The Convair R3Y Tradewind was an American 1950s turboprop-powered flying boat designed and built by Convair.

Design and development

Convair received a requirement from the United States Navy in 1945 for a large flying-boat using the new technology developed during the war, especially the laminar flow wing and the developing turboprop technology. Their response, the Model 117 was a large, high-wing flying boat with Allison T-40 engines driving six-bladed contra-rotating propellers, a slender high-lift wing with fixed floats, and a sleek body with a single-step hull. The Navy ordered two prototypes on 27 May 1946. Designated XP5Y-1 the first aircraft first flew on 18 April 1950 at San Diego. In August the aircraft set a turboprop endurance record of 8 hours 6 minutes. The Navy decided not to proceed with the patrol boat version but directed that the design should be developed into a passenger and cargo aircraft.

Work continued despite the loss of on of the XP5Y-1s in a non-fatal accident on July 1953. The transport and cargo version was designated the R3Y-1 Tradewind and first flew on 25 February 1955. Major changes were the removal of all armament and of the tailplane dihederal, the addition of a 10ft (3.05m) port-side access hatch and redesigned engine nacelles to accept improved T40-A-10 engines. Cabin sound proofing and air-conditioning were added and pressurised accommodation for 103 passengers or 24 tons of cargo. As a medivac aircraft 92 stretcher cases could be carried.

The first two built were in P5Y configuration, armed with 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of stores (bombs, mines, depth charges, torpedoes) and 5 pairs of 20 mm cannon in fore and aft side emplacements and a tail turret. The next five were built as R3Y-1 aircraft, intended for troop transport and in-flight refuelling tanker service. The final six were built as the R3Y-2 variant with a lifting nose and high cockpit (similar to modern-day eyes to the C-5 Galaxy's nose and cockpit) for heavier transport and landing-ship duties.

Eleven aircraft were built, of which six were front-loading R3Y-2 aircraft with a hinged nose and high cockpit; they were intended to be a Flying LST (landing craft). In practice, it was discovered that it was almost impossible for the pilots to hold the aircraft steady and nose on to the beach while the aircraft was loaded or unloaded.[1] The aircraft were converted into tankers for the in-flight refuelling role. They had a short service life because of the insoluble unreliability of their Allison T40 turboprop engines, a fate common to most early turboprop-powered aircraft, such as the Douglas A2D Skyshark attack aircraft.

Operational service

The R3Y set a transcontinental seaplane record of 403 mph in 1954 by utilising the speed of high-altitude jetstream winds. This record still stands.

After service trials the aircraft were delivered to US Navy transport squadron VR-2 on 31 March 1956. Problems with the engine/propeller combination led to the ending of Tradewind operations and the unit was disbanded on 16 April 1958.

The six R3Y-2s were converted into four-point in-flight tankers using the probe-and-drogue method. In September 1956 one example was the first aircraft to successfully refuel four others simultaneously in flight in 1956, refuelling four F9F Cougars.

The program was halted after thirteen aircraft were built, the reason being the unreliability of the Allison T-40 turboprops. The crash of one of the two XP5Y-1 aircraft was judged due to catastrophic engine failure; when little progress was being made with the engine problems, the Navy halted the program. Subsequently three more aircraft were lost through engine failures, and the Navy gave up on the T-40 and aircraft powered by it. All the P5Y and R3Y aircraft were grounded in 1958 and subsequently broken up.

Variants

XP5Y-1

Prototype patrol flying boat, two built.

R3Y-1

Transport aircraft for the United States Navy with side loading door, 5 built.

R3Y-2

Assault transport aircraft for the USN with shorter nose incorporating an upward-opening loading door, later converted to four-point tankers for probe-and-drogue operations, six built.

Operators

* United States

o United States Navy

Specifications (R3Y)

General characteristics

* Length: 139 ft 8 in (42.26 m)

* Wingspan: 145 ft 9 in (44.42 m)

* Height: 51 ft 5 in (15.68 m)

* Wing area: 2,102 ft2 (195.3 m2)

* Empty weight: 71,824 lb (32,579 kg)

* Loaded weight: 145,500 lb (66,000 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 165,000 lb (74,800 kg)

* Powerplant: 4 sets of 3-blades× Allison T-40 turboprops, 8 engines in 4 pairs, each with 5,100 hp (3,800 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 337 kt (403 mph, 624 km/h)

* Range: 2,420 nm (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)

* Service ceiling 39,700 ft (12,100 m)

* Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)

* Wing loading: 69.22 lb/ft2 (338 kg/m2)

* Power/mass: 0.14 hp/lb (230 W/kg)

The British Expeditionary Force that landed in France in 1939 was a fully mechanized formation. Perhaps the loss of about 90,000 vehicles in France was a blessing to the British military transport organization as it cleared all the 'dead wood', and thus paved the way for fresh ideas. The chronic shortage of transport forced a further temporary introduction of impressment until specific types of vehicles could be produced in greater numbers. The Commonwealth with its many assets was given the orders to produce many of these urgently needed types. Canada made a contribution out of all proportion to the size of its small automotive industry with its series of all-wheel-drive tactical trucks ranging from 15-cwt 4 x 4 to 3-ton 6x6, produced with various types of cabs from 1940 to 1943. During the early period the Canadian chassis and cabs were built to Canadian designs but to British specifications. The early wooden bodies were later replaced by pressed steel bodies.

The invasion of Europe was soon in the minds of the Allied planners, and considerable thought was being given to supplying the vast armies that would make the attack across Europe into Germany. It would require a supply system of a magnitude never before envisaged, and the production of trucks would be at a premium for the next two to three years. The British truck industry thus began to produce its own four-wheel-drive vehicles, with such established names as Bedford, Ford, Karrier, Thornycroft and Albion being to the fore. Once the Allied assault had gained momentum the supply lines would soon be overstretched, and to help overcome this problem heavier 10-ton trucks were also put into production.

A brief Survey of Types

Just before the outbreak of war in 1939 the British army was in the process of intensive mechanization, and several classes of load capacity had been defined for 'B' vehicles. The second class was the 8-cwt truck which fulfilled such roles as the OS (General Service) and FFW (Fitted For Wireless). Such 8-cwt trucks with both 4x2 and 4x4 wheel arrangements were produced in considerable numbers from a period just before the war, but were eventually phased out of production in order to rationalize output and reduce the number of types in service. The 5-cwt and 15-cwt classes could carry out any duties that had been allocated to the 8-cwt class. These vehicles were manufactured by Ford, Morris and Humber. Similar in appearance, these vehicles had detachable well-type bodies with seating for three men (two facing offside and one nearside) and canvas tilts, though the wireless version had seating for two men only.

Together with the Ford 4x2 Heavy Utility, the Humber Heavy Utility Car was the basic staff and command car of the British army during World War II at all levels of command. Nicknamed the Humber 'Box', this was the only British built four-wheel drive utility car, and production began during May 1941, continuing for the duration of the war. Employed on a very wide scale, this staff car remained in service until the late 1950s.

The Morris Company produced a whole range of vehicles for the British army, one of the most successful being the Morris C8 Artillery Tractor (popularly known as the Quad). Introduced in 1939, this vehicle had four-wheel drive and was equipped with a 4-ton winch driven from the transfer case. It had a distinctive beetle-shaped body and usually a towed limber and 18- or 25-pdr gun/howitzer. As far as the army was concerned the vehicles built for gun-towing had to have the same characteristics as the horse-drawn gun carriage team which they replaced, such as good cross-country performance, seating for the gun crew, and adequate stowage space for equipment and ammunition.

During 1935 the War Office carried out trials with new lorry models, and the Bedford Truck Division of Vauxhall Motors Ltd submitted various prototype vehicles. One of these was a modification of the commercial 2-ton lorry with rear-wheel drive. Following the trials the vehicle was fitted with a new radiator and larger tyres. After further trials in 1936 the chassis was modified to increase the ground clearance and a new engine cooling system was incorporated. In 1937aspecial-totype Bedford WD prototype was produced on this chassis, rated at 15-cwt payload capacity. The most noticeable feature was the flat full-width bonnet necessitated by the extra-large air filter specified by the War Mechanisation Board. During 1938 a more powerful engine was used. An initial order for 2,000 Bedford 15-cwt Truck vehicles was placed in August 1939, the first 50 being constructed as special portée vehicles to carry the 2-pdr anti-tank gun. Originally, the vehicle had an open cab with folding windscreen and collapsible canvas tilt, but from 1943 an enclosed cab with side-doors, canvas top and perspex side screens was adopted. By the end of the war Bedford had produced a total of 250,000 vehicles, a large proportion of which were this model. The vehicle remained in service with the British army until the late 1950s. Although intended mainly as a workhorse for the infantry, the Bedford 15-cwt GS eventually became used by all arms including the Royal Navy and the RAF.

Bedford's involvement in four-wheel drive vehicles began in 1938, during the development stages of the square-nosed 15-cwt Bedford. It was suggested that the War Office be approached with permission to proceed with this design. Some degree of interest was expressed, but as no immediate requirement was envisaged the matter proceeded no further. Then Bedford decided to undertake private development on a low-priority basis with an eye to future military orders. After the outbreak of war the War Office issued orders for large quantities of 4 x 2 vehicles and also told Bedford to proceed with a prototype 4x4 3-ton general-service truck. In October 1939 a specification was approved, and on 1 February 1940 the first prototype was completed and was out on road tests. Within a month two more had joined it for extensive factory and military tests. The usual army tests were completed and the fitments for special tools installed, and drivers began training to operate this new truck. It had taken one year exactly from the first prototype to the first production vehicles, a commendable feat in a time of great stress and shortages. The Bedford QL was designed to use its four-wheel drive on rough terrain, but could disengage the front drive for use on hard roads to ease the wear on tires and gearbox, the change being effected by moving a lever on the secondary gearbox. Another feather in Bedford's cap (and a surprise one) was the lack of normal teething troubles during the QL's early use. It was only after about one year in service that the first sign of trouble occurred, and a rather peculiar one at that: a tendency for the vehicle to shudder when the brakes were applied slightly. These reports were followed up immediately, and it was found that only a small proportion of vehicles were showing this fault. After some time spent on investigation the fault was found to be simple, and the deep-treaded cross-country tires were replaced by normal road tires, whereupon the problem ceased.

The first production vehicle was the steel-bodied OLD issued to units of the Army Service Corps as a general carrier. From this model stemmed many variants, including the QLT 3-ton troop carrier with a modified and lengthened chassis to accommodate the extra long body to carry 29 troops and kit. The QLT was popularly known as the 'Drooper'. The QLR wireless house type was used by all arms of the signals. The truck featured an auxiliary generator, and other variants on this house type body were command, cipher office and mobile terminal carrier vehicles. A special requirement for use in the Western Desert was a 6-pdr portée, a vehicle designed to transport and fire a 6-pdr anti-tank gun from the body. It was necessary to modify the cab by cutting off the upper half and fitting a canvas top, and when this type became redundant the surviving vehicles were converted back to general-service types after being rebodied, The RAF was a major operator of, the Bedford QL, many being used as fuel tankers with swinging booms to refuel aircraft. Two experimental vehicles that never progressed beyond the prototype stage were the Giraffe and Bren. The Giraffe was designed for amphibious landings: all the major components were raised (along with the cab) on a special frame for deep wading. When fully elevated the vehicle's automotive parts were raised 2.13 m (7 ft) and the driver 3.05m (10ft). The vehicle was approved for production in the event that the waterproofing system then in use failed. The Bren was developed by the Ministry of Supply by taking a standard Bedford QLD and replacing the rear wheels with components from the Bren Gun Carrier, thus creating a halftrack. The aim of this scheme was to reduce rubber wear. The vehicle was considered adequate during tests, but the shortage of rubber did not materialize and the project was dropped.

To meet her urgent need for motor transport the UK turned to the Commonwealth for a degree of support, the major supplier to the UK from the Commonwealth being Canada. Canada herself, once on a war footing, had urgent need to supply her own armies with equipment as every transport vehicle then in service was of civil origin. During early 1937 Ford of Canada had been approached to produce 15-cwt trucks based on similar lines to those of British design. General Motors of Canada also participated. Ford's experimental vehicle was produced in no great haste at the Windsor plant, the pilot model being built up around a Ford V-8 chassis with wheels and tyres imported from England. When completed in 1937 the vehicle was tested at the then small army testing ground at Camp Petawawa, near Ottawa. On arrival it was discovered that the specification had changed to a four-wheel drive application. Nevertheless, the type gave a good account of itself, and the Canadian Military Pattern Chassis formed the basis of many 15-cwt and 8-cwt trucks. During early 1940 the standard pattern of Canadian truck began to emerge with four-wheel drive, and in July of 1940, after Dunkirk, the UK placed a preliminary order for 7,000 vehicles. By 1941 Canada was the Empire's main supplier of light and medium trucks.

Standardization was again of the utmost importance within a range of trucks including 8-cwt, 15- cwt, 30-cwt and 3-ton 4x4, 3-ton 6x4 and 3-ton 6x6 vehicles. Various Canadian cabs were produced through the different stages of development: the number 11 cab was identifiable by the radiator externally mounted to the bonnet; the number 12 cab had the radiator mounted inside the bonnet; the number 13 cab was a complete revision in design to allow more cab interior space and better placing of the foot pedals, and also had a forward sloping windscreen; and the number 43 was basically a number 13 with a soft top.

The 3-ton 4x4 became the mainstay of Canadian production, and was a reliable vehicle produced by both Ford and Chevrolet. The body variations were enormous and can only be touched briefly within this text. All models were produced in the general service role, some with timber and some with all-pressed-steel bodies, and other types included water and petrol tankers, mobile gun carriages, wireless house bodies, machinery vehicles (various types from 15-cwt mounted welding units to 6x6 fully - equipped workshops), office bodies, ambulances and other medical requirement vehicles, and breakdown and recovery vehicles. Canada also supplied many conventional types from all the large manufacturers, fitted with military tires/wheels and bodies. Over 900,000 Canadian vehicles were produced within the five-year period. The Australian commitment was not on so grand a scale, the majority of production trucks being in the light range. Most of the medium to heavy trucks were supplied in kit or chassis and cab form, usually from Canada, to which locally-built bodies were added. Some of the conventional trucks supplied were used in halftrack conversions, but this never progressed beyond the experimental stage. All Canadian Fords were reassembled at the Ford subsidiary plant at Geelong, in Victoria State some 48 km (30 miles) west of Melbourne.

The AEC Matador 4x4 tractor first appeared in 1939, and was built to a War Office specification to tow 4.5-in (114-mm), 5.5-m (140-mm) and 6-in (152-mm) howitzers. The requirement was for a four-wheel tractor with seating for the crew and ammunition stowage. The early production vehicles had a cab roof of different shape to that of later production trucks, the latter having a circular hatch for air observation; when not in use this was covered by a small canvas sheet. The basic design of the cab was very simple and robust, being built on a wooden frame with steel sheets. The body was of conventional timber construction with a drop tailboard and a side door for use by the gun crew. Special runners were fitted to the floor to allow shells to be moved to the rear tailgate for unloading. The Matador was powered by a 6-cylinder 7.58-litre AEC engine producing 71 kW (95 bhp), allowing a top speed of 58 km/h (36 mph). For pulling purposes (for example extracting guns from mud) a 7-ton winch was fitted with 76 m (250 ft) of wire rope. The Matador was used in most theatres of the war. In the desert it proved to be extremely popular with the gun crews for its reliability, and photographic evidence shows that some had the tops of the cabs cut down to door level. Matadors were also pressed into service in the desert to tow transporter trailers because of the lack of proper tractors for this purpose. Total production of Matadors was 8,612. The RAF was also a major user of this vehicle, 400 being supplied in various offerings. The General Load Carrier had a special all-steel body with drop down sides and tailgate to facilitate easy loading, and the support posts could also be removed, Special flat platform trucks were also supplied to transport heavy equipment such as dumpers and compressors. An armoured command post was also built on this chassis, called the Dorchester, in which accommodation was provided internally for high- or low-powered radio transmitting and receiving equipment, and an external penthouse could be erected. As these vehicles were considered prime targets they were carefully disguised to look like general-service trucks. Approximately 175 Matadors were built in 1942 as self-propelled gun carriages and comprised a 6-pdr anti-tank gun mounted in an armoured box. The cab and body were also armoured. Other variants included power equipment 20 kVA, power equipment 50 kVA, air-traffic control, and an experimental 25-pdr portée.

The last did not progress beyond the prototype stage. The last of the Matadors were auctioned off in the mid-1970s, this late disposal date proving the sound strength and reliability of these trucks.

Designed as a heavy load carrier, the Leyland Hippo 6x4 10-ton truck entered military service in 1944 and eventually proved its worth hauling supplies during the closing stages of the Allied advance across North West Europe. The huge bodies on these trucks had a well-type floor incorporating the wheel arches, this giving a lower loading height, an important element in the war days as fork-lift trucks were few and much loading was accomplished by hand. Steel hoops and a canvas tilt gave weather protection to the stores carried. The Hippo Mk 1 initial version was based on a pre-war commercial type with an open cab with canvas tilt and fixed windscreen, while the Hippo Mk 2 had an all-steel cab. The Hippo Mk 2 had single rear wheels, whilst the Hippo Mk 2A had dual wheels fitted with 10- 50-22 tires. The difficulty experienced with the Mk 2A was the need to carry two spare wheels, one for the front and one for the rear. It is perhaps quite amazing to see these trucks still in service in the 1980s. Besides the general service vehicle, many were fitted with large van type bodies, and several expandable body types were built, albeit of similar design. The side panels were split horizontally, the upper half being raised to form extra roof area and the lower half forming extra floor space to provide additional freedom around machinery. The vehicles could also be linked together to form a consolidated workshop area. Van bodies included an auto-processing type for developing photographs, an enlarging and rectifying type for exposing original film onto new film, a printing type with a rotary offset printing machine, and a photo-mechanical type equipped with a rotary offset printer, work tables and plate racks. Entrance to all these bodies was through a single door in the rear. Because of the length of the body, the spare wheel had to be transferred from behind the cab and placed under the rear of the chassis.

A post-war fitting was the adoption of a 9092-litre (2,000-Imp gal) AVTUR refueller body and, with the rear body removed, of a Coles Mk 7 or Neal Type QMC crane.

Type 2593 "Sumida"

At times some books will refer to a Type 2593 "Sumida" Armored Car in the Japanese inventory. Careful research has found this label to be an error. Type 2593 "Sumida" Armored Car is the Model 91 Broad-gauge Railroad Tractor. "Sumida" was the name of the firm before it was changed to Ishikawajima.

The Type 93 was designed primarily as a utility vehicle for the IJA, and featured six railroad wheels which could be equipped with ingeniously designed rubber rims, allowing off-track service; these were fitted while the hull was raised using a series of integral jacks. Frequently identified as the Type 93 Sumida (once again, based upon the name of the arsenal responsible for its production), there is some debate as to whether the vehicle is properly classified as an armored car. Japanese literature sometimes refers to the Sumida as a "Broad Gauge Railroad Tractor". In keeping with this, the Type 93 was clearly designed with use in China and Manchuria in mind, as the native Japanese rail gauge was more narrow than in the two regions previously mentioned.

The Type 93 was armed with six 7.7mm LMGs. One each was mounted to the hull sides, and to the fore and aft of the hull. A sixth machine gun was mounted in the turret. The vehicle had a crew of six, could do a top speed of about 25mph on the road or 37mph on rail, and was claimed to be capable of moving from rail to road in a period of less than ten minutes. Armor protection maxed out at about 16mm.

The Type 93 was used almost exclusively in the China/Manchuria theatre.

Rail armored car, also called as broad-gauge railroad prime mover. Was widely used in Manchuria and China by army and naval [marines] units. Railroad prime mover type 91 [2592 "Chiyoda"] was improved 2590 and had special device for regulation the distance between wheels for use the railroads with differ rail gauge [in China and USSR]. Type 2593 "Sumida" [also based on "Chiyoda" truck chassis] appeared in 1933, equipped with 4 lifting jacks, powered from engine [change of road/railroad run took 10 min]. Those armored cars [2590, 2592, 2593] were used widely and effective as railroad engines for tow railcars with infantry and cargos in China [usually two armored cars were coupled], also as patrol rail/road armored cars, for repair operations along the Chinese railroads.

