylinder FO-4 also known as the Jumo 4 and later Jumo 204, and the 545-hp Jumo 5 of 1932. The Junkers diesel engines were flight-tested in a number of aircraft and in 1932

Jumo 4-powered Junkers F24s were put into service on Lufthansa's Berlin-Amsterdam route and nine of the airline's F24s were fitted with Jumos.

Jumo 204s were also installed in the Junkers G38 and later, Jumo 205s were used in a number of DLH flying boats and seaplanes and in the Junkers Ju 86. A Jumo 204 was also fitted to one of the single-engined Junkers Ju 52s.

Most of the many thousands of Ju 52/3ms were powered by air-cooled radial gasoline engines but two were fitted with 550-hp Jumo 205Cs. Changes to the airframe made them Ju 52/3mhs and, the Junkers suffix for the Jumo being the letter 0, the correct designation became Tu 52/3mho.

One of these aircraft was the landplane Emil Schaefer. Apart from its Jumo engines and two blade propellers it was a standard aircraft. Then at the 1934 Paris Air Show a Jumo-powered Ju 52 twin-float seaplane was exhibited. After the show it was converted to a landplane and entered Lufthansa service as W Hoehndorf. As far as is known these aircraft were identical and it is presumed that they were used to get operational experience of diesel engines and compare their performance with BMW-powered Ju 52/3ms.

There is evidence to suggest that Emil Schaefer was re-engined with BMW 132 radial engines and that the Jumo 205Cs in W Hoehndorf were replaced by Jumo 206As, since these engines were listed as in the aircraft in 1940 and 1941.

The Jumo diesels, although having lower fuel consumption, were not an unqualified success and were noisy, heavy and smoky.

As history bears out, the Ford Tri-Motor AT and the Junkers tri-motor were on parallel courses. Hugo Junkers was a pioneer in the development of metal-skinned aircraft for Germany. His American analog was William B. Stout. Stout, with Henry and Edsel Ford as investors, was set to build his own metal-skinned planes. Still, Stout cast his eye overseas for ideas on how to improve his own designs. There is evidence that Stout incorporated Junkers's innovations into his own designs. Ford eventually bought the company from Stout in 1925. Before Stout could adequately demonstrate a working prototype worthy of production, a fire destroyed part of the factory, and the prototype tri-motors. Afterwards, a Ford team (Stout eventually fell out of the picture) produced the Ford Tri-Motor 4-AT in 1926 (199 were built). The 5-AT was produced in much larger numbers after 1928. But this plane was not the same one that Junkers produced.

Hugo Junkers also began experimenting with the production of metal planes during the 1920's. The first Ju 52 that Junkers rolled out in 1930 was, in fact, a single-engine model. By 1932, the Ju 52/3m version had the familiar tri-motor configuration.

Ford Motor Company, was the majority shareholder of a production plant in Cologne, Germany. Several years before the U.S. involvement in the war, and in hopes to appease the Nazis, Ford replaced the entire board of directors of that company with Germans, place Ford's German operations in the care of a pro-Nazi caretaker, and changed the name to Ford Werke, AG. When I mentioned "nationalized", earlier, this notion was mistaken--Ford Werke was never consolidated into the Hermann Goering Werke of nationalized German military industries. Instead, Ford Werke maintained its status as an independent company although Ford, Inc. contends that it lost control of Ford Werke in 1941 after the U.S. declared war. Nevertheless, under National Socialism, the state dictated the product lines that a privately-owned enterprise could sell; at Ford Werke, this product was: TRUCKS for the Wehrmacht (only German-made parts were used in their assembly, even prior to the War).

I did not find a connection between Ford Werke or any of Ford's other subsidiaries in Nazi-occupied countries as far as aircraft parts production is concerned--but this was not an exhaustive search, so please weigh the evidence accordingly. Did Ford Inc. sell any tri-motor aircraft to the Germans in the 1930's prior to, or even after the rise of totalitarianism? That I do not know, although Ford did supply tri-motor aircraft to each of the U.S. Services.