Type 91 Armored Railroad Car "So-Mo"

Introduced Year : 1933

Weight : 7.7 ton

Dimensions: 6.58 x 1.9 x 2.95(h) m

Engine : Gasoline Engine 40 PS/1300 rpm [some were equipped with 100 hp diesels]

Speed (max) : 40 km/hr (ground), 60km/hr (railroad)

Armour,
Upper Hull Front: 16mm @ 45o
Lower Hull Front: 16mm @ 10o
Hull Sides: 11mm @ 0o
Hull Rear: 11mm @ 15o
Hull Top: 6mm @ 85o
Hull Bottom: 6mm
Gun Mantlet: 11mm @ 0o
Turret Front: 16mm @ 20o
Turret Sides: 16mm @ 20o
Turret Rear: 16mm @ 20o
Turret Top: 6mm @ 80o

Crew : 6

Production Qty : 1,000

The GRB-36D/RF-84

The GRB-36D/RF-84 combination, better known as the FICON (fighter conveyor) or carrier parasite program, came into being in the early fifties. The RB-36s were becoming more and more vulnerable, and no new form of defense was readily available. The Air Force therefore looked to the past for solutions. As a result, it planned in 1951 to put a parasite RF-84 in the RB-36's bomb bay. The parasite plane would be released about 800 or 1,000 miles from the target and within a relatively safe area. The pilot of the RF-84 would continue on to the target, obtain high or low level photography as desired, then return to the mother aircraft. An alternate FICON mission would be long range, high speed bombing. No real problems arose, but it took longer than thought to bring the FICON project to fruition.

A carrier parasite combination had been tried before for somewhat different purposes. It had long been known that heavily laden bombers could not cope with interceptors. Studies undertaken in 1944 to afford some protection to the then yet to be flown B-36 envisioned a pilotless, remote control, fast fighter that could be carried to the battle area in one of the bomb bays of the huge long range bomber. However, this was given up in favor of a pilot operated fighter that would be more maneuverable in facing repeated attacks. The tiny, folding wing XF-85 Goblin which ensued was developed by the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in late 1945 and first flown in August 1948. Because no B-36s were readily available, it was test dropped from a B-29. The project, however, never went past the experimental stage. The Goblin production was abandoned for a number of technical and financial reasons, but danger was the primary obstacle. The Air Force believed the odds of retrieving a fighter in the midst of a raging battle were poor. Moreover, if the bomber was shot down before the fighter was launched, both crews would be lost. Finally, if the bomber was destroyed after the launching, the short range Goblin would also be doomed.

Flown in January 1952, the FICON composite prototype comprised a modified, standard RB-36D and a straight wing Republic F-84E Thunderjet. Extensive flight tests soon demonstrated the FICON concept was practical. The parasite's straight wings posed no great difficulties. Sweeping down the tail of a forthcoming F-84 prototype (YF-84F) would enable it to fit in the RB-36 bomb bay. Elimination of the YF-84F's tail flutter by using faired bomb bay doors removed the last stumbling block.

Contracts awarded Convair and Republic in the fall of 1953 called for modifying 10 RB-36Ds and 25 RF-84Fs, respectively. This was far below the number of aircraft SAC had in mind-30 RB-36s and 75 RF-84s. Still, modification of only 35 was to take time. To begin with, the carrier RB-36Ds turned out to be featherweight configurations of the big reconnaissance bomber, and none of these were available before 1954. Furthermore, the reconfigured planes had to be modified to carry the additional mechanisms for stowing, aerial servicing, releasing and retrieving the F-84F parasites. Specifically, this meant that each carrier was equipped with a straight beam extended down from the bottom of the airframe. Each modified parasite featured a retractable probe, mounted on the forward top fuselage section to ease hook up. Actually, the technical operation of FICON was simple. Carriers and parasites could fly out of different bases. The parasite could be picked up in midair enroute to the target area, or by ground hook up prior to takeoff. Night operations were also possible. The first GRB-36D 111 carrier was delivered in February 1955, 6 months ahead of the first parasite RF-84F (subsequently identified as the RF 84K). The FICON B-36s served with SAC's 99th Heavy Strategic Reconnaissance Wing.

The RB-36D followed the B-36D's phaseout pattern. That of the FICON aircraft was much the same.

RF-84 FICON

The U.S. Air Force's Global Attack mission really began with the arrival of the jet propelled bomber in the early 1950s. The Strategic Air Command's new B-47s and B-52s could travel long distances without the need for fighter escort. But SAC also depended on its propeller-driven B-36 Peacemakers, especially for the vital reconnaissance mission. These airborne giants would have to fly over the most heavily defended target areas, and were quite vulnerable to an enemy's jet interceptors.

In the late 1940s, a scheme to have B-36 bombers carry along their own fighter protection had come to nothing. Northrop had developed a tiny parasite fighter, the XF-85 Goblin that fit into a bomb bay and could be released to drive off enemy fighters. But the system had too many development problems, and anyway the XF-85 was too small to offer much in the way of protection. The basic concept still seemed to hold promise, however. Could an RB-36 carry along a full-sized reconnaissance fighter to overfly the critical zone and return to the mother ship for the long trip home?

Air Force Headquarters authorized a fighter-reconnaissance project - dubbed FICON - to explore the possibility. A conventional RB-36F was stripped of most of its operational equipment and modified by the addition of a trapeze mechanism in the bomb bay for stowing, releasing, and retrieving the parasite aircraft. The latter was an F-84E with a special "duck-bill" nose probe mechanism installed on top of the forward fuselage for engaging the trapeze boom's forward receiver. Once attached to the boom, the smaller plane could easily be lifted into the bomb bay. Only the canopy area and upper fuselage spine actually fit inside the mother ship; most of the rest rode below, adding significantly to the bomber's drag.

The initial tests of the FICON Project were conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., early in 1953. These validated the parasite operation as "tactically sound," and recommended that a production RB-36 and a recon fighter based on the more advanced RF-84F be made available for operational suitability testing at the earliest possible date.

On Oct. 4, 1955, the AFFTC was directed to conduct operational suitability tests of the mother ship and a modified photo-reconnaissance Thunderflash. The RF-84K was equipped with anhedral (downward-pointing) horizontal stabilizers to clear the bomb bay when in the stowed position. Maj. James O. Rudolph, a Class 1954A graduate of the Test Pilot School, was the project pilot. He flew the modified fighter during the first FICON flight on Nov. 29, 1955.

The ensuing flights revealed that the novel parasite concept was achievable but not practical. Hook-ups with the carrier were difficult enough under ideal flight conditions, and nearly impossible to achieve in turbulent air. In essence, what a trained test pilot could accomplish would likely be unworkable for most operational pilots under combat conditions.

There were other problems as well. Ground clearance with the fighter mounted was very close under the best of circumstances. But the RF-84K, like all the members of its family, was chronically fuel-thirsty and required one or more externally mounted 450-gallon fuel tanks to accomplish most missions. This reduced ground clearance to around 6 inches. The problem of drag was even worse. The stowed fighter reduced the range of the B-36 by 5 to 10 percent.

Rudolph flew the FICON project's final on April 27, 1956, just 50 years ago. By then, however, the outcome was obvious. The Air Force had dropped the requirement for Phase IV testing a few weeks earlier, and the entire project was canceled shortly thereafter.

US 2.5" Hale rocket

US Civil War Hale rocket launcher

A typical early Congreve rocket, showing the attachment of the guide stick. The casing for the warhead (A) and rocket body (B) was made of iron. When the rocket was assembled for use, the stick (D) would be slid through three soft iron bands (C), which were then crimped tightly around it with special pincers. Congreve rockets made for the British army, like the one shown here, used guide sticks that were divided into 4-foot sections for ease of transport, and then assembled in the field using soft iron ferrules (E) to join the sections.

Black powder rockets were used sporadically on the battlefields of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Where they were used, however, they tended to be used in large numbers-possibly as a way of magnifying their psychological effect and getting around their lack of accuracy. The Chinese text Wu Pei Chih, written in the 1620s, describes rockets with explosive warheads being fired from wooden boxes divided into cells and capable of holding 100 projectiles each. The rulers of the kingdom of Mysore, in southern India, began to equip their armies with rockets in the 1750s. Haider Ali and his son and successor, Tippoo Sahib, ultimately attached a company of rocketeers to each of their army's brigades-a total of 5,000 rocket-carrying troops by the 1790s. Their rockets, built in two standardized sizes, had tubes of cast iron rather than the then-standard bamboo or pasteboard. The use of iron added weight but also lent strength, allowing designers to make the rockets more powerful without fear that the added pressure from the expanding exhaust gasses would burst them. The extra thrust that iron tubes allowed more than compensated for the extra weight. According to Indian sources, Tippoo Sahib's rocket troops could bombard targets as much as a mile and a half away.

The military value of Indian rockets became apparent when Haider Ali and Tippoo Sahib led their troops into battle against the British army in the 1780s and 1790s. Haider Ali's victory at the Battle of Pollilur (1780), during the Second Mysore War, was due in part to rockets setting a British ammunition wagon afire. Tippoo Sahib, who ascended to the throne when his father was killed in 1782, made effective use of rockets again in his attack on the city of Travancore, which started the Third Mysore War in 1790. The final act of the Fourth Mysore War was played out in 1799 when British troops cornered Tippoo Sahib in his capital city, Seringapatam. A British force under Colonel Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) approached the city, but turned and fled when the Mysoreans unleashed a rocket barrage and a hail of musket fire. Ultimately, however, the British regrouped and brought their artillery to bear on the city walls. An early, lucky shot touched off a storeroom filled with rockets, and the resulting explosion opened a breach in the wall that later shots expanded. The British charged, and Tippoo Sahib died, ironically, fighting to hold a gap in his walls accidentally made by his own secret weapon.

Tippoo Sahib's secret weapon did not remain secret for long. Word of his success with rockets reached Europe while the Mysore Wars were still going on, spurring research on military rockets in England, France, Ireland, and elsewhere. After the capture of Seringapatam and the death of Tippoo Sahib, the British shipped hundreds of rockets home to the Royal Arsenal as spoils of war. The point of the shipment was less to equip British troops with Indian rockets than to "reverse engineer" them: take them apart, study how they were made, and learn how to build rockets that were as good or better.

The comptroller of the Royal Arsenal was an old soldier named William Congreve who was also a senior officer in the Royal Artillery. His oldest son, also William, was twenty-seven when Tippoo Sahib died-a recent graduate of the University of Cambridge who practiced law, edited newspapers, and lived the high life among wealthy and titled friends in London. The younger Congreve had connections to the Royal Arsenal through his father and connections to some of the most powerful men in Britain through his friends. He also had a deep fascination with machines, and in mid-1804 he gave up both publishing and the law to pursue it. Congreve eventually received patents for things ranging from steam engines and canal locks to a new printing technique that made paper money more difficult to counterfeit. His first project, however, was to devise a weapon that could destroy the fleet of troop-carrying barges that Napoleon was assembling along the coast of France in preparation for an invasion of England. Congreve began with captured Indian war rockets and, improving on them, single-handedly brought on a revolution in rocket design.

Congreve's revolution was part of the larger Industrial Revolution that was transforming Britain in the early nineteenth century. One of the central elements of the Industrial Revolution was the standardization and mechanization of manufacturing. Products that had been made one at a time by individual workers in separate workshops were increasingly mass-produced in centralized factories. Workers who once shaped raw materials directly, using hand tools and muscle power, increasingly tended steam powered machine tools that shaped the materials for them. Factory-made products were cheaper and more abundant than the workshop-made products that they replaced, and they were also more uniform. Even the most skilled and attentive hand worker turned out products that varied slightly from one another. A well-tended machine would, in contrast, always cut a strip of fabric to the same width, plane a block of wood to the same thickness, or bore a hole to the same depth. Congreve applied this principle to rocket design. To be truly effective weapons, he concluded, rockets had to be rigidly standardized.

Congreve made three critical innovations in rocket design. The first, borrowed straight from the rocketeers of Mysore, was to use metal rather than pasteboard (or any other organic material) for the tube. The second was to use a mass-produced black powder mixed according to a standardized formula and prepared with mechanical grinding mills that produced particles of uniform size. The third was to use a device like a small pile driver-a heavy weight, lifted by ropes and pulleys and then dropped-to pack the powder into the tube. Congreve's machine-ground powder burned more smoothly than the hand-ground powders it replaced, and mechanical packing eliminated the empty or loosely packed pockets that hand packing sometimes left. His rockets developed a consistently high thrust, and their metal bodies ensured that they could withstand the increased gas pressures that produced it.

Congreve rockets thus offered not only better performance than earlier types, but more consistent performance as well. Access to the firing ranges of the Royal Arsenal allowed him to conduct extensive tests, which led to further fine tuning of both rockets and their launching apparatus. He was thus able, in 1805, to offer the Royal Army and Navy what would now be called a "weapon system": an array of rockets in various sizes, each with an appropriate launching apparatus and most with a choice of explosive or incendiary warheads.

British cannon were named, in the early nineteenth century, for the weight of the iron

balls that they fired: a "9-pounder" was a relatively small gun, a "32-pounder" a relatively large one. Congreve rockets were also designated as "___-pounders," but in their case the weight was that of the largest lead ball that would fit inside the rocket tube. Those in active use ranged from 6-, 9-, 12-, and 18-pounder "light" rockets through 24- and 32-pounder "medium" rockets to 42-pounder "heavy" rockets. Tiny 3- pounders and massive 100- and 300-pounders were also developed, but the former was too small to do significant damage and the latter were too cumbersome to handle in the field.

British forces first used Congreve rockets in battle in 1805, and continued to use them throughout the wars against the French (1805-1812, 1815) and the Americans (1812-1814). A massive barrage of Congreve rockets- as many as 25,000 according to some accounts-set the city of Copenhagen, Denmark, afire in 1807, and the 150-man Royal Artillery Rocket Brigade played a critical role at the battle of Leipzig in 1813. Led by Captain Richard Bogue, it laid down a barrage that caused 2,500 French troops to break ranks and flee at a decisive moment. British rockets were also decisive at the 1814 Battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812, which set the stage for their capture and burning of the city of Washington.

The most famous use of rockets in this war, which the British called the "Second American War," was, ironically, a failure. For nearly twenty-four hours on September 12-13, 1814, British ships anchored off Baltimore bombarded Fort McHenry with cannon and 32-pounder Congreves in an effort to force its surrender. The fort survived, but Francis Scott Key- an American envoy being held temporarily on one of the British ships- immortalized "the rockets' red glare" in his poem "The Star-Spangled Banner."

The use of Congreve rockets eventually spread well beyond Britain. They were, by the middle of the nineteenth century, in the arsenals of every major European power as well as the arsenals of the United States and a number of Middle Eastern and Latin American nations. The reasons for this wide popularity are easy to understand. Congreve rockets were a new kind of artillery that were, in many ways, superior to cannon.

Even a "light" 12-pounder Congreve had a range of a 1.25 miles- double that of contemporary light artillery. A 32-pounder could, at a range of nearly 2 miles, punch through the walls of buildings or penetrate 9 feet of earth. Rockets generated no recoil (the force that slams a cannon back when it is fired), and so could be launched from lightweight wooden frames. The frames for light rockets could be carried by individual soldiers or mounted in small oared boats; those for heavy rockets could be mounted on horse-drawn wagons and the decks of modest-sized ships. Reloading the muzzle-loading cannons used in the early nineteenth century was a complex, multistep process. Reloading a rocket frame involved little more than lifting a new rocket into position. Trained rocketeers could, as a result, fire four rounds in a minute-a pace that even the best gun crews could not match. Freed of the need to move a heavy bronze or iron cannon and its carriage, rocketeers were also more mobile than traditional artillery units. A hundred men on foot could hand-carry 10 frames and 300 light rockets to the front lines and discharge all 300 rockets in less than 10 minutes. Four horses-barely enough to pull a medium-sized cannon-could carry 4 frames and 72 rounds on their backs. Rocket troops could move fast and hit hard, a combination that endeared them to forward-looking army and navy officers alike.

For all their advantages, the Congreve rockets had drawbacks. The most important was a well-deserved reputation for erratic flight, which sometimes made them wildly inaccurate. Part of the accuracy problem was the rocket's center of gravity, which shifted steadily forward as the fuel burned away. Part of it was the shape of the rocket body and the position of the exhaust nozzles, which were seldom perfectly symmetrical. The largest part of the problem, however, was the stick. Like the Indian rockets on which they were based (and virtually all other rockets that came before them), Congreve rockets used a long wooden guide stick to keep them stable in flight. The stick, up to 15 feet long in heavy rockets, made Congreve's weapons cumbersome to handle and vulnerable to air currents while in flight. It also, because it was mounted off-center, tended to throw the rocket off course even when the air was still. Congreve reduced the balance problem in 1815 by mounting the stick in the center of the rocket's base plate and directing the exhaust through a ring of small nozzles around the edge of the plate. Even when centered, however, the stick was never perfectly centered, perfectly stiff, or perfectly straight, and the rockets continued to have a reputation for erratic flight.

William Hale introduced an improved version of Congreve's rocket around 1840. Like Congreve's later designs, it used multiple exhaust vents evenly spaced around the circular base plate. Unlike any previous rocket, however, it used small metal vanes to deflect the exhaust gasses and cause the rocket to spin around its long axis like a rifle bullet. Hale spun his rocket in order to stabilize it: the spinning evened out the effects of not-quite-symmetrical rocket tubes and shifting centers of gravity. Most important, the spinning eliminated the need for a guide stick, which made Hale's rockets more portable, as well as more accurate, than Congreve's.

The British armed forces, though at war in China, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the 1840s, did not immediately adopt Hale's improved rocket. They clung to the familiar Congreve, as they had clung to the long serving "Brown Bess" musket, long after newer and better weapons became available. Unable to drum up interest in his native country, Hale sold the manufacturing rights to his rocket to the United States for $20,000- a substantial sum now, and an immense one then. The first troops to use the Hale rocket in combat were, therefore, the American expeditionary force dispatched to Veracruz in 1847, during the Mexican-American War. Union and Confederate forces both made occasional use of rockets (both Congreve and Hale types) during the American Civil War. The Russian, Italian, Hungarian, and Austrian armies all acquired and used Hale rockets in the 1850s and 1860s, and the British officially adopted them in 1867. Having made the transition, the British military proceeded to cling to the Hale as fiercely as it had to the Congreve. Hale rockets remained in active service until 1899 (well after it, too, had been rendered obsolete) and was not formally stricken from the Royal Army's inventory until 1919.

Britain's long use of Hale rockets was not solely a result of inertia. The wars that Britain fought in the last third of the nineteenth century were small, localized conflicts with native troops in Africa and South Asia. Hale rockets could still be effective against enemies armed with muskets and smoothbore cannon, and they could be carried by pack animals into places that no wheeled gun carriage could reach. On the battlefields of Europe, however, the day of the black powder rocket was essentially over by 1870.

Congreve's rockets had caused a sensation in the first decade of the 1800s because they offered significant advantages over traditional gun artillery. By 1870, however, the situation had been reversed. A series of midcentury breakthroughs in cannon design meant that the best gun artillery had greater range, greater accuracy, and more striking power than the best rocket artillery. Rockets could still be fired faster than cannon, but the gap closed significantly as muzzle-loaded cannon firing balls gave way to breech-loaded cannon firing shells. High-velocity shells even mimicked the high-pitched shrieking noise that made rockets unnerving to the soldiers they were fired at. Rockets played little or no role, therefore, in the turn-of-the-century conflicts that signaled the emergence of modern warfare: the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), the Spanish-American War (1899), the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1901), and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). As a weapon, the black powder rocket was dead.

Rare photo of aircraft transport with flight deck Kumano Maru.

Built by Hitachi for the Imperial Japanese Army. Laid down 15 Aug 1944, launched 28 Jan 1945, completed 30 March 1945.

Never became operational. Served as a repatriation ship postwar, then reconverted as a merchant ship. Possibly scrapped at Kobe 11/1947 to 9/1948.

Displacement: 8,128 tons standard

Dimensions: 501 x 70.5 x 23 feet/153.7 x 21.5 x 7 meters

Air deck: 110 x 21.5 meters

Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 10,000 shp, 19 knots

Endurance: 6000 miles @ 17 kts

Crew: ??

Armor: none

Armament: 8 75 mm, 6 25 mm

Aircraft: 37

Concept/Program: Another Army conversion, generally similar to the previous class in role and design.

Design/Conversion: Generally similar to Akitsu Maru. It is not known whether a hangar was installed; there was a funnel in the center of the flight deck, and apparently no bridge. Kumano Maru had a lift however, contrary to Akitsu and Nigitsu Maru.

The English Electric Canberra was a groundbreaking aircraft when it entered service in the early 1950s.

The Canberra set and held many altitude, distance and speed records in its early years. In addition to widespread and long service with the Royal Air Force, the English Electric Canberra was exported to many countries including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, France, West Germany, India, Pakistan, Rhodesia, Ethiopia, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

The PR.9 was the photo reconnaissance version of the Canberra.

The Canberra's service record was remarkable in its longevity, spanning from the Suez crisis to Vietnam right through to Operation Telic in the Persian Gulf. The Canberra finally left RAF service when the PR.9 was retired in 2006.

Specifications (PR.Mk 9):

Engines: Two 11,000-pound thrust Rolls-Royce Avon 206 turbojets

Weight: Max Takeoff 54,950 lbs.

Wing Span: 67ft. 10in.

Length: 66ft. 8in.

Height: 15ft. 8in.

Performance:

Maximum Speed at 40,000 ft: 541 mph

Ceiling: 48,000 ft.

Range: 3,630 miles

Armament: None

PR Types

Canberra PR.3

Photo-reconnaissance version of B.2

Canberra PR.7

Photo-reconnaissance version based on B.6

Canberra PR.9

Photo-reconnaissance version based on B(I).8 with fuselage stretched to 68 ft (27.72 m), wingspan increased by 4 ft (1.22 m), and Avon R.A.27 engines with 10,030 lbf (44.6 kN) of thrust. 22 built. 3 transferred to Chile after the Falklands War

Canberra PR.57

Tropicalized PR.7 built by Boulton-Paul for India.

Short SC.9

1 Canberra PR.9 fitted with an AI.23 radar, plus IR installation in the nose for Red Top air-to-air missile trials.

Laid down: 17 December 1871

Launched: 21 May 1873

Commissioned: 1874

Decommissioned: 4 July 1903

Fate: Scrapped 1912

Struck: 1900

General Characteristics

Displacement: 2,491 tons (2,671 full load)

Length: 101 ft

Beam: 101 ft

Draught: 12.32 ft

Propulsion: 8 coal-fired boilers, 6 screws

Speed: 7 knts&2,000 ihp

Range:

Complement: 150

Armament: 2 11" guns, 2 4-pdr guns, 2 37-mm guns

Armor: 9" belt, 2.3" deck

With the advent of steam propulsion and armor, there were three major areas that dominated the design of a warship. Those were machinery, which determined speed, armor and armament. Normally any design was a series of compromises among these three areas. However, sometimes additional requirements were thrown into the mix that could have great impact in the design. One such requirement would be the need for a design to be able to operate in shallow water. In 1870 Imperial Russian had a requirement for an armored ship that would carry heavy guns and was further capable of operating in shallow water.

It was only 15 years since the Crimean War in which France and then Great Britain employed armored warships for the first time. These were armored batteries, rather than full-fledged warships but with their introduction, the genie was out of the bottle. France with the Gloire and then Great Britain with the Warrior, started building armored, steam powered capital ships. In 1870 in the Black Sea there were no armored warships but Russia decided that she needed armored warships mounting heavy guns to protect her southern border. Further, it was decided that any design to steam in the Black Sea had to have a shallow draft in order to operate in and through the Straits of Kerch and around the mouth of the Dneiper River. Vice Admiral A. A. Popov came up with a design that he thought would meet all of the requirements. To maximize armor and carry the heaviest guns possible on the lowest displacement and shallowest draught, Popov designed a ship whose beam equaled its length, a circular ship. Popov had not been the first to advocate a circular ship. Sir Edward Reed, chief designer for the Royal Navy in late 1860s had considered round ships for coast defense of England but they would never built.

Popov used a test tank for experiments with a model of a round warship. He then had a larger model, really a miniature ship, built to further test the concept. This model was 24-feet (7.5m) in diameter and was tested on the Neva River in 1870. The round design showed promise. Popov's design was chosen as the first armored warship design to be employed in the Black Sea. The original decision was to build ten round "Popovki" to be used as armored steam batteries or floating forts in the Black Sea. The first of these ships was laid down in 1872 and was named the Novgorod. The ship was built in sections and these sections were transported to Nikolaev on the Black Sea for final assembly.

Length or width, with the Novgorod it didn't matter as the dimension was a constant 101-feet (30.78m). The ship, displacing 2,491-tons, was capable of operating in shallow water with a draught of 13-feet 6-inches (4.11m). Eight boilers provided the steam for a horizontal compound engine, which developed a combined 3,000shp. This engine provided the power for the six propellers that drove the ship at a maximum speed of 6-knots when new, one-knot slower than designed. Two 11-inch/20 guns were on open mounts within a barbette with 9-inches of wrought iron armor. The sides had an 11-inch upper belt and 9-inch lower belt, while bow and stern areas had 9-inch belts. The ship was launched in 1873 and commissioned in 1874. The first three feet of the funnel base also was armored at 4 1⁄2 inches. The main deck was not flat but was convex with the highest point 5-feet 3-inches above the waterline. With such a low freeboard the design would be very vulnerable in deep water in any sort of bad weather.

The design did have some advantages. One was the fairly low displacement for a ship that was heavily armored and that mounted two heavy guns. Another advantage was that the circular design allowed the heavy armor to amount to 20% of the ship's displacement instead of the 30-40% needed for a conventional design. However, the negative aspects significantly outweighed the positives. A round design maximized water resistance and therefore resulted in a very low maximum speed. The circular design also proved unstable. It was almost impossible to keep the Novgorod steaming in a straight line. The low freeboard, shallow draft ship also pitched and rolled excessively in any sea state other than calm, greatly hindering accurate gunnery. Probably the worst characteristic occurred when one of the eleven-inch guns was fired. One rule of physics is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With Novgorod when one of the guns was fired, the ship would start to spin, like a top. Even using some of propellers to counteract the movement could not prevent this rotation. It was obvious to the Russian Admiralty that the round design did not fulfill its promise. The second, larger "Popovki" was already building, so it was completed. Originally to be named Kiev, she was launched as the Popov in honor of her designer.

However, even with all of her negative qualities, the Novgorod was the only armored warship in the Black Sea for a time. She was kept operational until conventional warships started arriving. At one point the two outer shafts were removed, which lowered her to 2,000 ihp with a maximum speed of 5 1⁄2 knots. In 1900 she was stricken as a warship and turned into a store ship at Sevastopol. Novgorod was finally scrapped just before World War One.

(History from Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905, 1979, N.J.M. Campbell for Russian Subjects; Warships of the Imperial Russian Navy, Volume 1 Battleships, 1968, by V.M. Tomitch)

By Joe Baugher

The F-94A/B all-weather interceptors of the USAF were considered only as interim types which would fill in the gap for a couple of years until more advanced aircraft could be made available in quantity. Once their initial problems had been corrected, the F-94A/B proved to be quite reliable all-weather interceptors and were relatively easy to maintain in the field. However, the F-94A/B lacked sufficient range and climbing speed to make it a really good interceptor, and its armament did not pack sufficient punch to be considered really effective against bombers.

In July 1948, four months before receiving the contract for the first batch of F-94As, Lockheed issued a proposal to the USAF for a more advanced development of the F-94A concept. The project was given the company designation of L-188. In order to achieve higher Mach numbers, the L-188 featured a completely new wing with reduced thickness and greater dihedral. The speed brakes were revised and the fuel capacity was increased. The aircraft was to be provided with a drag 'chute, being the first USAF fighter to be so equipped. Since more power was clearly needed, a Pratt&Whitney J48 afterburning turbojet was to be fitted. This engine was a license-built version of the British-designed Rolls-Royce Tay. With afterburning, this engine offered 8750 pounds of thrust. The increased engine thrust required that the air intakes be revised and made larger. The rear fuselage had to be revised in order to accommodate this new engine. A more advanced Hughes E-5 fire control system with APG-40 radar was to be used. The machine gun armament of the F-94A was to be replaced by an all-rocket armament mounted in the fuselage nose.

The USAF was initially not all that interested in the Lockheed proposal, preferring to concentrate on the North American F-86D Sabre and the Northrop F-89 Scorpion. Nevertheless, the USAF thought enough of the proposal that they assigned it a designation of F-97. A new F-number was selected for the Lockheed proposal since it was almost a complete redesign of the F-94.

Undeterred by the USAF's initial lukewarm response to their L-188 proposal, Lockheed decided in 1949 to go ahead with the construction of a company-funded demonstrator aircraft that would combine the L-188 wing with a F-94A fuselage from which the military armament and fire control systems had been omitted. Since the J48 engine was not yet ready, the demonstrator was fitted with an imported non-afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay.

Bearing the civil registration N94C, the unarmed demonstrator flew for the first time on January 19, 1950, with test pilot Tony LeVier at the controls. It retained the original nose of the F-94A, and had non-standard teardrop-shaped centerline-mounted wingtip tanks. The USAF was sufficiently impressed that in February 1950 they purchased the unarmed L-188 demonstrator under the designation YF-97. The military serial number 50-955 replaced the original civil registration number. At the same time, the USAF ordered a fully militarized prototype YF-97 under the serial number 50-877. 180 production examples were ordered under the designation F-97A. The company designation for the F-97A was Model 880.

Initial trials with the L-188/YF-97 demonstrator turned up several problems which were corrected by progressive modifications. The wing root extension fillet of the original L-188 wing was removed in order to improve stall characteristics during landing approach. The original horizontal stabilizer of the F-94 was replaced by power-boosted swept surfaces to eliminate an annoying high-frequency vibration that took place at high Mach numbers. Dampers were added to correct aileron buzzing. Spoilers were added to improve roll control. The vertical fin was made larger in order to increase directional stability at high speeds. When the American-built Tay finally became available, the first YF-97 was re-engined with a J48-P-3 engine, rated at 6000 lb.s.t. dry and 8000 lb.s.t with afterburning.

On September 12, 1950, the YF-97 was redesignated YF-94C. Even though the YF-97 was almost a completely new aircraft, it was thought wise to pretend that the design was simply a "logical extension" of an existing aircraft. Political considerations often play an important role in the choice of aircraft designations.

The name Starfire was applied to the F-94C by publicists, following the tradition of naming Lockheed aircraft after celestial objects. The C-variant was the only variant in the F-94 series to carry this name.

The two YF-94Cs continued to be used for tests of the improved fire control system and the all-rocket armament. The all-rocket armament consisted of twenty-four 2.75-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rockets (FFAR) mounted in four groups surrounding the APG-40 radome in the nose. The rockets in each group were mounted inside a door which opened sideways on the ground for easy servicing and reloading. In front of each rocket group was a snap-action door which opened immediately before firing. The YF-94Cs were fitted with a revised fuel system accommodating 566 US gallons in wing and fuselage tanks, 500 gallons in center-mounted wingtip tanks, and 460 gallons in midwing drop tanks mounted on pylons at the wing center for a total fuel capacity of 1526 gallons. There were difficulties with the drag chute, with the automatic pilot, with the afterburner of the J48, and with aileron flutter. These problems were not fully resolved until after the first F-94C production aircraft had been delivered.

The first production F-94C was delivered in July of 1951. The production F-94C was powered by the Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 engine rated at 6350 lb.s.t. dry and 8750 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Teething problems delayed the introduction of the F-94C into squadron service for almost two years. The F-94C finally entered service with the 437th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Otis AFB in Massachusetts in June of 1953. The F-94C was the second type of fighter serving with the Air Defense Command (ADC) to use rockets as its sole armament, the North American F-86D Sabre being the first.

Initially, the F-94C suffered with some of the same teething troubles which had not been completely ironed out during the testing of the YF-94Cs. The E-5 fire control system had reliability problems. The cockpit seal tended to leak, causing electrical short-circuits. In addition, the jet engine tended to flame out when the nose rockets were fired. However, once these difficulties were cleared up, the F-94C became popular with its flight and maintenance crews. The rocket armament of the F-94C was considered to be more accurate than that of the F-86D Sabre, owing to the use of closed-breech launchers by the F-94C which increased the velocity of the rockets. However, the firing of the nose rockets violently shook the F-94C and blinded both crew members in exhaust smoke and fire.

387 F-94C aircraft were built and delivered between July of 1951 and May of 1954. In 1953, F-94Cs were delivered to the 29th, 48th, 66th, 332nd, 438th, and 497th Fighter Interceptor Squadrons. In 1954-55, F-94Cs went to the 27th, 39th, 61st, 64th, and 318th Squadrons. While the 319th FIS was not one of the squadrons to receive the F-94C directly from the factory, they did operate them from March 1956 until transition to the F-89J was completed in December 1957. Most of these squadrons served in the mainland United States, although the 39th did serve for a time in Japan.

In the course of its production and service life, the F-94C was progressively improved and upgraded, with new features continually being added in the field. New and improved ejector seats were provided, variable-position dive brakes were fitted, and a better drag chute was added. Beginning with the 100th F-94C leaving the production line, a twelve-rocket pod was mounted on each wing leading edge, doubling the armament of the Starfire. A frangible plastic nose covered the front of each pod, which shattered when the rockets were fired. These mid-wing rocket pods were retrofitted to earlier production machines. Owing to the crew blinding problem during rocket firing, the nose rockets were often omitted from F-94Cs in the field, the rocket armament being carried exclusively in the mid-wing pods. The nose radome initially had a rather blunt shape, but it was soon replaced by a more pointed radome which quickly became standard.

The F-94C Starfire became the first all-weather fighter to break the sound barrier, which happened by accident when test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon put his F-94C into a dive from 45,000 feet, rolling over in afterburner.

A single F-94C was used to test the adoption of the Hughes GAR-1 Falcon missile as part of the basic armament of the Starfire. This aircraft was redesignated DF-94C. Although the Falcon missile was never made part of the Starfire's operational armament, these experiments provided data for later generations of ADC interceptors.

F-94C serial number 50-963 was experimentally fitted with an enlarged nose in which reconnaissance cameras were mounted in place of the interceptor's radar and rockets. This plane was redesignated EF-94C, the E standing for *Exempt*. E was used rather than the regular R for Reconnaissance because this aircraft was to be used strictly for research purposes.

The service life of the F-94C Starfire with the USAF was quite short, most of these aircraft being phased out and replaced by more advanced types after only a half-dozen years of service. The last F-94C left USAF service in February of 1959.

After leaving USAF service, F-94Cs were passed along to the Air National Guard. With the F-94Cs supplementing the earlier F-94A/B, the Starfire equipped twenty-one Fighter Interceptor Squadrons of the Air National Guard. The last F-94Cs were phased out of ANG service by the 179th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at the Duluth Municipal Airport, Minnesota during the summer of 1959.

Serials of the F-94C Starfire:

50-877 Lockheed YF-97 Starfire -- later redesignated YF-94C

50-955 Lockheed YF-97 Starfire -- later redesignated YF-94C

50-956/1063 Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

51-5513/5698 Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

51-13511/13603 Lockheed F-94C-1-LO Starfire

Specification of the F-94C:

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 turbojet engine rated at 6350 lb.st. dry and 8750 lb.st. with afterburning.

Dimensions: Wingspan 42 feet 5 inches with wingtip tanks, length 44 feet 6 inches, height 14 feet 11 inches, wing area 232.8 square feet.

Weights: 12,708 pounds empty, 18,300 pounds loaded, 24,184 pound maximum.

Performance: Maximum speed: 640 mph at sea level, 585 mph at 22,000 feet, 578 mph at 40,000 fee. Initial climb rate 7980 feet per minute. Service ceiling 51,400 feet. Normal range 805 miles, maximum range 1275 miles.

Armament: Armed with twenty-four 2.75-inch Mighty Mouse FFARs in nose, plus twelve FFARs in each of two wing leading-edge pods.

Sources:

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.

2. Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple Press Aerospace, 1990.

3. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.

4. Lockheed F-94 Variants, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 13, 1998

5. Marcelle Size Knaack, Post World War II Fighters, Office of Air Force History, 1986.

6. E-mail from Robert West on F-94C service with 319th FIS.

LINK

The system is intended to protect battle tanks against ATGMs and antitank grenades. Modern hollow-charge weapons (ATGMs, antitank grenades, HEAT projectiles) are the most effective and mass-produced antitank munitions.

Despite the updating of armor protection, tanks remain vulnerable to antitank hollow-charge munitions.

One promising way of tank protection is to equip tanks with active protection systems. Active protection involves the detection of attacking antitank munitions and their destruction at a safe distance from the tank.

In the early 1980s, the Drozd (103OM) system was developed. The latest research involving the use of advanced methods to detect antitank munitions and process signals as well as the use of new basic components and more effective explosives enabled designers to considerably improve combat characteristics of the Drozd system in its derivative, the Drozd-2.

The Drozd-2 active protection system provides an all-round protection zone in azimuth, which is of crucial importance keeping in mind the ever changing tactics of employment of battle tanks in local conflicts and urban fighting.

The modular design of the Drozd and Drozd-2 active protection systems makes it possible to use them on any Russian and foreign tanks. Currently, there are tens of thousands of battle tanks worldwide, and most of them were manufactured in the 1980s, 1970s and even in the 1960s. Tanks equipped with the active protection system are protected better than the best tanks of the latest generation (T-80, T-90, M1A2, Leclerc).

Breguet-Richet Gyroplane No.1 (France)

When it rose vertically from the ground with its pilot in the late summer of 1907, the Gyroplane No.1 built by Louis and Jacques Breguet in association with Professor Charles Richet had to be steadied by a man stationed at the extremity of each of the four arms supporting the rotors. It cannot, therefore, take the credit for being the first helicopter to make a free flight, even though the ground helpers contributed nothing towards the lifting power of the rotors; but it was the first machine to raise itself, with a pilot, vertically off the ground by means of a rotating-wing system of lift. Basically, the Breguet machine consisted of a rectangular central chassis of steel tubing supporting the powerplant and the pilot; from each corner of this chassis there radiated an arm, also of steel tube construction, at the extremity of which was mounted a fabric-covered 4-blade biplane rotor, making a total of 32 small lifting surfaces. One pair of diagonally opposed rotors rotated in a clockwise direction, the other pair moving anti-clockwise. The pilot, M.Volumard, was reputedly chosen at least partly because of his small stature - he weighed only 68kg. Authorities differ over the date of the Breguet machine's first flight at Douai, 24 August and 19 September 1907 being quoted with equal assurance; on this occasion the aircraft rose to about 0.60m. Take-off to some 1.50m was achieved during a test on 29 September, and similar heights were reached in several subsequent tests, but the Breguet-Richet aircraft was neither controllable nor steerable in a horizontal plane.

In 1908 the Breguet-Richet collaboration produced a No.2 Gyroplane, powered by a 55hp Renault engine and having two forward-tilting 2-blade rotors with a diameter of 7.85m and, in addition, fixed wings giving an extra 50m2 of lifting surface. This machine made a number of successful flights in the summer of 1908, but was severely damaged in a 'heavy' landing on 19 September. In rebuilt form as the No.2bis it was displayed statically at Paris in December 1908 and made one test flight in the following April, but a month later the Breguet premises were wrecked by a hurricane. This, and the shortage of contemporary engines with an adequate power/weight ratio, caused Breguet to abandon rotary-winged development until the appearance of the Breguet-Dorand design in the 1930s.

At last, after the turn of the century, a new lightweight power plant became available. Fitted to the early automobiles and box-kite airplanes, the gasoline engine began to prove itself. In 1907, four years after the Wright brothers had flown the first controllable airplane, French designer Louis Breguet built a primitive helicopter that could lift a man into the air.

It was a time of the flowering of arts and sciences in France. Although the first airplane had been flown in the United States, for the first decade the French, with Gallic passion and enthusiasm, led the world in aviation research and progress. The helicopter was a case in point, for the first machines to fly were French. The inspiration stemmed, perhaps, from the "Trium-virat Helicoidal" of fifty years before.

A purist might scorn the first hops in the year 1907 as not actually being flights, since the machine was held steady by four assistants to prevent any erratic movement. But the Breguet-Richet Gyroplane No.1 did take a Monsieur Volumard - chosen for his light weight - into the air for the first time on August 24, 1907. The machine rose only to a height of about two feet, remaining in the air for one minute. Unhappily, it was not sufficiently steady or controllable for free flight, and eventually testing was discontinued in favor of building a completely new machine.