Besides the obvious similarity of having three powerplants and being monoplanes, the Ford Tri-Motor 4/5-AT has an overhead wing design, and Junkers Ju 52 has its wing integrated into the lower part of the fuselage. Interestingly, both used a Pratt & Whitney radial engine at some time in their development (5-AT, P&W Wasp; Ju 52/3mce, P&W Hornet). Later, a BMW radial replaced the P&W engines in the Ju 52.

LINK

LINK

Moskalyev SAM-4 Sigma

Purpose: To create a fighter with unprecedented speed.

Design Bureau: Aleksandr Sergeyevich Moskalyev, initially in Leningrad and later at the VGU and Aircraft Factory No 18, Voronezh.

Moskalyev was a talented young designer/ pilot who achieved success with conventional aircraft, notably the SAM-5 light transport (SAM stood for Samolyot [aeroplane] Aleksandr Moskalyev). He also persistently strove to create highly unconventional aeroplanes of tailless configurations. The first of the latter series was the Sigma, named for the letter of the Greek alphabet. He sketched this in 1933 whilst working at the Krasnyi Letchik (Red flyer) factory in Leningrad, and worked on rocket propulsion with V P Glushko in a serious endeavour to design an aeroplane to reach l,000km/h (621 mph), and if possible to exceed Mach 1 (the first project in the world with this objective). When it was clear that a rocket engine with adequate thrust was many years distant, he recast the design with piston engines. He was working on this when he left Leningrad to be a lecturer at the VGU, the State University at Voronezh. Under the guidance of A V Stolyarov he tested models in the VGU's newly built high-speed tunnel. In September 1934 he submitted his preliminary report on SAM-4 to the GlavAviaProm (directorate of aircraft industries), whose Director, 11 Mashkevich, berated Moskalyev for submitting such 'unimaginable exotics'.

By 1933 Moskalyev had decided a suitable configuration for a fast aircraft was an allwing layout with a 'Gothic delta' plan shape, with trailing-edge elevens and Scheibe surfaces (fins and rudders on the wingtips). The drawing shows two main wheels in the front view, but this may be an error as Moskalyev favoured a single centreline gear and, as shown, skids on the wingtip fins. The drawing shows a single propeller, but in fact Moskalyev intended to use two Hispano-Suiza 12 Ybrs engines, each of 860hp (these were later made in the USSR under licence as the M-100), driving separate contra-rotating propellers. The stillborn rocket version would have had a prone pilot, but the piston-engined SAM-4 featured a conventional enclosed cockpit; the designer did not explain why this was offset to port.

This proposal was altogether too 'far out' for Mashkevich. No data survives.

Moskalyev SAM-5

The work of the Russian designer Aleksandr Moskalyev was too much in advance of contemporary ideas and, as a result, the majority of his many designs were built only as prototypes. His most successful design was the Moskalyev SAM-5, a light transport of cantilever high-wing monoplane configuration with accommodation for a pilot and four or five passengers. The original prototype was of stressed-skin light alloy construction, but with a works team that had no experience of fabrication in this material Moskalyev was dissatisfied with the standard of workmanship and immediately redsigned the aircraft for an all-wood basic structure. The resulting second prototype, designated SAM-5bis was of generally similar configuration but introduced wing bracing, had a more slender fuselage and was of mixed ply and fabric covering. Following the completion of official testing the production of 37 aircraft was authorised, the majority being completed for use in an air ambulance role and accommodating three patients and an attendant. Delivered during 1937-38 they remained in service into World War II.

With the SAM-5bis in production, Moskalyev began development of an improved SAM-5-2bis with many refinements to reduce drag. Tested subsequently with the MG-21 and a supercharged M-11FN engine, each rated at 149 kW (200 hp), this aircraft not only had impressive performance but established distance and height records. Official testing led to an order for 200 SAM-5-2bis in ambulance configuration but, because of the animosity of commissar Kaganovich none were delivered.