The following year Breguet produced his second helicopter. It was furnished with twin 25-foot rotors, powered by a 55-horsepower Renault engine, with a set of biplane wings for good measure. On July 22, 1908, it rose vertically to the respectable height of 4.5m and flew for a short period of time, apparently under control, but the machine was completely wrecked upon landing.

It appeared more-or-less contemporarily with the airplane, when Volumand - chosen as pilot largely on account of his modest weight of 64kg - was lifted clear of the ground at Douai in France on 29 September 1907, in the elaborate Gyroplane built by Louis and Jacques Breguet under the guidance of Professor Charles Richet. The aircraft achieved a height of only 60 cm (2 ft) and was totally uncontrollable, to the extent that it had to be steadied by four assistants. But it was the first time a mechanical device had raised itself vertically from the ground with a man on board, using a rotary wing system, even if it could not be described as a free flight.

The Breguet-Richet craft had a 45hp Antoinette engine and the rotors, only the rotation speed of which could be controlled, were 8m in diameter. A year later, Gyroplane No.2 appeared, with a more powerful 55hp Renault engine and two forward-tilting two-blade rotors, of slightly smaller diameter than the main lifting surfaces, which provided the thrust for forward movement. In the late summer of 1908, this aircraft was badly damaged by a heavy landing, but was rebuilt and flew again next spring.

Paul Cornu Helicopter (France)

The first true flight, free of any tie-down ropes, apparently was made by Paul Cornu, in another French machine later the same year, on November 13. His helicopter had two rotors mounted in tandem, one behind the other. The pilot sat between them, in intimate proximity to the little 24-horsepower Antoinette engine. The helicopter rose no more than 2m, and the longest flight lasted only a third of a minute. Nevertheless, it flew, completely free of any attachment to the ground. Today it would be said that the pilot "had not gotten out of ground effect". To steer, to rock the ship from side to side, or to nose up and down, there were movable flat surfaces-control vanes-mounted under the rotors so the airflow would push against them. The system on the Cornu machine was ineffectual, though control vanes were used with better effect on later aircraft.

The Breguets were not alone, however, in that their record was challenged by Paul Cornu, a bicycle maker from Lisieux, whose machine, powered by a small 24 hp engine, could only have been called the "flying bicycle," consisting as it did of two large, spoked wheels on to which short, paddle-shaped wings were splined to form twin two-blade rotors about 6m in diameter. The rotors were belt-driven and contra-rotating. The central frame supported the engine, pilot seat and fuel tank, and the whole contraption weighed just over 250kg. Various flights were made, including the notable occasion when Cornu succeeded in remaining airborne for about 20 seconds at a height of 30cm on 13 November 1907. Thus it was he who was officially recognised as having made the first free flight.

The first aeroplane to take off vertically with its pilot and make a free flight entirely without assistance from or connection with the ground was the 'flying bicycle' designed and built by Paul Cornu in 1907. It achieved this feat at Coquain-villiers, near Lisieux, on 13 November 1907, though the distinction is a slightly academic one since the aircraft remained in the air for only some 20 sec. at an 'altitude' of about 0.30m. The chassis was in the form of an open 'Vee' supporting the engine, fuel tanks and pilot's seat in the centre and resting on a four-wheeled landing gear. The rotors were paddle-shaped and fabric-covered, mounted on large horizontal, bicycle-type wheels situated one at each end of the machine and turned by a belt drive from the engine. The design followed that of a small scale model made by Cornu a year or so previously with 2.25m rotors, a 2hp Buchet engine and a weight of 13kg. The full-scale machine made its second flight with Cornu's brother hanging on to the framework, increasing the total weight to 328kg, and take-offs to about 2m were made later carrying the pilot only. However, the helicopter's transmission system was suspect, its framework too flimsy, and - despite the movable fore and aft vanes - its controllability was largely ineffectual; and these factors, combined with a lack of funds, caused Cornu to forsake the further development of his historic but impractical design.

Ellehammer (Danmark)

Jacob Christian Ellehammer must surely rank among the most versatile of aviation's early pioneers. First apprenticed as a watchmaker, he then qualified as an electrical engineer; he made one of the earliest motor-cycles built in Denmark, and also designed his own internal combustion engines. His 3-cylinder piston engine of 1903 was perhaps the world's first radial engine, and his experiments in aviation, started two years later, embraced monoplanes, biplanes, triplanes, flying boats and helicopters.

Ellehammer's first studies of rotary-winged flight began in 1910, and various experiments were carried out in 1911 with a scale model helicopter. The full-sized machine that he built in the following year would today be defined as a compound helicopter, for its 6hp engine (also designed by Ellehammer) drove both the rotor system and a conventional propeller. The lifting rotors were of an ingenious pattern, consisting of two contra-rotating rings, each of 5.97m diameter, the lower one being covered with fabric to increase the lift. At regular intervals round the perimeter of the wings were six vanes, each about 1.50m long and 0.66m wide and pivoting about its horizontal axis. The rotor system was driven via a hydraulic clutch and gearbox, all designed by Elle-hammer, and the rotor vanes' angle could be altered in flight by the pilot - an early example of cyclic pitch control. After several successful indoor take-off tests, during which the machine was probably tethered, Ellehammer's machine made a free vertical take-off later in 1912, in front of witnesses who included H.R.H. Prince Axel. Tests with the 1912 helicopter continued until late in September 1916, when it overturned after a take-off and the machine was wrecked when the rotors spun into the ground.

Ellehammer then put aside his helicopter experiments until about 1930, when he began to evolve some new projects. One of these was, in effect, a parasol monoplane in whose wings was a huge circular cut-out with two contra-rotating rotors turning inside it. Even more novel was a proposal in the mid-1930s for a helicopter driven by compressed air. As with the previous project, only a working model was built, powered by a vacuum cleaner motor. In the full-sized aircraft Ellehammer proposed to have a radial engine driving a powerful air compressor. A substantial pylon over the fuselage was topped by a metal disc, made to rotate by the reaction from expelling compressed air through slots in its underside. The centrifugal force of the rotating disc was sufficient to unsheath four spring-loaded rotor blades; when take-off had been accomplished, these were retracted back into the disc and the compressed air stream diverted to an efflux at the rear of the aircraft to give it forward movement.

Oehmichen (France)

Etienne Oemichen, a young engineer with the Peugeot motor car company, began to experiment with rotating-wing designs in 1920, and in all designed and built six different vertical take-off machines. When the first of these failed to develop enough lift from its twin rotors and 25hp engine to rise off the ground, he added a hydrogen-filled balloon on top of it to give it added stability and lift. The most noteworthy - and most striking - of his aircraft was the helicopter No.2, which had no less than 4 rotors and 8 propellers, all driven by a single 120hp Le Rhone rotary engine when it flew for the first time on 11 November 1922. A 180hp Gnome engine was substituted later. The Oemichen No.2 was basically a steel-tube framework of cruciform layout, with 2-blade paddle-shaped rotors at the extremities of the four arms. The angle of these blades could be varied by warping. Five of the propellers, turning in a horizontal plane, served to stabilise the machine laterally; another propeller mounted at the nose was for steering the helicopter; and the remaining pair acted as pusher propellers for forward propulsion. The opposing pairs of rotors were of slightly different diameters. The Oemichen No.2 exhibited, for its time, a considerable degree of stability and controllability, and in all made more than a thousand test flights during the middle 1920s. By 1923 it was able to remain airborne for several minutes at a time, and on 14 April 1924 it established the first-ever FAI distance record for helicopters of 360m. Three days later it increased this to 525m and on 4 May was airborne for 14 min, flying more than a mile and completing in the process the first 1km closed-circuit flight by a helicopter in 7 min. 40 sec. Oemichen was, however, dissatisfied with the modest heights to which No.2 was able to fly, and from the third machine onward he adopted a single main rotor layout, accompanied by two smaller anti-torque rotors. His last design, in 1938, reverted to the balloon-assisted principle of his first aircraft.

In France, Etienne Oemichen, a young engineer at Peugeot, began rotary wing experiments in 1920, building a total of six different machines. His second machine flew unassisted on 11 November 1922. The Oemichen No. 2 had an "X"- shaped, tubular frame with a wide two-bladed rotor at the end of each arm. For control and lateral movement, eight small propellers were used: five horizontal propellers with variable and reversible pitch for lateral stability, another propeller at the nose for steering, and another pair of pushers for forward motion. By 1923, the Oemichen No. 2 was able to remain airborne for several minutes and on 14 April 1924, it established the first rotary wing distance record: 360m. On 4 May, it completed the first 1km closed circuit flight by a rotary wing vehicle in 7 minutes 40 seconds to win a 90,000 franc prize. Maximum endurance was 14 minutes. Despite the fact that it was able to demonstrate sufficient controllability and power in ground effect for this historic flight, it was not a practical flying machine. In recognition of the impracticality of the machine, Oemichen began pursuing a series of aircraft with a single-main rotor and two anti-torque rotors, but had little success.

Pescara No.3 (Spain)

It is unfortunate that more complete records have evidently not survived of the later Pescara helicopters, for despite their apparent clumsiness they represented for their time an important step forward in helicopter design technology that deserves recognition. The Spanish Marquis Raul Pateras Pescara built his first helicopter in Barcelona in 1919-20. It was a clumsy machine, weighing some 600kg without fuel or pilot and powered by a 45hp Hispano engine. Each of the 2 co-axial rotors had a diameter of 6.40m and was made up of 6 biplane pairs of blades giving a total of 24 lifting surfaces, but the little Hispano was not powerful enough to raise the machine off the ground. A modified form of this aircraft, with a 170hp Le Rhone rotary engine, did just get off the ground in May 1921, but it was far from being a stable or satisfactory design. In 1922 Pescara moved to France, where the No.2 did succeed in rising some 1.5m during tests carried out for the Service Technique de I'Aeronautique.

Pescara's most successful helicopter was the No.3, which was built in 1923 and by January 1924 was capable of making flights of some 10 minutes' duration. The same co-axial rotor system was employed, larger twin rotors each with 4 pairs of blades turning around a 'totem pole' rotor mast. A 180hp Hispano-Suiza engine, for which the Lamblin radiator was situated at the rear of the craft, provided the power. Although a heavy and cumbersome machine the Pescara No.3 was a simple design when compared with its closest contemporary, the Oemichen No.2, and makes an interesting comparison with the Breguet-Dorand of some ten years later. On 18 April 1924 Pescara flew the No.3 at Issy-les-Moulineaux for a distance of 736m, handsomely beating the record set up by the Oemichen only the day before.

The significance of this achievement lay in the fact that Pescara's machine, unlike the Oemichen or any other rotorcraft up to that time, did not rely on conventional propellers rotating in the vertical plane to give the aircraft forward motion. Instead, the pitch of the 16 lifting surfaces could be altered in flight by warping them, and the rotor head could be tilted to give the blades a degree of forward thrust. The speeds thus achieved were extremely modest, but the Pescara No.3 exhibited the first convincing demonstration of the principles of cyclic and collective pitch control. Autorotation of the rotors was also provided for in the event of engine failure.

Reference is made in some quarters to the Pescara No.3F, which was possibly a modification of the No.3 and not a new machine. This appeared in the early part of 1925 and had a 250hp engine, with a cut-down propeller fulfilling a cooling function only. It offered no great improvement over the No.3, and later that year Pescara returned to Spain and entered the motor car industry. He seems to have been discouraged from further serious helicopter development by the emergent success of Cierva with the autogiro, though he was associated with the little French-designed Pouit S-4 later in the 1920s.

Pescara's No. 3 machine, completed in 1923, used four 7.2m diameter 4-blade biplane rotors and no other propulsion mechanisms: the pitch of the 16 lifting surfaces could be altered in flight by wing warping. This was the first credible use of cyclic and collective pitch control, the essential ingredients of a helicopter. The rotor hub could be tilted for some measure of forward motion, but speed was only about 13km/h. This slow speed was one of the main reasons that the early "helicopters" used auxiliary propellers for forward propulsion. In September 1923, Pescara almost became the first person to complete a 1km circuit, but the machine crashed and was severely damaged. The next spring, four days after Oemichen's first FAI distance record, Pescara doubled it to 736m.

Recent reconstructions and computer simulations reveal the operating principles of the most powerful weapon of its time

by Paul E. Chevedden, Les Eigenbrod, Vernard Foley and Werner Soedel

Centuries before the development of effective cannons, huge artillery pieces were demolishing castle walls with projectiles the weight of an upright piano. The trebuchet, invented in China between the fifth and third centuries B.C.E., reached the Mediterranean by the sixth century C.E. It displaced other forms of artillery and held its own until well after the coming of gunpowder. The trebuchet was instrumental in the rapid expansion of both the Islamic and the Mongol empires. It also played a part in the transmission of the Black Death, the epidemic of plague that swept Eurasia and North Africa during the 14th century. Along the way it seems to have influenced both the development of clockwork and theoretical analyses of motion.

The trebuchet succeeded the catapult, which in turn was a mechanization of the bow [see "Ancient Catapults," by Werner Soedel and Vernard Foley; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 1979]. Catapults drew their energy from the elastic deformation of twisted ropes or sinews, whereas trebuchets relied on gravity or direct human power, which proved vastly more effective.

Recovering Lost Knowledge

The average catapult launched a missile weighing between 13 and 18 kilograms, and the most commonly used heavy catapults had a capacity of 27 kilograms. According to Philo of Byzantium, however, even these machines could not inflict much damage on walls at a distance of 160 meters. The most powerful trebuchets, in contrast, could launch missiles weighing a ton or more. Furthermore, their maximum range could exceed that of ancient artillery.

We have only recently begun to reconstruct the history and operating principles of the trebuchet. Scholars as yet have made no comprehensive effort to examine all the available evidence. In particular, Islamic technical literature has been neglected. The most important surviving technical treatise on these machines is Kitab aniq fi al-manajaniq (An Elegant Book on Trebuchets), written in 1462 C.E. by Yusuf ibn Urunbugha al- Zaradkash. One of the most profusely illustrated Arabic manuscripts ever produced, it provides detailed construction and operating information. These writings are particularly significant because they offer a unique insight into the applied mechanics of premodern societies.

We have made scale models and computer simulations that have taught us a great deal about the trebuchet's operation. As a result, we believe we have uncovered design principles essentially lost since the Middle Ages. In addition, we have found historical materials that push back the date of the trebuchet's spread and reveal its crucial role in medieval warfare.

Historians had previously assumed that the diffusion of trebuchets westward from China occurred too late to affect the initial phase of the Islamic conquests, from 624 to 656. Recent work by one of us (Chevedden), however, shows that trebuchets reached the eastern Mediterranean by the late 500s, were known in Arabia and were used with great effect by Islamic armies. The technological sophistication for which Islam later became known was already manifest.

The Mongol conquests, the largest in human history, also owed something to this weapon. As a cavalry nation, the Mongols employed Chinese and Muslim engineers to build and operate trebuchets for their sieges. At the investment of Kaffa in the Crimea in 1345- 46, the trebuchet's contribution to biological warfare had perhaps its most devastating impact. As Mongol forces besieged this Genoese outpost on the Crimean peninsula, the Black Death swept through their ranks. Diseased corpses were then hurled into the city, and from Kaffa the Black Death spread to the Mediterranean ports of Europe via Genoese merchants.

The trebuchet came to shape defensive as well as offensive tactics. Engineers thickened walls to withstand the new artillery and redesigned fortifications to employ trebuchets against attackers. Architects working under al- Adil (1196-1218), Saladin's brother and successor, introduced a defensive system that used gravity-powered trebuchets mounted on the platforms of towers to prevent enemy artillery from coming within effective range. These towers, designed primarily as artillery emplacements, took on enormous proportions to accommodate the larger trebuchets, and castles were transformed from walled enclosures with a few small towers into clusters of large towers joined by short stretches of curtain walls. The towers on the citadels of Damascus, Cairo and Bosra are massive structures, as large as 30 meters square.

Simple but Devastating

The principle of the trebuchet was straightforward. The weapon consisted of a beam that pivoted around an axle that divided the beam into a long and short arm. The longer arm terminated in a cup or sling for hurling the missile, and the shorter one in an attachment for pulling ropes or a counterweight. When the device was positioned for launch, the short arm was aloft; when the beam was released, the long end swung upward, hurling the missile from the sling.

Three major forms developed: traction machines, powered by crews pulling on ropes; counterweight machines, activated by the fall of large masses; and hybrid forms that employed both gravity and human power. When traction machines first appeared in the Mediterranean world at the end of the sixth century, their capabilities were so far superior to those of earlier artillery that they were said to hurl "mountains and hills." The most powerful hybrid machines could launch shot about three to six times as heavy as that of the most commonly used large catapults. In addition, they could discharge significantly more missiles in a given time.

Counterweight machines went much further. The box for the weight might be the size of a peasant's hut and contain tens of thousands of kilograms. The projectile on the other end of the arm might weigh between 200 and 300 kilograms, and a few trebuchets reportedly threw stones weighing between 900 and 1,360 kilograms. With such increased capability, even dead horses or bundled humans could be flung. A modern reconstruction made in England has tossed a compact car (476 kilograms without its engine) 80 meters using a 30-ton counterweight.

During their heyday, trebuchets received much attention from engineers- indeed, the very word "engineering" is intimately related to them. In Latin and the European vernaculars, a common term for trebuchet was "engine" (from ingenium, "an ingenious contrivance"), and those who designed, made and used them were called ingeniators.

Engineers modified the early designs to increase range by extracting the most possible energy from the falling counterweight and to increase accuracy by minimizing recoil. The first difference between counterweight machines and their traction forebears is that the sling on the end of the arm is much longer. This change affects performance dramatically by increasing the effective length of the throwing arm. It also opens the way for a series of additional improvements by making the angle at which the missile is released largely independent of the angle of the arm. By varying the length of the sling ropes, engineers could ensure that shot left the machine at an angle of about 45 degrees to the vertical, which produces the longest trajectory.

At the same time, so that more of the weight's potential energy converts to motion, the sling should open only when the arm has reached an approximately vertical position (with the counterweight near the bottom of its travel). Observations of the trebuchet may have aided the emergence of important medieval insights into the forces associated with moving bodies.

Swinging Free

The next crucial innovation was the development of the hinged counterweight. During the cocking process, the boxes of hinged counterweight machines hang directly below the hinge, at an angle to the arm; when the arm of the trebuchet is released, the hinge straightens out. As a result of this motion, the counterweight's distance from the pivot point, and thus its mechanical advantage, varies throughout the cycle.

The hinge significantly increases the amount of energy that can be delivered through the beam to the projectile. Medieval engineers observed that hinged counterweight machines, all else being equal, would throw their projectiles farther than would fixed-weight ones. Our computer simulations indicate that hinged counterweight machines delivered about 70 percent of their energy to the projectile. They lose some energy after the hinge has opened fully, when the beam begins to pull the counterweight sideways.

Although it exacts a small cost, this swinging of the counterweight has a significant braking effect on the rotating beam. Together with the transfer of energy to the sling as it lifts off and turns about the beam, the braking can bring the beam nearly to a stop as it comes upright. The deceleration eases the strain on the machine's framework just as the missile departs. As a result, the frame is less likely to slide or bounce. Some pieces of classical-era artillery, such as the onager, were notorious for bucking and had to be mounted on special compressible platforms. The much gentler release of the trebuchet meant that engineers did not have to reposition the frame between shots and so could shoot more rapidly and accurately. A machine of medium size built by the Museum of Falsters Minder in Denmark has proved capable of grouping its shots, at a range of 180 meters, within a six-meter square.

Capturing the Trebuchet's Lessons

Later engineers attempted to capture the great power that trebuchets represented. Some of these efforts are made visible in historical records by the proliferation of counterweight boxes in the form of the mathematical curve called the saltcellar, or salinon. The counterweight boxes of the more elaborate trebuchets took this shape because it concentrated the mass at the farthest distance from the hinge and also reduced the clearance necessary between the counterweight and the frame. The same form reappeared on later machines that incorporated pendulums, such as pendulum- driven saws and other tools.

Most attempts to extend the trebuchet's principles failed because the counterweight's power could not be harnessed efficiently. Success came only in timekeeping, where it was not the trebuchet's great force but rather its regular motion that engineers sought. Pendulums were a dramatic step forward in accuracy from earlier controller mechanisms.

Although the pendulum is usually associated with the time of Galileo and Christiaan Huygens, evidence for pendulum controllers can be traced back to a family of Italian clockmakers to whom Leonardo da Vinci was close. Indeed, da Vinci explicitly says some of his designs can be used for telling time. His drawings include a hinge between the pendulum shaft and bob, just as advanced trebuchets hinged their counterweights, and show notable formal resemblances to fixed counterweight machines as well. In the case of earlier clockwork, there is a marked similarity both in form and in motion between the saltcellar counterweight and a speed controller called the strob. The strob oscillates about its shaft just as the counterweight does before quieting down at the end of a launch.

Trebuchets also appear to have played a role in the greatest single medieval advance in physical science, the innovations in theoretical mechanics associated with Jordanus of Nemore. The key to Jordanus's contribution is his concept of positional gravity, a revival in the Middle Ages of the idea of a motion vector, or the directedness of a force. Jordanus held that for equal distances traveled, a weight was "heavier," or more capable of doing work, when its line of descent was vertical rather than oblique. In particular, he compared cases in which the descents were linear with those that followed arcs. Eventually this understanding led to the notion that work is proportional to weight and vertical distance of descent, no matter what path is taken.

The connection is clear. Engineers knew that machines with hinged counterweights, in which the weight descends essentially straight down during the first, crucial part of the launch cycle, would throw stones farther than would their fixed counterweight equivalents, in which the mass travels in a curve.

Other aspects of Jordanus's work may show military connections as well. The suspension of the hinged counterweight, with the constantly changing leverage of its arm, may have spurred Jordanus's related attempts to analyze the equilibrium of bent levers and to emphasize that it was the horizontal distance between the mass on a lever arm and its fulcrum that determined the work it could do. Observations of the differing distances to which fixed and hinged counterweight machines could throw their stones may have helped Jordanus in his pioneering efforts to define the concept of work, or force times distance. Jordanus's observations are usually studied as an example of pure physics, based on the teachings of earlier natural philosophers, such as Archimedes. The closeness of his mechanics to trebuchet function, however, suggests that engineering practice may have stimulated theory. Closing the circle, Galileo later incorporated such Jordanian ideas as virtual displacement, virtual work and the analysis of inclined planes to support such newer mechanics as his famous analysis of the trajectory of cannon shot.

Galileo's theoretical innovations came only after the replacement of trebuchets by cannon, a process that took nearly two centuries and was not fully accomplished until metallic shot replaced stones. The last instance of trebuchet use comes from the New World, at the siege of TenochtitlĂĄn (Mexico City) in 1521. As ammunition was running critically low, CortĂŠs eagerly accepted a proposal to build a trebuchet. The machine took several days to build, and at the first launch the stone went straight up, only to return and smash it. In view of the tremendous power of these devices, and the finesse required to make them function properly, would-be replicators should take careful note.

Further Reading

TREBUCHETS. Donald R. Hill in Viator, Vol. 4,

pages 99-115; 1973.

CHINA'S TREBUCHETS, MANNED AND

COUNTERWEIGHTED. Joseph Needham in

On Pre-Modern Technology and Science: Studies

in Honor of Lynn White, Jr. Edited by Bert S.

Hall and Delno C. West. Undena Publications,

1976.

BESSON, DA VINCI, AND THE EVOLUTION

OF THE PENDULUM: SOME FIND-INGS

AND OBSERVATIONS. Vernard Foley, Darlene

Sedlock, Carole Widule and David Ellis in

History and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pages

1-43; 1988.

ARTILLERY IN LATE ANTIQUITY: PRELUDE

TO THE MIDDLE AGES. Paul E.

Chevedden in The Medieval City under Siege.

Edited by Ivy Corfis and Michael Wolfe. Boydell

& Brewer, 1995.

SCIENCE AND CIVILIZATION IN CHINA,

Vol. 5: CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL

TECHNOLOGY, Part 6: MILITARY TECHNOLOGY:

MISSILES AND SIEGES. Joseph

Needham and Robin D. S. Yates. Cambridge

University Press, 1995.

General Lee's troops had been fighting here for three days. At around 3 p.m., July 3, 1863, the final stroke was about to begin. The three Confederate brigades of Pickett's division, joined by six more from Hill's corps-15,000 to 17,500 men-dressed ranks in a line 1,000 yards long and marched, rifles on their shoulders, toward the Union positions on Cemetery Ridge about a half-mile away.

Regimental battle flags fluttered in the breeze, as the troops marched in time with their drums. Robert E. Lee watched the steady lines admiringly, confident that his "invincible" troops would pierce the Union center and end this dreadful war.

A few minutes later, the steady lines, most of the regimental colors and all of the drums were gone. In their place was a panicked mob of about 7,000 men. Pickett's division, which had led the charge, had lost two thirds of its men.

Histories give much of the credit to the destruction of Pickett's Charge to the Union artillery, which had held its fire to save ammunition during the artillery duel that preceded the charge. But a much more potent force was the weapon in the hands of the common infantry soldier: the minie rifle. Because of the invention of Captain Charles Claude Etienne Minié of the French Army, rifles could at last be loaded as fast as smoothbores. In all modern armies, the infantry was equipped with rifles, called rifle muskets to show that they were basic military weapons, able to take bayonets, not the specialized rifles of the past, which were basically hunting weapons.

Rifles had been around since the 16th century, but they were so slow to load that the military had ignored them. The lead bullet had to be large enough to force the "lands," the raised portion of the spiral rifling, to cut into the bullet. That was necessary to impart a spin to the projectile as it traveled down the barrel. And that meant the slug had to be literally hammered down the barrel. Later, sportsmen discovered that, if the bullet was wrapped in a greased piece of cloth or leather, the rifling would spin it if the twist were not too rapid. But even using a greased patch, loading was still far slower than loading a smoothbore. Besides, black powder, the only propellant available at the time, left a lot of solid residue in the barrel. After a few shots, this black gunk filled the rifling grooves and made loading practically impossible.

What Captain Minié did was invent a bullet that was considerably smaller than the bore, so there was no trouble loading it, but that when the charge was fired, expanded into the rifling grooves and spun as it left the muzzle. Minié's first bullet had an iron cup inserted into the hollow base of the conical lead bullet. When the powder charge exploded, it drove the cup into the bullet, which forced the sides of the bullet into the grooves. Later ordnance experts discovered that the iron cup was not necessary: the explosion alone was enough to expand the base of the bullet. Because the Minié bullet was longer than a round ball, it was also heavier. That meant it had greater "sectional density," which resisted retardation by the atmosphere and gave it greater penetration. The close fit of bullet to the bore greatly increased accuracy. The bullet of a smoothbore, being smaller than the bore, literally bounced around inside the barrel as it traveled through the gun. And, of course, the spin imparted gyroscopic stability and prevented unequal air resistance on the front of the bullet.

A British officer in the Revolutionary War, Major George Hanger, said, "A soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him." Hanger also said that only if a musket were perfectly bored, as few of them were, would a soldier be likely to be hit at 80 yards.

The rifled musket would hit man-sized targets at 800 yards.

The American Civil War was a good-and gory-example of how generals fight the previous war and what happens when they do. Lee's tactics at Gettysburg would have seemed quite familiar to his fellow Virginian, George Washington. Pickett's troops lined up, dressed ranks, shouldered their rifles, and marched up to the enemy. But where soldiers in the 18th century might wait to see the whites of the enemies' eyes, the Yankees began picking off Pickett's men almost as soon as they began to march.

In the 1860 census, the population of the United States was 31,443,321. In the Civil War, there were 364,512 Union deaths and 133,821 Confederate deaths- although Confederate figures are almost certainly incomplete. Even with the grossly inadequate Confederate figures, that 498,333 death toll amounts to l.6 percent of the entire population. In World War II, U.S. forces suffered 407, 316 deaths; the U.S. population was 132,164,569 in the 1940 census. The American Civil War remains in both proportionate and absolute term the bloodiest war in our history.

That was the result of the universal use of rifled weapons and smoothbore tactics.

Besides the slaughter of infantry, the Minié bullet-"minnie ball" to the troops-also meant the end of the traditional cavalry charge. A man on horseback makes a big target, and he can seldom lie down or take advantage of cover provided by the terrain. After a few bloody lessons, the generals adapted cavalry tactics to the new conditions more quickly than they changed infantry tactics. Most of the cavalry fighting in the Civil War was done by dismounted troopers. Cavalry were used mostly as mounted infantry and some mounted infantry outfits, like Wilder's "Lightning Brigade," were used as cavalry.

Towards the end of the Civil War, American infantry occasionally modified the traditional charge by increasing the use of skirmishers and advancing by rushes. On the defensive, they used trenches and other field fortifications to an extent unseen until World War I. It took a long time for the lessons to really sink in, though, especially in Europe. In South Africa, the British had to relearn the lessons in 1881 and in 1899 when faced with improved rifles. And in World War I, there were still cavalry units on the Western Front preparing to exploit the breakthroughs that never came.

LINK

LINK

Breguet 693

Type Ground attack
Manufacturer Breguet, SNCAC
Designed by Georges Ricard
Maiden flight 1938
Introduced 1939
Retired 1942
Primary user French Air Force
Produced 1939-1940
Number built approx. 230

The Breguet 690 and its derivatives were a series of light twin-engined aircraft that were used by the French Air Force in World War II.

The aircraft was well designed, easy to maintain, pleasant to fly and could fly at 480 km/h at 4,000 metres (13,000 feet). The type's sturdy construction was frequently demonstrated and the armament was effective. Like the Bloch 175 light bomber and the LeO 451 and Amiot 351 medium bombers, the Breguet 693 showed that French designers were as good as any in the world. Unfortunately, French rearmament began two full years later than that in Britain and all of these fine aircraft were simply not available in sufficient numbers to make a difference in 1940.

Development

The 690 had begun life in 1934 as Breguet's response to the same, quite far sighted strategic fighter specification that resulted in the eventual winner, the Potez 630. Both were attractive twin-engined monoplanes with twin tailplanes, powered by Hispano-Suiza 14AB radial engines of modern design and, for the time, good performance. Breguet considered the weight limits of the specification, that required a twin-engined, three-man aircraft to be lighter than 3,000 kg (later 3,500 kg) to be overly restrictive and ignored them. Instead, the design was advertised as particularly versatile, with reconnaissance, ground attack and level bombing derivatives proposed that required no structural changes. Unsurprisingly, Breguet lost out in the competition to Potez, but confident in the 690's potential, nevertheless began building a prototype on its own funds.

After considerable debate and delay the French Air Staff decided to acquire modern ground attack aircraft. Engineless for nearly a year, the 690-01 prototype displayed such promise that 100 two-seat attack bomber versions known as the Breguet 691 AB2 were ordered in mid 1938, an order soon doubled. For the ground attack role, the 691's equipment included a 20 mm cannon and a pair of light machine guns firing forward, as well as an internal bomb rack that could be used in a shallow dive attack and was typically loaded with eight 50 kg-class (110 lb) bombs. Rear defense was provided by one flexible light machine gun, while a fixed, rearwards firing weapon of the same type was fitted under the fuselage to discourage low-flying attacking fighters or ground fire from behind. A set of armour plates protected the crew, and fuel tanks had rudimentary self-sealing capability, but in spite of this the Breguet 690's protection proved very insufficient in combat.

Breguet established an assembly line with remarkable speed: the first production aircraft flew less than a year after being ordered and was in service before the end of 1939.

As with the Potez 630, the Bre 691 was beset with engine difficulties. Hispano-Suiza had decided to concentrate on its V12 liquid cooled engines and the 14AB engine was unreliable. The French authorities decided to order a new version, the Bre 693 powered by Gnome-Rhône 14M radials. Apart from the changed engines, which were of slightly smaller diameter, the two types were virtually identical. Orders for the Bre 691 were switched to the new type and more than 200 of the latter had been completed by the time of France's defeat.

Late production versions of the Bre 693 introduced propulsive exhaust pipes that improved top speed by a small margin as well as, according to some sources, a pair of additional light machine guns in the tail of each engine nacelle. Belgium ordered 32 licence built copies but none were completed before the Belgian collapse. In the haste to get the Bre 693 into production the opportunity was lost to specify a low-level version of the Gnome-Rhône 14M, but in time no doubt this would have been remedied.

Variants

Breguet Bre.690 - The Bre.690.01 prototype flew for the first time on 23 March 1938 powered by two 680 hp (507 kW) Hispano-Suiza 14AB-02/03 counter-rotating engines. Delivered to the CEMA for official trials in the summer of that year, the Bre.690 was found to have a performance superior to that of the Potez 630, but in late August it was returned to Breguet for modification of the landing gear.

Breguet Bre.691 - The Bre.691.01 prototype flew for the first time on 22 March 1939 powered by two 700 hp (522 kW) Hispano-Suiza 14AB-10/11 radial engines. Configured especially to satisfy the attack role, featuring twin end-plate fins and rudders, and a retractable tailwheel.

Breguet Bre.693 - The Bre.693.01 prototype flew for the first time on 25 October 1939. With the Hispano-Suiza engines proving unreliable, modifications were made to incorporate the 700 hp (522 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14M-6/7 Mars 14-cylinder two-row radial engines. 234 examples being built.

Breguet Bre.694 - A single Bre.694.01 prototype, intended initially as a three-seat tactical reconnaissance aircraft, and later as a two or three-seat version for use in a bomber/reconnaissance role, and which had appealed respectively to Belgium and Sweden, was delivered to the Aeronavale on 1 June 1940. This was generally similar to the original Bre.690, with the navigator's compartment restored, and powered by two 710 hp (529 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14M-4/5 engines.

Breguet Bre.695 - The Bre.695.01 flew for the first time in early 1940 powered by Two 825 hp (615 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SB4G Twin Wasp Junior 14-cylinder two-row radial engines mated with a Bre.693 airframe. This type resulted from a new French policy to ensure that if French engine plants were overrun, engines of foreign design could be used instead. 50 examples were built.

Breguet Bre.696.01 - A single prototype first flown on 3 November 1939 and modified (slightly enlarged weapons bay) for use as a two seat light bomber. Never put into production.

Breguet Bre.697 - A single pre-prototype first flown on 19 October 1939 designed for use as heavily armed 'destroyer' which would have become the Bre.700. It was powered by two 1,070 hp (798 kW) Gnome-Rhône 14N-48/49 radial engines. The single example was destroyed by the French to prevent it from falling into German hands.

Fewer than 250 Breguet 690 series aircraft were completed. The Armée de l'air received only 211 examples: 75 Bre.691s, 128 Bre.693s, and 8 Bre.695s, but the Germans captured a few dozen complete or near-complete aircraft at the factories.

Operational Service

A small experimental unit had been experimenting with ground attack tactics since 1937, initially in outdated biplanes such as the Potez 25, then in ANF Les Mureaux 115 monoplanes. Eventually, the Armée de l'Air concluded that low-altitude level-bombing was more suitable than dive-bombing for engaging enemy vehicles and artillery over the battlefield. The chosen tactic consisted in a nap-of-the-earth approach at maximum speed, followed by a strafing run or the delivery of time-delayed bombs directly over the target. French commanders widely considered this tactic as safe for the attackers, as anti-aircraft weapons then in service would be inefficient. It should be noted that the French army was not using anti-aircraft autocannons at the time (the 25 mm Hotchkiss and 20 mm Oerlikon guns were only issued later), but only rifle-calibre machine guns and slow-firing 75 mm cannons.

In late 1939, two squadrons staffed with volunteers from level bomber units were gathered in the small airfield near Vinon-sur-Verdon, where they began their operational training. As Breguet 691s were not available yet, the crews flew the Potez 633 light level bomber. When they were eventually delivered, the little Breguets were popular with their crews, although the unreliable engines in the Bre 691 caused headaches and undercarriage failures proved especially troublesome. Only in March 1940 were the first combat-worthy Bre. 693s delivered, and there were now five squadrons to equip: GBA I/51, GBA II/51, GBA I/54, GBA II/54, and GBA II/35 (GBA stands for Groupe de bombardement d'assaut - assault bomber squadron), with a theoretical complement of 13 aircraft each.

Because of this late delivery, crews were still working up their new machines and developing tactics when the Germans attacked. On May 12, GBAs I/54 and II/54 performed the Breguet's first operational sorties, against German motorized columns in the Maastricht-Tongeren-Bilsen area. German anti-aircraft fire was so devastating that only eight of the 18 Bre.693s returned.

The disastrous results of this first engagement forced the French commanders to reconsider their tactics. Until May 15th GBA crews performed shallow dive attacks from higher altitude, which resulted in reduced losses, but the attacks had clearly been inaccurate, as the Breguets lacked a bombsight, and they increased vulnerability to enemy fighters. On the following missions the GBAs re-introduced low-level attacks, but with smaller formations. As the battle quickly evolved towards the collapse of the French armies, the assault groups were engaged daily, still enduring losses to the AAA, but also to enemy fighters.

In late June, the Armée de l'Air tried to evacuate its modern aircraft to North Africa, out of German reach, from where many hoped to continue the fight. Unfortunately the short-ranged Breguets were not able to cross the Mediterranean. Unlike other French modern types, the Breguet 690 family saw its combat career end with the Armistice.

At this point in time, 119 aircraft had been lost, including 68 to direct enemy action, and a further 14 were written off as too heavily damaged. The five GBAs had therefore endured a matériel loss rate of 63%, while crew casualties accounted for nearly 50%.

After the Armistice, the Vichy authorities were allowed to maintain a small air force in mainland France, and its assault bomber pilots flew rare training flights in the Bre.693 and Bre.695. After the Germans occupied all of France in late 1942 some of the survivors were transferred to Italy for use as operational trainer aircraft.

Specifications (Bre.693 AB2)
General characteristics

* Crew: two, pilot and rear gunner
* Length: 9.67 m (31 ft 9 in)
* Wingspan: 15.37 m (50 ft 5 in)
* Height: 3.19 m (10 ft 6 in)
* Wing area: 29.2 m2 (314 ft2)
* Empty weight: 3,675 kg (8,101 lb)
* Useful load: 5,420 kg (11,949 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,125 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Gnome-Rhône 14M-6/7 , 522 kW (700 hp) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 490 km/h (304 mph)
* Range: 1,350 km (839 miles)
* Service ceiling: 8,500 m (27,885 ft)
* Rate of climb: 555 m/min (1,822 ft/min)

Armament

* 1x fixed forward-firing 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon
* 2x fixed forward-firing 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine guns
* 1x flexible, rearward-firing 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine gun in rear cockpit
* 1x fixed, rearward-firing 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine gun in ventral position
* 460 kg (1,014 lb) of bombs

With its 40m wingspan and an all-up-weight of 20280kg, design of the six 450hp Napier Lion-powered Tarrant Tabor began in the latter stages of World War I. It was intended to carry a 700kg bombload to Berlin from an English airfield. Estimated to have had a top level speed of 170km/h, F 1765, the sole example of the Tabor built, was readied for its maiden flight from the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough on 26 May, 1919. The pilot and co-pilot selected to make the flight were Captains F.G. Dunn and P.T. Rawlings. For whatever reason, it was decided that the first take-off run would be attempted with only the lower four engines at full throttle. However, as the colossal machine rolled across the airfield, the pilots brought both of the upper engines to full power, causing the aircraft to nose over into the ground and to inflict fatal injuries on both men.

The problem seems not to have been with the size but with the need to change the engine layout and wing structure. Originally this was a 4 engined bi-plane but the intended engines were not available and had to supplanted with 6 less powerful versions, at the same time the third wing was added and that is when the problems came about. Had it been built as originally intended it would have been an elegant type for the time.

LINK

Mirage 2000-5 Mk2

The most advanced version in the Mirage 2000 family.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 is a new-generation advanced multirole combat aircraft, descending from the Mirage 2000 lineage, already proven under operational conditions with the air forces of eight countries.

Operational experience, especially within multinational forces, has shown the need for an increased fuel capacity and firepower. This requirement has been fulfilled with the introduction of the Mirage 2000-5 in operational service in 1997.

As new markets were conquered by the Mirage 2000-5, the users of the earlier versions became interested in the aircraft new capabilities.

New Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 aircraft complete existing fleets, and operational aircraft are modernised to gain the same operational capabilities.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 incorporates new technologies and functionalities often derived from the experience gained in the RAFALE aircraft development.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 is ideally suited to interception and air superiority missions.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 is entirely suited to high-altitude interception operations at high supersonic speeds (Mach 2.2 at 50,000ft) thanks to its aerodynamic qualities and its engine, thus allowing it to counter high-performance hostiles. Thanks to a new external load configuration, with air-to-air missiles fitted on the side fuselage hardpoints, the new aircraft offers a much-enhanced firepower.