Specification Moskalyev SAM-5bis

Type: lightweight air ambulance

Powerplant: one 75-kW (100-hp) M-11 five-cylinder radial piston engine

Performance: maximum speed 173 km/h (107 mph); service ceiling 2800 m (9,185 ft); range 900 km (559 miles)

Weights: empty 710 kg (1,565 Ib); maximum take-off 1 2 1 9 kg (2,687 Ib)

Dimensions: span 12.50 m (41 ft 0 in); length about 8.00 m (26 ft 3 in); wing area 24.00 m2 (258.34 sq ft)

Moskalyev SAM-13

Purpose: To design a small fighter with 'push/pull' propulsion.

Design Bureau: A S Moskalyev, OKB -31 at Voronezh.

This small fighter was unconventional in layout, but used an ordinary wing, and had nothing to do with the designer's previous fighter concepts. According to Shavrov 'Fokker designed an almost exact copy of the SAM-13, known as the D.23...' In fact it was the other way about, because Moskalyev began this design in 1938, immediately after the D.23 had been exhibited at the Paris Salon. The single prototype was first flown by N D Fikson in late 1940, 18 months after the Dutch fighter, and proved difficult to handle, to need inordinately long runs to take off and land, and to have a sluggish climb and poor ceiling. Its designer worked round the clock to improve it, and by spring 1941 it was undergoing LII testing in the hands of Mark L Gallai. Apart from the fact the nose gear never did retract fully, it was by this time promising, and it was entered for the summer high-speed race, but the German invasion on 22nd June stopped everything. The No 31 OKB was evacuated, but this aircraft had to be left behind so it was destroyed. The OKB documents have not been found.

The SAM-13 was powered by two 220hp Renault MV-6 inverted six-cylinder aircooled engines driving 2.2m (7ft 21/2in) two-blade variable-pitch propellers. Between them was the pilot, and Moskalyev fitted the rear propeller with a rapid-acting brake to make it safer for the pilot to bail out. The small two spar wing was sharply tapered, and was fitted with split flaps inboard of the booms carrying the single-fin tail. Apart from welded steel tube engine mounts, the structure was wooden, with polished doped ply skin. The main landing gears retracted inwards and the nose unit aft. One drawing shows the nose unit (which had a rubber shimmy damper) to have had a levered-suspension arm for the axle. The intended armament, never fitted, comprised four 7.62mm ShKAS, two above the front engine and two at the extremities of the wing centre section.

Moskalyev knew that the MV-6 was available for licence-production in the USSR, and thought this aircraft might make good use of some. Even had the programme continued without interruption it is hard to envisage the SAM-13 being adopted by the VVS.

Moskalyev SAM-29, RM-1

Purpose: To renew attempt to build a rocket-engined interceptor.

Design bureau: A S Moskalyev, No 31.

During the Great Patriotic War practical rocket engines for manned aircraft became available. Moskalyev never forgot that he had been invited by the NKAP to build a fighter with the so-called Gothic delta wing of 0.95 aspect ratio. In 1944, despite much other work, he collaborated with L S Dushkin in planning what was to be the ultimate Strela fighter. This time most of the technology existed, and S P Korolyov lent his support, but once the War was over such a project was judged to be futuristic and unnecessary. Moskalyev's OKB was closed in January 1946, and he returned to lecturing, but he continued to study this project for two further years. The final SAM, also called Raketnyi Moskalyev, would have followed the usual Strela form in having a Gothic delta wing and no horizontal tail. The wing was fitted with elevens and blended into a needle-nosed fuselage carrying a large fin and rudder. The Dushkin RD-2M-3V engine, rated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib) thrust at sea level and much more at high altitude, was installed at the rear and fed with propellants from tanks filling most of the airframe. Two cannon would have been installed beside the retracted nose landing gear. This was yet another of this designer's near misses, all of which stemmed from his abundance of enthusiasm.

No data survives.

LINK