With these new characteristics, the Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 offers outstanding multirole capabilities and ranks among the best in its category, as demonstrated by its success on the export market.

The Mirage 2000-9, ordered by the United Arab Emirates, belongs to the family of the new Mirage 2000-5 Mk2, purchased by Greece.

The Mirage 2000 is a French-built multirole fighter jet manufactured by Dassault Aviation. Designed in the late seventies as a lightweight fighter for the Armée de l'Air, it evolved into a successful multirole aircraft now in service in 9 countries with more than 600 airplanes built.

Development

The Avion de Combat Futur(ACF) was developed for the French Air Force in the early 1970s. After the ACF was cancelled on 18 December 1975 due to its growing cost and complexity, Dassault offered the Mirage 2000 as an alternative. This was the return to first generation Mirages, but with several important innovations that tried to solve their shortcomings. Chief projectist were B.C. Valliéres, J.Cabrière, J.C. Veber and B.Revellin-Falcoz[1].

Development of this small aircraft would also give the company a competitor to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, which had defeated the Dassault Mirage F1 in a contest for a new fighter for the air forces of Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway. Small single-engined fighters were clearly the most appreciated by foreigner customers, as experience with the larger, twin-engined Mirage 4000 would show.

The prototype made its first flight in March 10, 1978 with test pilot Jean Coreau at the controls. Despite the new technologies applied, basing the new aircraft on the Mirage III allowed the development of a flyable prototype in only 27 months from the program start to the first flight, even if active service status needed another six years.

In that summer, at Farnbourgh airshow this machine displayed not only excellent handling capabilities, but also a full control at 204 km/h and 26 AoA. This was totally unexpected by a delta-wing fighter, and proof how CCD controls were capable to override the delta wing shortcomings, related with bad low-speed control, while retaining the advantages, as low-drag, low RCS, ideal high speed aerodynamic and simplicity, being without horizontal tail surfaces. Mirage 2000 was one of the star of that edition and became the direct adversary for F-16, which shared the CCD control and relaxed stability [2]. 02 followed in 18 September 1978 and 03 in 26 September 1979 After 400 hours of flight, they were sent to CEV (Centre Experimental du Vol). 04 Prototype was a demonstrator made by Dassault for own purposes, and finally the first dual-seat M.2000B flew in 11 October 1980.

The first production example flew in November 20, 1982 and the aircraft went into operational service in 1984. They were practically pre-production aircraft, because they had no SARH missiles (RDM-1 radar) and the first model of SNECMA 'Super Atar'. M-53-2. The last Mirage 2000 was delivered on November 23, 2007.[3]

The Mirage 2000 is scheduled to be replaced in French service by the Dassault Rafale, which became operational with the French Air Force on June 27, 2006. The Mirage 2000 production line was shut down in November 2007 after the last aircraft had been delivered to the Hellenic Air Force.

Design

Using the concept of the delta wing interceptor seen on the Dassault Mirage III, Dassault built a new design but still using a delta wing. This configuration is not ideal with regard to maneuverability, low-altitude flight, and distance required for take-off and landing, but has advantages in high-speed flight characteristics, simplicity of construction, low radar signature and internal volume.

Features

Low-set thin delta wing with cambered section, 58 degrees leading-edge sweep (4 at the exit wing border) and moderately blended root; area-ruled; two small canard wings, fixed, placed just behind the air intakes. The flight commands on the wing are: four elevons (+15/-30°), four slats, four airbrakes (2 above and 2 below each wing.)

Parachute brake is on the tail, just above the engine exhaust.

The aircraft's center of lift was moved in front of its center of gravity, giving the fighter a degree of instability that enhances maneuverability.

A runway arresting hook or fairing for a brake parachute can be fitted under the tail. The landing roll was reduced by robust carbon brakes. The backward-retracting, steerable nose gear features dual wheels, while the main gear features single wheels and retracts inward into the wings.

An airbrake is fitted on top and below each wing in an arrangement very similar to that of the Mirage III. A noticeably taller tailfin allows the pilot to retain control at higher angles of attack, assisted by small strakes mounted along each air intake.

First fighter jet with negative static stability. [4]

Structure

Multi-spar metal wing; elevons have carbon-fiber skins with AG5 light alloy honeycomb cores; carbon-fiber/light alloy honeycomb panel covers avionics bay; most of the tailfin and all of the rudder are skinned with boron/epoxy/carbon; the rudder has a light alloy honeycomb core.

Flight control system

The aircraft has a redundant fly-by-wire automatic flight control system, providing a high degree of agility and easier handling, together with stability and precise control in all situations. Fighter's Airframe is naturally unstable, and so it is coupled with FBW commands to obtain the best agility; however, in override mode it is still possible to exceed a 270 deg/sec roll rate and allows the aircraft to reach 11 g (within the 12 g structural limit), instead of nine when engaged. The system is reliable with no known losses due to its failure.

Landing gear

The aircraft uses a retractable tricycle type landing gear by Messier-Bugatti, with twin nosewheels and a single wheel on each main gear. Hydraulic retraction, nosewheels rearward, main units inward. Oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers. Electrohydraulic nosewheel steering (+/-45 degrees). Manual disconnect permits the nosewheel unit to caster through 360 degrees for ground towing.

Cockpit

The fighter is available as a single-seat or two-seat multi-role fighter. The aircraft has hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control. The pilot sits on a SEMB Mark 10 zero-zero ejection seat, a license-built version of the British Martin-Baker Mark 10. Contrary to the F-16, the pilot sits in a conventional position, without the heavy slope that the F-16 seat has. The cockpit is quite small, and there is no bubble canopy. Despite this, the cockpit visibility is quite good, but less than the F-16, especially at 'six O' clock' (rear) position.

The instrument panel(in Mirage 2000 C) is dominated by a Heads Up Display (HUD) with the VMC 180 radar screen located centrally below it. To the lower left is a stores management panel. Above the stores management panel are the navigation instruments and altimeter. The right half of the instrument panel houses the engine and systems displays. Located on the left side of the cockpit, just ahead of the throttle, are controls for the communications equipment, including the Have Quick secure radio.

Avionics

Standard avionics for the Mirage-2000B/C include:

Sagem ULISS 52 inertial navigation system (INS), TRT radio altimeter.

Sextant TMV-980 data display system (VE-130 head-up and VMC-180 head-down) (two head-down in 2000N/D). The combined head-up/head-level display is collimated at infinity, and presents data relating to flight control, navigation, target engagement and weapon firing. Sensor and system management data is presented on two colored lateral displays.

Dassault Electronique Type 2084 central digital computer, Digibus digital databus (2084 XR in 2000D) and Sextant Avionique Type 90 air data computer.

LMT NRAI-7A IFF transponder, IO-300-A marker beacon receiver, TRT ERA 7000 V/UHF com transceiver, TRT ERA 7200 UHF or EAS secure voice communications.

Radar

Thomson-CSF RDM multi-mode radar or Dassault Electronique/Thomson-CSF RDI pulse-Doppler radar for the Mirage 2000C/D, each with an operating range of 54 nm (100 km / 62 miles). This unit was an evolution of Cyrano radars, with more modern processing units and look-down/shoot-down capabilities. The effective range is around 60-70 km with modest capabilities against low-level targets. It is linked with Super R.530F missiles, and equipped the first 37 aircraft delivered to the French Air Force (Armeé de l'Air) and most exported Mirages. It has multirole capabilities that enable its use in air-to-surface tasks, including anti-ship roles. The very early RDM were still not linked with the Super R.530F missiles, but it was solved quickly.

RDI interception radar. A specialized radar for air-to-air tasks delivered mainly with the Mirage 2000C for the Armée de l'Air. It has a much improved range of about 150 km, and is linked to Super R.530D missiles; much improved compared to the "F". Look-down/shoot-down capabilities are much improved as well, but this radar is not usually used for air-to-surface roles.

Dassault/Thales Antelope 5 Radar with terrain avoidance capability for Mirage 2000N Nuclear Strike variant.

The Thales multimode RDY (Radar Doppler Multitarget) developed for the Mirage 2000-5. Third generation radar, with multiple target capabilities (comparable to the AWG-9) and MICA missiles. This radar equipped many of the most recently exported M.2000s, as-well as the first Mirage 2000RDM updated to 2000-5 standard.

Countermeasures

Thales Serval Radar warning receiver (RWR) with antennas on the wingtips and on the rear of the top of the tailfin.

Dassault Sabre RF jammer in a pod below the bottom of the tailfin, with an antenna in a fairing on the front of the tailfin.

Dassault Eclair dispenser system under the tail. This was eventually replaced by a pair of Matra Spirale dispensers, one fitted on an extension behind the rear of each wingroot, giving a total capacity of 224 cartridges.

Engines

The Mirage 2000 is equipped with a SNECMA M53-5 (first 37 airplanes), or SNECMA M53-P2 low-baypass ratio turbofan engine, depending on the aircraft version, which provides 64 kN of thrust dry and 98 kN in afterburner. The air intakes are fitted with an adjustable half-cone-shaped centerbody, which provides an inclined shock of air pressure for highly efficient air intake. Total internal fuel capacity is 3,978 litres in the Mirage 2000C and E, and 3,904 litres in the Mirage 2000B, N, D and S. There are also provisions for a jettisonable 1,300-litre centerline fuselage fuel tank and for a 1,700-litre drop tank under each wing.

Armament and payload

The Mirage 2000 can carry up to 6.3 tons (13,900 lb) of stores on nine pylons, with two pylons on each wing and five under the fuselage. A fixed removable refuelling probe can be attached in front of the cockpit, offset slightly to the right of center.

Primary armament of the Mirage 2000 includes

Built-in armament consisted of twin DEFA 554 (now GIAT 30-550 F4) 30 mm revolver-type cannons with 125 rounds each. The cannons have selectable fire rates of 1,200 or 1,800 rounds per minute. Ammunitions weight 275 g and have a muzzle velocity of around 800 m/s. Even if this is not an impressive value (due to the 30x113 ammunition standard) this gives the noticeable capability to fire up to 16 kg/second, while the M61 Vulcan reaches only (at maximum theoretical ROF) 6 kg (ammunitions weights around 100 gr).

Matra Super 530 medium-range semi-active radar-guided air-to-air missile on the inboard wing pylons and underbelly one.

MICA missiles are replacing the previous. They are available only on the Mirage 2000-5 and further models. They have multiple advantages over previous missiles such as their weight, only 110 kg compared to 250-270 kg. This allows to carry up to 5 missiles under the belly. The data-link, active radar and auto-pilot make these weapons comparable to the heavier AMRAAM. The range is around 60 km, even more than the Super R.530D. So a Mirage 2000-5 with 4 MICA can engage four targets at the same time up to 60 km range, while a Mirage 2000 RDI can engage only two (not at the same time) within 40 km.

Matra Magic short-range infrared-seeking AAM on the outboard wing pylons. Other missiles are compatible, because Magic itself was meant as 'Sidewinder compatible', so AIM-9J/P/L are often used on exported Mirages, and often other IR missiles are also in the Mirages panoply.

The Mirage 2000C can carry air-to-ground stores such as the Matra 68 mm rocket pods (18 each), iron bombs (both French 250, 400, 1000 kg and Mk 80s series), and cluster bombs like Belouga or foreigner models. Some sub-version, especially those equipped with RDM (mainly used in export models) have the capability to use the Exocet anti-ship missiles.

Combat history

French Mirage 2000s saw operational use during the Gulf War although little combat action. UAE Mirages also flew in the Gulf War, but saw little action.

French Mirage 2000s were prominent participants in U.N. and NATO air operations over the former Yugoslavia, with one aircraft shot down over Bosnia by a heat-seeking surface-to-air missile in 1995, prompting efforts to obtain improved defensive systems.

AdA Mirage 2000Ds served in the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, operating in close conjunction with international forces and performing precision attacks with LGBs.

In summer 2007, after the Rafale fighters have been removed from the theater of operations, 3 French Mirage 2000's were deployed to Afghanistan in support of NATO troops.

Kargil War, 1999: India has assigned the nuclear strike role to their Mirage 2000s. In 1999 when the Kargil conflict broke out, as all the Russian aircraft in the IAF (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27) were having problems operating at high altitudes or were vulnerable to enemy MANPADs, the Mirage 2000 proved ideal for high altitude bombing. The Mirage 2000 performed well during the whole conflict, even though the Mirages supplied to India had limited air interdiction capability and had to be heavily modified to drop dumb and laser-guided bombs. The two Mirage squadrons flew a total of 515 sorties, and in 240 strike missions dropped 55,000 kg of ordnance. Easy maintenance and a very high sortie rate (compared to the Russian fighters in service with the IAF) made the Mirage 2000 the most efficient fighter of the Indian Air Force in the conflict.[citation needed]

Variants: Mirage 2000C

French Mirage 2000C

The first Mirage 2000 to go into service was the single-seat Mirage 2000C interceptor. There were four single-seat prototypes, including the initial Mirage 2000 prototype. The first production Mirage 2000C flew in November 1982. Deliveries began in 1983. The first operational squadron was formed in 1984, the 50th anniversary of the French Air Force. A total of 124 Mirage-2000Cs were obtained by the AdA.

The first 37 Mirage 2000Cs delivered were fitted with the Thomson-CSF RDM (Radar Doppler Multifunction) and were powered by the SNECMA M53-5 turbofan engine. The 38th Mirage 2000C had an upgraded SNECMA M53-5 P2 turbofan engine. The Radar Doppler Impulse (RDI) built by Thales did not enter service until 1987.

Latest upgrades include:

Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NTCR) mode in RDI Radar allows identification of airborne targets not responding on IFF.

Integration with the new Matra MICA (Missile d'Interception, de Combat et d'Autodefense) IR heat-seeking missile. The radar-guided version of the MICA will not be able to support earlier versions of the Mirage 2000.

Mirage 2000B

Mirage 2000 family used by French Air Force.

The Mirage 2000B is two-seat operational conversion trainer variant which performed its initial flight on October 11, 1980. The AdA acquired 30 Mirage 2000Bs, with all three of the AdA fighter wings obtaining a few each for conversion training.

Mirage 2000N and 2000D

The Mirage 2000N is the nuclear strike variant which was intended to carry the Aerospatiale Air-Sol Moyenne Portee (ASMP) nuclear stand-off missile. Initial flight tests of two prototypes began on February 3, 1983, and the Mirage 2000N entered operational service in 1988. A total of 75 were built.

The Mirage 2000D is a dedicated conventional attack variant developed from the Mirage 2000N. Initial flight of the Mirage 2000D prototype, a modified Mirage 2000N prototype, was on February 19, 1991. The first flight of a production aircraft occurred March 31, 1993, and service introduction followed in April 1995. A total of 86 were built.

Mirage 2000-5

By the late 1980s, the Mirage 2000 was beginning to age compared with the latest models of U.S. F-16 fighters, so Thomson-CSF began work on a privately funded update of the Mirage 2000C which was to be named the Mirage 2000-5. A two-seat Mirage 2000B prototype was extensively modified as the first Mirage 2000-5 prototype, and it first flew on October 24, 1990. A Mirage 2000C prototype was then reworked to a similar standard, making its initial flight on April 27, 1991.

Features:

The Thales multimode RDY (Radar Doppler Multitarget). The RDY radar is the heart of the upgrade, providing true multitarget tracking. It can simultaneously detect up to 24 targets and track the eight highest-priority threats while guiding four MICA EMs to different targets simultaneously.

The updated ICMS 2 countermeasures suite and the Samir DDM missile warning system. ICMS 2 incorporates a receiver and associated signal processing system in the nose for detection of hostile missile command data links. The aircraft's self-protection equipment can be interfaced to a new programmable mission-planning and post-mission analysis ground system.

A new glass cockpit layout borrowed from the Rafale program with three-color MFDs, a dual-linked wide-angle HUD / head-level display, and HOTAS controls. The cockpit is NVG-compatible.

Targeting systems included the Thales TV/CT CLDP laser designation pod which provides the capability to fire laser-guided weapons by day and night.

A two-seater version was developed as well. The back-seater has the HUD but not the associated head-level display, and as with first-generation two-seaters, there are no built-in cannon (although cannon pods can be carried).

The Mirage 2000-5 can also carry the oversized drop tanks developed for the Mirage 2000N, greatly extending its range.

In 1993, the AdA decided to upgrade 37 of their existing Mirage 2000s to the 2000-5 specification as a stopgap before the arrival of the Rafale in AdA service. The upgraded aircraft were redesignated Mirage 2000-5F, and became operational in 2000. They retained the old countermeasures system with the Serval/Sabre/Spirale units and did not receive the ICMS 2 system.

The AdA is now considering upgrades for the type, including the MIDS datalink, MICA IR support, and the Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display / sighting system.

Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2

Dassault extended the improvements of the Mirage 2000-5 a bit further with the Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2, which is an enhanced, fully multirole version of the Mirage 2000-5. It is currently the most advanced version of the Mirage 2000.

Features:

Thales RDY-2 radar. This radar system is similar in configuration to the original RDY, but features two new air-to-ground modes, including a high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging mode with a moving target indicator (MTI) capability to provide an all-weather, day/night targeting capability. The radar features low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) operation, with the output pattern varying in a seemingly random pattern that prevents an adversary RWR from recognizing that it has been targeted.

The high-power Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) designed for the Rafale.

A new Thales Totem 3000 INS with ring-laser gyros and GPS capability, providing much greater accuracy, higher reliability, and shorter alignment time replaces the older ULISS 52 system. It works in conjunction with a terrain-following system.

An improved, classified ICMS 3 digital countermeasures suite.

An on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS).

The cockpit was updated as well, retaining the same general layout but with larger color displays and other modernizations. The Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display / sighting system is offered as an option.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 includes a datalink for the targeting of MICA ER missiles and can carry the Damocles targeting pod.

Future Upgrades: Thales AIDA visual identification pod; technology used in the Rafale will be also integrated into the Mirage 2000, including infrared and optical sensors for IFF and targeting. It will be used by AdA Mirage 2000-5Fs. Further development of the second-generation type is expected to include a GPS receiver, MIDS datalink, and unspecified long-range sensors.

Topsight E helmet-mounted sight

Mirage 2000E

"Mirage 2000E" was a blanket designation for a series of export variants of the Mirage 2000. These aircraft were fitted the M53-P2 engine and an enhanced "RDM+" radar, and all can carry the day-only ATLIS II laser targeting pod.

Mirage 2000M (Egypt)

Egypt was the first foreign buyer, ordering 16 single-seat Mirage 2000M and four Mirage 2000BM trainers in late 1981, with deliveries beginning in 1986. The Egyptians also purchased ATLIS II pods and a wide range of appropriate munitions, including Magic and Super 530 AAMs, AS-30L laser-guided ASMs, and Armat anti-radiation missiles.

Mirage 2000H (India)

India have acquired a total of 49 examples, including 42 single-seaters and 7 Mirage two-seaters. The IAF named the Mirage Vajra (Thunderbolt). India also purchased appropriate stores along with the fighters, including ATLIS II pods and laser-guided weapons.

Since India wanted the fighter quickly, the first part of an initial batch of 26 single-seaters and 4 two-seaters was shipped to the Indian Air Force (IAF) beginning in 1985 with the older M53-5 engines. These aircraft were given the designations of Mirage 2000H5 and Mirage 2000TH5.

The second part of this initial batch consisted of 10 more single-seaters with the M53-P2 engine, with these aircraft designated Mirage 2000H. All the first batch was reengined with the M53-P2, with the single-seaters re-designated "Mirage 2000H" and the two-seaters re-designated Mirage 2000TH.

A second batch of six Mirage 2000H single-seaters and three Mirage 2000TH two-seaters was shipped in 1987-1988.

Recent orders:

In 2004, the Indian government approved purchase of ten more Mirage 2000Hs, with these machines featuring improved avionics, particularly an upgraded RDM-7 radar.

The Mirage 2000-5 was the front-runner for a planned Indian Air Force 124+ fighter procurement in which it was competing with the Mikoyan MiG-35, F-16 Falcon and JAS 39 Gripen. However, Dassault announced that Mirage 2000 will be replaced by the Rafale as the contender for the deal since the Mirage 2000 production line is to be closed.

India has announced a $1.9 billion program to arm 52 of its Mirage 2000 aircraft with the MBDA ASRAAM dogfighting missile beginning in 2007. Installation will require new radar, electronic warfare equipment, and updates to the cockpit and data bus. Pilot helmets will require addition of a helmet-mounted sight. These will be the first Mirage aircraft to carry the British missile and Dassault, Thales, and MBDA are to participate in the effort[5].

Mirage 2000P (Peru)

Peru placed an order for 10 single-seat Mirage 2000Ps and 2 Mirage 2000DP trainers. The Peruvians ordered a set of munitions similar to that ordered by Egypt, along with ATLIS II targeting pods.

Mirage 2000-5EI (Taiwan, ROC)

ASTAC pod

In 1992, the Republic of China Air Force ordered 48 single-seat Mirage 2000-5EI interceptors and 12 Mirage 2000-5DI trainers, with introduction of the first squadron in 1997 and the last fighters delivered in 1999. The Taiwanese ordered a set of ASTAC electronic intelligence (ELINT) pods for their Mirages.

France announced in 1992 that it would offer Dassault Mirage 2000-5 fighters to Taiwan. The number of aircraft considered had been rumoured to be 120, but the deal was finalized as 60 aircraft (48 single-seat 2000-5EIs and 12 two-seat 2000-5DIs) on November 17 of the same year. This marks the first ROCAF purchase of French fighters since the arrival of 24 Dewoitine D.510C piston-engine monoplanes in 1937. The program was given the codename "Fei Lung" (Flying Dragon).

The ROCAF also obtained 960 MICA medium-range and 480 Magic II short-range air-to-air missiles from Matra. The former provides the Mirage with the BVR capability needed for its role as front-line interceptor. A number of centerline twin gun pods with DEFA 554 cannons were also acquired and fitted on the two-seaters, as they do not have an internal gun armament. Other support equipment, such as auxiliary fuel tanks, helmets, and G-suits, have also been procured.

The first batch of ROCAF Mirage 2000-5s, consisting of five aircraft, arrived at Hualien Harbor on the east coast of Taiwan by sea on 1997-05-06. After being unloaded, they were towed to Hualien AB, where they were unpacked and checked, and then flown to Hsinchu AB. Subsequent deliveries also followed the same procedure. The last ROCAF Mirage 2000-5 was delivered in an official ceremony on 1998-11-26.

All Mirage 2000-5s are operated by the 499th TFW at Hsinchu. The first unit to convert to the type, the 41st TFS, was commissioned on 1997-12-01. Subsequently the 42nd TFS was commissioned on 1998-11-26. The 499th TFW achieved the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) status on 2001-05-10, and the 48th TFS was commissioned on the same day.

On 2004-11-01, the 41st and 42nd TFSs were upgraded to the "Tactical Fighter Group" status, while the 48th TFS became the 48th Training Group, in the largest restructure undertaken by the ROCAF since 1999. At the same time, the original 11th TFG went into history. Each of the new TFG/TG is commanded by a Colonel, but the number of aircraft assigned is not much different from that for a Squadron. Although their official English designation is Tactical Fighter Group, the Chinese designation literally means Operations Group.

Weapon Testing&Exercises

On 1998-05-08, a two-seat DI fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away. It was the first launch of the said missile outside France. The second MICA live-firing exercise took place off the east coast of Taiwan on 2000-03-29, in which 2051 (right side image) fired a single MICA missile from its left inner pylon.

On 2004-07-21, two Mirage 2000-5s from the 2nd TFW landed on the wartime reserve runway located at the Jenteh section of Highway No. 1 as part of the annual Han Kuang No. 20 Exercise. Mirage 2000-5DI 2051, piloted by Maj. Wei-Kuang Chang and Lt. Col. Juei-Chi Duan, and 2054, piloted by Lt. Col. Bin-Fu Wu and Capt. Jien-Liang Chen, took off from their home base Hsinchu Air Base at 0540 hrs. 2051 landed on the highway at 0620 hrs, followed by 2054 at 0622 hrs. The two jets then taxied to the other end of the reserve runway to be refueled and re-armed with two Magic air-to-air missiles, respectively. At 0712 hrs, 2051 took off again and 2054 followed one minute later. Both landed at Hsinchu at 0736 hrs.

Mirage 2000-5EDA (Qatar)

In 1994, Qatar ordered nine single-seat Mirage 2000-5EDAs and three Mirage 2000-5DDA trainers, with initial deliveries starting in 1997.

Mirage 2000EAD/RAD (UAE)

In 1983, the UAE purchased 22 single-seat Mirage 2000EADs, 8 unique single-seat Mirage 2000RAD reconnaissance variants, and 6 Mirage 2000DAD trainers, for a total order of 36 machines. The order specified an Italian-made defensive avionics suite that delayed delivery of the first of these aircraft until 1989.

The Mirage 2000RAD reconnaissance variant does not have any built-in cameras or sensors, and the aircraft can still be operated in air combat or strike roles. The reconnaissance systems are implemented in pods, including the Thales "SLAR 2000" radar pod, Dassault "COR2" multi-camera pod with visible and infrared imaging capability, and the Dassault "AA-3-38 HAROLD" telescopic long-range optical camera pod. The UAE is the only nation operating such a specialized reconnaissance variant of the Mirage 2000 at this time.

Mirage 2000-9

Mirage 2000-9 is the export variant of Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2.

The UAE was the launch customer, ordering 32 new-build aircraft, comprising 20 Mirage 2000-9 single-seaters and 12 Mirage 2000-9D two-seaters. Initial deliveries of the UAE Mirages began in the spring of 2003. A further 30 of Abu Dhabi's older Mirage 2000s will also be upgraded to Mirage 2000-9 standard.

The UAE's Mirage 2000-9s are well-equipped for the strike mission, since they are being provided with the Shehab laser targeting pod (a variant of the Damocles) and the Nahar navigation pod, complementing the air-to-ground modes of the RDY-2 radar. They are also equipped with a classified countermeasures system designated "IMEWS", which is comparable to the ICMS 3. The UAE is also obtaining the "Black Shaheen" cruise missile, which is basically a variant of the MBDA Apache cruise missile similar to Storm Shadow.

On 4 April 2005, a Mirage 2000-9 crashed after take-off from Istres AB in southern France during a test flight before its delivery to Abu Dhabi. The two pilots, Dassault chief test pilot Eric Gérard and a pilot from UAE, ejected safely and remained unhurt. An engine failure during take-off was the cause. The aircraft crashed over a deserted part of the airbase.[6].

Mirage 2000EG (Greece)

Beginning in March 1985, the Greeks ordered 36 single-seat Mirage 2000EGs and 4 Mirage 2000BG two-seat trainers.

They feature an ICMS 1 defensive countermeasures suite, which is an updated version of the standard Mirage 2000C countermeasures suite and is characterized by two small antennas near the top of the tailfin. These Mirage 2000s were later modified in the field to carry the Aerospatiale AM39 Exocet anti-ship missile.

In 2000, Greece ordered a batch of 25 Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 fighters, which feature the SATURN secure radio. The order included 15 new-build aircraft and 10 upgrades of existing Greek Mirage 2000EGs. Apparently the Greek order does not include any upgrades of two-seaters.

Mirage 2000BR (Brazil)

Dassault competed for a Brazilian deal with the Mirage 2000BR, another variant of the Mirage 2000-9. Due to Brazilian budget problems, the competition has dragged on for years until it was suspended in February 2005.

In July 2005, however, Brazil agreed to purchase 12 ex-AdA Mirage 2000C aircraft.

First two Mirage 2000C and Mirage 2000B delivered to Brazilian Air Force(FAB) on September 4th 2006 . Aircraft were delivered to 1o GDA in Anápolis, Goiás to replace Mirage IIIEBR/DBR. Aircraft will be named F-2000 in FAB service.

Operators

Operators of the Mirage 2000

List of users and variants

France

Variant Purpose Number

2000C Single-seat fighter 124

Updated to 2000-5F specs 37

2000D Two-seat conventional strike 86

2000N Two-seat nuclear strike 75

2000B Two-seater with 2000C kit 30

Total 315

India

2000H Comparable to 2000C 52

2000D 10

2000TH Two-seat trainer 7

Total 69

United Arab Emirates

2000EAD Single-seat multirole 22

2000-9 Single-seat 20

2000-9D Two-seat trainer 12

2000RAD Unique reconnaissance variant 8

2000DAD Two-seat trainer 6

Total 68

Republic of China (Taiwan)

2000-5EI Similar to 2000-5 48

2000-5DI Similar to 2000-5D 12

Total 60

Greece

2000EG Similar to 2000C 36

2000-5 Mk 2 Multirole fighter 15

2000BG Two-seat trainer 4

Total 55

Egypt

2000EM Similar to 2000C 16

2000BM Two-seat trainer 4

Total 20

Qatar

2000-5EDA Single-seat fighter 9

2000-5DDA Two-seat trainer 3

Total 12

Peru

2000P Single-seat multirole fighter 10

2000DP Two-seat trainer 2

Total 12

Brazil

2000C Single-seat fighter 10

2000B Two-seat trainer 2

Total 12

Specifications (2000C)

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 14.36 m (50 ft 3 in)

Wingspan: 9.13 m (29 ft)

Height: 5.30 m (17 ft 5 in)

Wing area: 41 m2 (441.32 ft2)

Empty weight: 7,600 kg (17,000 lb)

Loaded weight: 13,800 kg (30,420 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 17,000 kg (37,500 lb)

Powerplant: 1× SNECMA M53-P2 afterburning turbofan, 95 kN (21,400 lbf)

Performance

Maximum speed: (Mach 2.2) altitude

Range: 1,850 km (770 NM, 890 mi)

Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 285 m/s (56,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 337 kg/m2 (69 lb/ft2)

Thrust/weight: 0.91

Max sea level speed: 1,480 km/h

Climb to 9,700 m: 1,75 min

Climb to 15,000 m: 4 min

Turn rate at 5 g: 12°/sec

Turn rate at 9 g: 24°/sec.

Max g: normal 9 g, overloaded 11 g, break 13.5 g.

Armament

Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons

Missiles: 4× MBDA MICA air-to-air missiles

Comparable aircraft

F-16 Fighting Falcon

HAL Tejas

IAI Lavi

JF-17 Thunder

Mikoyan MiG-29

Mitsubishi F-2

The JU-322 "Mammut" (Mammoth) was Junkers response to the Luftwaffe's order for a giant assault glider that could carry heavy equipment into combat areas. The flying wing-style craft was made entirely of wood and had a clamshell door in its nose to accommodate the loading and unloading of cargo.

The Nazis ordered the Junkers company to produce 200 all-wood assault gliders, they were to be used in the invasion of Britain in the same role as the Messerschmidt 321. Junkers had to start from scratch; the company had abandoned wood construction years before. They wound up with a 203 foot flying wing with a conventional tail that loaded cargo through the "nose". Unfortunately, the glider proved highly problematic. First, stability problems forced the builders to put two 4000 litre water tanks in its forward section to make it more nose-heavy.

During loading tests a light tank crashed through the floor and it had to be strengthened, reducing payload by 20 percent. On its first flight test a Ju 90 tow plane laboured to pull it into the air, barely making it before the end of the runway. The Mammut then jettisoned its wheeled take-off trolley, which smashed itself into fragments. The poor pilot had other things to worry about as the unstable glider began to pitch up violently, putting the tow plane into a full-power dive. In desperation the Mammut pilot cut loose the tow and the glider straightened out and landed in a field nearby. Two weeks later it was towed back to the flying field by the tanks it was supposed to carry. The project was cancelled and the rest of the 98 gliders being built were cut up for firewood.

INTERSTATE TDR-1 ASSAULT DRONE, US NAVY SPECIAL TASK AIR GROUP ONE, SOLOMON ISLANDS, AUTUMN 1944

When deployed to the Pacific Theater of Operations in May 1944, the TOR-1 assault drones were still finished in their original scheme of dark sea blue over white. Aside from the usual national insignia, markings consisted of the occasional name on the nose and sometimes a tactical number painted on the tail. During combat operations, the forward cockpit windscreen was removed, and the cockpit was faired over with a plate, as seen here. After takeoff, the landing gear was dropped since the TDR-1 was on a one-way mission. The TBM-1 C Avenger control aircraft was modified with a large receiver/transmitted antenna under the rear fuselage contained in a dome-shaped cover.

#

The US Navy had continued to experiment with larger radio-controlled aircraft as target drones in the late 1930s, and they were deployed with Utility Squadron Five (VJ-5) at Cape May, New Jersey, in March 1941 to train Navy antiaircraft gunners. The VJ-5 commander, Lt. Robert Jones, suggest using the drones as aerial rams to attack enemy fighters, eventually leading to the Navy's Gorgon antiaircraft missile program. In the meantime, the Navy had been sponsoring the development of alternative flight control and navigation technologies including RCA's television camera and the Navy Research Lab's (NRL) radar guidance system. These offered the possibility of guiding the drone much more accurately than radio control, and in 1941 a program was started to develop "assault drones." These could be used either as guided missiles, impacting against an enemy target, or as UCAVs, dropping a weapon and then returning to base. The Navy ordered the production of the first TDN-1 assault drones by the Naval Aircraft Factory in March 1942. Since the drone was expendable, the Navy wanted a simpler and less expensive type, which was manufactured by Interstate Aviation as the TDR-1. The Navy's top secret Operation Option envisioned as many as 18 attack drone squadrons, 162 TBF Avenger control planes, and 1,000 assault drones. This ambitious scheme was whittled down considerably, and in March 1944, two Special Air Task Force (SATFOR) squadrons were dispatched to the Pacific Theater to demonstrate their capabilities. The TDR-1 were initially used as guided missiles at Bougainville in September 1944, flown into Japanese bunkers and gun positions. On October 19, 1944, they were used for the first time in a UCAV configuration, dropping bombs on targets on Ballale Island, south of Bougainville. They were not UCAV in the contemporary sense, since they lacked the capability to return safely to base. The Navy was not overly impressed with the results, although a similar concept was tested in the Korean War using radio-controlled Hellcat fighters as primitive missiles.

LINK

LINK

The success of the H6K and H8K flying boats in the transport role lead Kawanishi and the Japanese Navy to develop a new flying boat optimized for transport duties. Taking the H8K as a base, the aircraft was re-engined with four Nakajima Ha-54 engines developing 3,800 horsepower, more than twice the output of the earlier engines. The wings were enlarged by approximately 30 percent and mated to a modified fuselage. This was wider and flatter than that of the H8K and had a single vehicle deck rather than two passenger decks as on the H8K. However, its added size increased the usable cargo space by about 20 percent. In order to keep the wing high enough above the water, it was mounted across the top of the fuselage, being covered by a fairing that gave the H11K its popular nickname of "Hunchback". The greatest change though was in the nose. This consisted of a pair of clamshell doors with an integral loading ramp that could be extended and retracted to land the aircraft's cargo.

The ANT-14 arriving at Bucharest on 27 October 1935 on its only journey outside the USSR.

The sole ANT-14 shows its size with a line up of parachutists underneath.

Essentially conceived as a much larger version of the ANT-9, Tupolev developed it as a thirty-six-seat passenger airliner with a crew of five. To speed up the programme, the wings and undercarriage of the ANT-6/TB-3 were used, with the only major change being lengthened undercarriage legs because of the ANT-14's high wings. Power came from five 480hp Gnome-Rhone Jupiter VI engines, with two mounted on each wing and the fifth in the aircraft's nose. It was one of the biggest aircraft of its time - which was to be its undoing, because its size was beyond the then needs of Soviet air transport.

The programme was headed by Vladimir Petliakov, in a programme which worked particularly well, for when Mikhail Gromov flew it for the first time on 14 August 1931, less than a year after the start of design work, very little adjustment was needed to anything. Its test programme was completed by spring 1932. But a short evaluation by Dobrolet/Aeroflot, then flying the eight-passenger Kalinin K-5 and just beginning to receive the nine-passenger ANT-9, revealed no worthwhile routes for a thirty-six-seat airliner, so the AGOS/TsAGI-built prototype remained the sole example of the ANT-14.

Its life was not over; shortly after its test flying was completed, the idea of forming an agitation, or propaganda, squadron was approved by Stalin and it was established on 17 March 1933. It was named after Maksim Gorki, the famous Russian writer who had begun his writing career forty years earlier in 1891. Gorki was Stalin's favourite writer, which added to the support for the idea. The available ANT-14 was the first lead aircraft of the squadron, which named each aircraft after a newspaper or magazine of the time. As leader, the ANT-14 was given the name Pravda (truth) after the nation's leading daily newspaper.

For the next ten years, the ANT-14 served the squadron well. It made well over 1,000 flights, and carried over 40,000 passengers. These included officials and workers being rewarded for their services as well as fare-paying passengers on tourist flights over Moscow. It operated mainly within Russia and, to a lesser extent, the wider Soviet Union. It flew two tourist flights from Moscow to Kharkov in the Ukraine, and one to St Petersburg, then called Leningrad. Its only journey outside the USSR was in October 1935 when it visited Bucharest, the Romanian capital, to mark a festival being held there at the time. During its service no major technical snags were experienced, a remarkable tribute for the time. With the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War in 1941, the squadron's days drew to a close. In 1942, after its withdrawal from service, the fuselage of the aircraft was parked in a children's playground, where it continued its propaganda work for a short while.

ANT-14

Type: passenger transport

Maker: Tupolev Design Bureau

Span: 40.4 m (132 ft 6 1/2 in)

Length: 26.49 m (86 ft 11 in)

Height: 5.4 m (17ft 8 1/2 in)

Wing area: 240 m2 (2583 sq ft)

Weight: maximum 17530 kg (38 646Ib); empty 10828 kg (238711b)

Powerplant: five 480-hp Gnome-Rhone 9AKX ]upiter VI 9-cylinder air-cooled radial engines

Performance: cruising speed 195 km/h (121 mph); range 900 km (559 miles)

Payload: seats for 36 passengers

Crew: 3

Production: 1

Thomas F. Hamilton (July 28, 1894 - 1969) Pioneering Aviator and the namesake of the Hamilton Standard Company.

Since 1930, Hamilton Standard (now Hamilton Sundstrand) was involved with revolutionizing propulsion technology of propeller-driven aircraft, prior to World War II. The introduction of Frank Caldwell's variable-pitch propeller made Hamilton Standard one of the leading aerospace companies of today. But, there is little known about the first name sake of this company - Thomas Foster Hamilton. Hamilton contributed a great deal in shaping the aviation industry into what it is today. Tom Hamilton was involved in the early beginnings of aviation inventions and development. Tom was gifted at an early age in the understanding of technical concepts and their application into aircraft designs and manufacturing. He was also a very good businessman and marketer, known in social and political settings, and a devoted family man.

Life

Born on July 28, 1894, Tom Hamilton spent most of his childhood in Seattle, Washington. He was the older of two boys (his brother, Edgar Charles Hamilton, born later) to his parents (Thomas Luther&Henrietta Hamilton). Tom Hamilton's early interests in aviation began when he was around 10 years old. His mother had taken a trip to see the 1904 St. Louis Exposition . Where there was a display of gliders organized by Octave Chanute and, somehow on her return, Tom became more focused on aeronautics. Mrs. Hamilton may have made a connection with Mr. Chanute at the fair since the young Tom Hamilton did not make the long trip with her. Because, some years later, Tom indicated that he often wrote to Mr. Chanuate concerning technical matters related to his early aircraft. However, currently, no record has been found mentioning the young Hamilton in Mr. Chanuate's letter collection currently located at the Library of Congress and more research is being conducted since the collection is so vast.

During the 1909 Alaskan-Yukon Exposition, held in Seattle (held on the site of the present-day University of Washington) the young Hamilton, now at the age of 14, had a job of repairing hot-air balloons. This job would also allow him to ride what he repaired (possibly a type of insurance policy to insure the balloons were fixed properly) which helped fuel his continuing interest in aviation. Also, during this time, Tom and a school friend, Paul J. Palmer established a partnership and called their company "Hamilton and Palmer". Their office and factory were located in their respective parent's garage and kitchen tables. The two built and experimented with various biplane glider designs of the time. The two quickly gained a better understanding of the principles of how aircraft worked and were put together. Three gliders were actually built and flown around the steep hills around their neighborhood in Seattle called Lushi which was on the west shores of Lake Washington. There was only one mishap. The second glider jerked out of the hands of Palmer and soared away and crashing into pieces blocks away. Many years later, Tom Hamilton would recall that even though he got a scar on his left hand from one of the flights, he had learned how to fly from those tests.

In 1910, after finishing their experiments with the gliders they moved on to building propeller-driven aircraft. At this point, there was a disagreement between Palmer and Hamilton and the former was no longer involved with the company and was totally removed from the partnership. It seems this split was so severe that Tom changed the name of the company to the "Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Co".

Early aircraft designs

In 1911, he teamed up with Ted Geary a young yacht designer to create a number of unique seaplane designs that were seen around Seattle's Lake Washington and various aerial demonstrations of the day. The total number of known aircraft built by Hamilton's Seattle Company is estimated to be around 10 to 25 aircraft. Yet more research is required to get a more accurate account of his aircraft built during the 1909 to 1914 period. His designs were a combination of other designs of the era and his own unique ideas incorporated into the aircraft. Those early years for Tom Hamilton were very much building years for this remarkable individual. Even at an early age he was able to comprehend and build complicated flying machines. Although he dropped out of high school, and did not have any formal education after that, he was able to manufacture and sell these aircraft all before he was 16 years old. This was done prior to Mr. William E. Boeing taking his first flight and setting up his operation in Seattle, which is the Boeing Company of today. Incidentally, Tom Hamilton and Bill Boeing became friends during this time and their friendship lasted throughout the years both professionally and personally. It has been recorded that in 1914, Tom Hamilton introduced Bill Boeing to Conrad Westervelt (a young Navy lieutenant commander) at a club in Seattle that was the start of the Boeing Company.

Also in 1914, a number of wealthy businessmen from Vancouver, British Columbia approached Tom Hamilton. They were looking for someone to build airplanes for the non-profit and private "BC Aviation School Ltd." that would teach their Canadian sons to fly in the Great War being fought over in Europe. Tom accepted the invitation and immediately moved his whole operation up to Vancouver BC and established the "Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Ltd.". The contract was to build four planes to be used in training purposes for the school. However, only one airplane was ever completed. It was a biplane patterned after a Curtiss tractor design, with two seats, a six-cylinder engine, and a tricycle landing gear. Unfortunately, the aircraft was not successful because it crashed in a muddy field outside of Vancouver. Out of the 12 students, two were able to graduate and went on to fight in the War with the RFC (Royal Flying Corp - the precursor to the RAF). The rest were integrated into other aviation training programs and transferred to the war. In the mean time, Tom Hamilton had become very interested in the physics of propellers and had started making inquires about his possible involvement in the war effort for the United States. This was around 1917; at this point the U.S. just entered the war and needed experienced people, especially in aviation to help the country establish an aviation industry in support of the war overseas in Europe.

Military Interest

The US military was very interested in Tom Hamilton's background and requested that he come out east. The military leaders at the time wanted to keep most of their aviation resources closer to Washington D.C., and not in the remote Pacific Northwest. A Milwaukee woodworking firm, the Matthews Brothers Furniture Company, needed an experienced person to run their new aviation division since a large military contract was signed to produce wood propellers for the Navy and Army. Tom Hamilton became their director of aviation in 1918. However, once the war ended Tom Hamilton bought their entire inventory of wood propellers and again started his own company called the Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Around this time, Tom Hamilton met and married Ethel Inez Hughes, from Milwaukee. The Hamilton's spent ten years in Milwaukee where it was established as one of the nation's major aviation hubs in the 1920's.

Propeller Manufacture

Propellers were the first to be manufactured by the "Hamilton Manufacturing Company" in Milwaukee. Hamilton and his company (as well as others) were aware of specific limitations using wood as a material for aircraft propellers. As the propeller revolutions increased, the wood and laminate would lose their bond at a certain speed and cause the propeller to disintegrate. Pontoons were the second product to be manufactured by the company. Again, wood was also used in the manufacturing of pontoons and again there were specific limitations to this material being used in pontoons as with propellers. The problem with wood and water is that it disintegrates faster even though it floats. Even with all preservatives used to cover and protect the pontoon. It still had a tendency to rot because it attracted worms that would borrow into the wood, especially in the South American and Caribbean climates, and allowed the material to decay faster. It was understood throughout the industry and the scientific community that metal would soon be the choice for these devices. In the mid 1920's, metal was introduced into the manufacturing processes because the material was stronger but not yet lighter. This changed with the introduction of aluminum. Specifically, an aluminum alloy called Duralumin, which allowed for the material to be lighter and stronger. Duralumin was the biggest technological advantage of the time because it is a high strength aluminum forging alloy with 3.5% copper, 1.25% Iron, 1.25% silicon, & 1.25% manganese, which gave it high strength and a low weight ratio than aluminum. It was also able to take the centrifugal forces a propeller would generate, withstand the strong impacts with landing on water and flying, and would be able to resist some of nature's pests which could destroy a wood float quickly.

All-metal aircraft

New processes and manufacturing techniques were devised at the factory for these new materials. For in the mid 1920's, the German company, Junkers Transport Company founded by Hugo Junkers, was the first to manufacture an all metal, mono wing, airplane called the Junkers F.13. In turn, William B. Stout's (a pioneer builder of all-metal aircraft) company was bought by the Ford Motor Corporation, and developed a similar aircraft called the Ford tri-motor or as it was affectionately called the "Tin Goose". Like the Junkers aircraft, it too had the same cantilevered high wing and corrugated metal skin design built with the focus of hauling mail and passengers. In response, Tom and a number of shareholders in the Milwaukee community decided to build an aircraft out of metal, too. The result was a new company called the "Hamilton Metalplane Company". And the first all-metal aircraft built by this company was the Hamilton Metalplane H-18 christened the "Maiden Milwaukee" in 1927. Its design came from the chief designer of the "Metalplane Company" of the time - James McDonnell. Mr. McDonnell had worked for Stout and Ford and incorporated similar features and new ideas into the construction of the metal "Maiden". The Hamilton H-18 used a tubular frame with corrugated skin, a thick mono wing projecting out of the fuselage underneath the open cockpit, at the front was the 200 HP J-4 Wright Radial engine, and using a Hamilton propeller (metal) as a means of propulsion. The "Maiden Milwaukee" was the first plane produced by the Hamilton Metalplane Company and it achieved a number of awards. It first came in second during the Ford Air Tour of 1927 and it won the Spokane Air Races of the same year. It was also given the distinction of being the first US air certificate for an all-metal airplane in the United States. Specifically, it was a plane designed to haul mail with the passengers as an extra revenue bonus for the airline. The design reflects this for the wing root came right out of the center of the fuselage and hardly any passengers could fit. The aircraft was redesigned and these modifications were introduced in the sequential new models of the Metalplane called the H-45 and H-47. The aircraft now could accommodate passengers and mail. But to do this, they had to specifically change the aircraft such as moving the wing above the fuselage so six seats could be added. Inclosing the cockpit and adding windows and leather padding the interior of the aircraft for the passenger's comfort. Offering different type of radial engines that could be incorporated per the customer's request (both Wright and Pratt & Whitney) and different types of landing gear that could be fitted too (such as skis, wheels, and pontoons). Since most of the Hamilton Metalplanes used most of the products generated from the other Hamilton factory it was a cheaper than the Ford Tri-Motor. The Hamilton Metalplanes was definitely a plane of its time. For it was the era when airlines were being developed with cargo/mail in mind instead of passengers. Both the Hamilton Metalplane and the Ford tri-motors started to change this trend. Northwest Airlines started by purchasing a number of Hamiltons to be used in their first passenger run throughout their routes in the Northwest. Ralph Sexton bought a number of Hamiltons to be used for his Panamanian airline called Isthmian Airways. And a few went to Alaska and Canada for use in the Arctic. As with Hamilton's earlier aircraft in Seattle, it is not known the exact figure of how many Hamiltons were built but it is estimated to be between 27 to 40 aircraft. More research is currently being conducted to get an accurate count and history of each Hamilton Metalplane. Unfortunately, the Hamilton Metalplanes were not as successful as the Ford Tri-Motors. For Ford was successful at their marketing strategy of stating it is safer to fly on three engines than on one. For this reason, the Hamilton Metal plane struggled in the market, for it was a good airplane developed ahead of time and introduced to soon.

Consolidation

In 1929, a holding company called the "United Aircraft and Transport Company" incorporated a number of aviation companies under one control. This resulted in the "Metalplane Company" becoming part of the "Boeing Company" as a separate division for a short time. Eventually, it was absorbed into the "Boeing Company" with all its patents and other assets becoming a part of the Boeing enterprise. It has been suggested that Boeing used these items from the "Hamilton Metalplane Company" in the development of their Boeing 247 (Boeing's first all metal monoplane) but more research needs to be conducted on this subject.

In the meantime, Tom Hamilton became president of United Airports (a division of UA&T) and he was in charge of building the new Burbank airport in California. He also moved some of his propeller operations out west and established a West Coast propeller factory at that Burbank site. Even his whole family moved to Beverly Hills and eventually built a house out at Lake Arrowhead, California where he established a permanent residence. Meanwhile, the UA&T Company decided to merge the "Hamilton Aero Manufacturing Company" with the Pittsburgh propeller firm "Standard Steel Propeller Company" and the entire Milwaukee operation was moved to that location. Both Hamilton and the owner of Standard Steel had been intense business rivals. According to Eugene Wilson (who took over the propeller operation for UA&T) the "Standard Steel Company" had the patent rights to the Reed propeller design and there was concern about a lawsuit. As a compromise, it was decided to move the propeller operation to Pittsburgh and combined the names of the companies to be called the Hamilton Standard Company. A year later, the propeller operation moved again to Connecticut and as been there since. Incidentally, Tom Hamilton did not receive the news of the merger right away, which was a little unsettling to him. As a compromise, Tom agreed to the merger only if his name took precedence in the new trademark and was called Hamilton-Standard.

Buildup to war

After the Burbank Airport opened with a big fan-fair in 1930, Tom Hamilton then became a foreign representative for the "United Aircraft Export Company" in Europe of which he would become a leading individual for the survival of several aviation companies. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal policies started actively working on an anti-monopoly campaign against the aviation industry. This legislation resulted in the UA&T being reorganized into new companies: United Aircraft (later to be called United Technologies), United Airlines, and the Boeing Company. The timing of this governmental legislation was poor at best for most of the United States and the World was under the black cloud of the Great Economic Depression. United Aircraft had to rely on foreign sales to survive as a company for the domestic market in the US was depressed. Tom Hamilton started with the "United Aircraft Export Company" as a sales representative and was very successful and by 1936 he was president of that corporation. Eugene Wilson described Tom Hamilton as the "Yankee Peddler" and felt that he was a man that was full of "salesmanship" and was a "master-entertainer". It was this kind of man they needed for the moment to help with the financial situation of the time. Tom had set up his headquarters in Paris's the George V Hotel and he represented companies like Hamilton Standard, Sikorsky Aviation, Chance Vought Aircraft, and Pratt & Whitney. During the time from 1936-1940, Tom was successful in getting licensing rights for foreign countries to build "Pratt & Whitney" engines and "Hamilton Standard" variable pitch propellers. According to Mr. Wilson, it was a fight for survival as an American company. He also mentioned there was a kind of naivete when it came to dealing with countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia. For example, a deal was set up with BMW (Bavarian Motorin Werken) to license them to build a number of Pratt & Whitney engines and it was approved by the US congress. This was granted because neither the US businessmen nor governmental officials did expect any war in Europe. Because of this thinking, Tom Hamilton was able to successfully sell these wanted aviation goods at the high levels of business because no one expected war. Tom Hamilton knew what was going on, as Mr. Wilson stated, "thanks to Mr. Thomas F. Hamilton moving around through these different ministries, could appraise this situation more clearly than most people. And he came back from one trip and in a meeting of the executive committee of our company he said, 'Don't discount this fellow Hitler.' 'To you, he's got a Charley Chaplain moustache, but whatever he may look on the outside, either he or somebody behind him has a strategic insight and a political foresight that is not available anywhere else in the world that I know of' ". It has also been suggested that Tom Hamilton also tried to convince the US congress of the seriousness of doing business with countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia. More research is needed to verify some these suggestions. However, at the time business interests came first and Tom was asked to continue in his position until the fall of France in 1940. At which time, Tom Hamilton and his staff had to make an unorthodox route out of Europe through Spain.

Return to the US

Once back in the States, Tom found a different sort of career in the hotel and entertaining business. He started developing a resort on the coast of British Columbia; Canada at the entrance of Princess Louisa Inlet called Malibu (named after his yacht that had been designed by Ted Geary). It officially opened in July 1941 and catered to yachters, the wealthy, and the Hollywood crowd. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor changed Tom's plans and he again went back into the aviation industry to run Hardman aircraft (which made nacelles for the B-17 bombers) in South California during World War 2 for only a dollar a year. After the War, he reopened Malibu and also started an airline in support of the resort called "Malibu SeaAero" with a war a single surplus Grumman Goose. After a few years, the resort did not become a financial success. And Malibu was abandoned and sold. During his final years, he was involved with the Early Bird Organization where he would attend every function until his death. Tom also loved to paint and spent many years in Paris working on his craft. He was also the technical assistant to the 1966 movie "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines".

Death and legacy

Tom Hamilton died in 1969. He was a businessman and was able to do and influence a number of factors during the beginning and golden years of the aviation industry.

ANT-20bis

ANT-20 "Maxim Gorky" propaganda aircraft in the Moscow sky.

The Tupolev ANT-20 (also known as the Maxim Gorky) was a Soviet 8-engine aircraft, the largest in the 1930s.

The ANT-20 was designed by Andrei Tupolev and constructed between July 4, 1933 and April 3, 1934. It was the only aircraft of its kind ever built by the Soviets. The aircraft was named after Maxim Gorky and dedicated to the 40th anniversary of his literary and public activities. It was intended for Stalinist propaganda purposes and, therefore, equipped with a powerful radio set called "Voice from the sky", printing machinery, radio stations, photographic laboratory, film projector with sound for showing movies in flight, library etc. For the first time in aviation history, this aircraft was equipped with a ladder, which would fold itself and become a part of the floor. Also, for the first time in aviation history, the aircraft used not only direct current, but alternating current of 120 volts, as well. The aircraft could be disassembled and transported by railroad if needed. The giant aircraft set a number of carrying capacity world records.

On May 18, 1935 the Maxim Gorky (pilots - I.V.Mikheyev and I.S.Zhurov) and three more planes (Tupolev ANT-14, R-5 and I-5) took off for a demonstration flight over Moscow. As a result of a poorly executed loop maneuver around its wing performed by an accompanying I-5 fighter (pilot - Nikolai Blagin), both planes collided and the Maxim Gorky crashed into a residential neighborhood. There were 45 people killed in the crash, including crew members and 33 family members of some of those who had built the aircraft. (While authorities announced that the fatal maneuver was impromptu and reckless, it has been recently suggested that it might have been a planned part of the show.) Also killed was the fighter pilot, Blagin, who was made a scapegoat in the crash and subsequently had his name used eponymously (Blaginism) to mean, roughly, a "cocky disregard of authority."

A replacement aircraft, designated ANT-20bis was constructed the following year; it was similar in configuration but had only six engines.

Trivia
The day before the crash, French pilot and writer Antoine de Saint-ExupĂŠry, visiting the Soviet Union for the French newspaper Paris-Soir, was the only foreign pilot authorized to board the plane.

The plane's wings were so large they were fitted with bunk beds.

Technical data

The sail of U-1060, a Type VIIF U-boat. The so-called Wintergarten, the platform for anti-aircraft armament, is well shown. Note the niche housing the FuMO 30 radar's antenna on the left side of the sail.

During 1941 the Royal Navy devastated Germany's naval surface supply network with the result that Type XIV supply U-boats were constructed to enable combat U-boats to spend longer at sea in action, or to extend their patrol radius. However, while the Type XIV "Milk Cow" could provide fuel, food and other basics, it only had enough storage to deliver 4 torpedoes. Hence the Type VIIF came into being by converting the Type VIIC design with the addition of a 34-foot section aft of the conning tower capable of holding 24 torpedoes, and so give the ammunition needed for total sea re-supply. The first of four VIIF's (U-1059 to U-1062) was commissioned in May 1943.

These boats, designed in 1941, were primarily built as torpedo transports and were never fitted with the typical 88mm deck guns found on other VII type boats. They had 5 torpedo tubes (4 at the bow and 1 at the stern) and as attack boats they would carry 14 torpedoes but in their transport role they would have up to 39 torpedoes onboard.

Originally the boats were used to run supplies around Norway, before two, U-1062 and U-1059, of the four were sent during 1944 to Penang in the Far East to supply the large Type IXC/40 and Type IXD/42 U-boats that had formed a Far Eastern U-boat presence there.

General Characteristics

• Displacement: surfaced 1084 tons, submerged 1181 tons, total 1345 tons
• Length: overall 77.6m, pressure hull 60.4m
• Beam: overall 7.3m, pressure hull 4.7m
• Draft: 4.9m
• Height: 9.6m
• Power: surfaced 3200 horsepower, submerged 750 horsepower
• Speed: surfaced 17.6 knots, submerged 7.9 knots
• Range: surfaced 23,500km (14,700 miles) at 10 knots, submerged 120km (75 miles) at 4 knots
• Torpedoes: 14 (4 bow, 1 stern)
• Deck gun: none
• Crew: 46-52 men
• Max depth: 200m (650 feet)

Sinking of U-1062
HUK TG 22.1
USS Fessenden DE 142

In the autumn of 1944, Admiral Karl Doenitz, commander of the German U-boat Force, was rebuilding his undersea navy and only a relatively few U-boats were in the Atlantic, chiefly for their "nuisance value."

In September such a nuisance pack was operating in the Cape Verdes area. There it was detected by Task Group 22.1, a hunter-killer group built around the new escort-carrier USS Mission Bay. Steaming southward of the Cape Verdes, the group's scouts made contact with a submarine on the morning of September 30th. AT 1120 USS Fessenden DE 142 peeled off with Douglas L. Howard DE 138 and USS J.R.Y. Blakeley DE 140 to investigate the aircraft report.

Fessenden picked up sonar contact at 1610. At 1628 she fired a full pattern of Mark X projectiles. Fourteen seconds after the projectiles splashed into the sea, four explosions rumbled up from below. Fessenden followed through with a full pattern of depth charges. The water heaved and flattened over an outburst of deep-sea thunder. Thereafter the DEs heard nothing but the silence of extinction.

Post-war records named Fessenden's victim as the U-1062 and notes 55 crew members lost.

Sources:
Roscoe, Theodore. United States Destroyer Operations in World War II. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute, 1953.
NiestlĂŠ, Axel. German U-boat Losses During World War II: Details of Destruction. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1998, p. 117.

The Fessenden sinks U 1062

Here is a photo of a Priester. The firer is a bit close to it. Normally it was fired by tugging a cord about one metre long. The strange name Priester is allegedly due to the fact that the weapon was invented by a Hungarian priest named Vecer. Originally deployed with the Austro-Hungarian army, it was made under license by (amongst others) Stocks of Berlin for the German army, where it was also called the Granatwerfer 16. The bomb weighed 2 kg and had a maximum range of 500 metres. The weapon was manned, like all other such types, by the engineers.

Granatwerfer Mod.1916

World War I was notable for the incredible advances in technology that changed the way wars were fought. But a weapon that had not been used for nearly 250 years became one of the most important weapons for trench warfare. Mortars-short-range artillery weapons designed to lob bombs-had been introduced in 1673 to blow up forts but had rarely been used since the eighteenth century.

At the beginning of the war, the Germans massed about 150 mortars to defend their forts near Metz. But when fighting along the Western Front bogged down into trench warfare later in 1914, the mortars were moved to the front-line trenches to throw bombs into the French trenches a few hundred feet away. The mortars could destroy the barbed wire barricades protecting the Allied trenches from troop advances. The Germans, with their mortars of various sizes, "were masters with the trench mortar from beginning to end," according to Dooly[1].

The Allies did not have similar mortars to use in counterattack, so they searched museums for suitable mortars from past wars and used them as models. Until the French introduced their first 58mm trench mortar in 1915, Allied soldiers on the front lobbed makeshift bombs made of nails and explosive powder. The Allies did not develop mortars as mobile as the Minenwerfer (German mortars) until near the end of the war, when the French introduced their 150mm mortar in 1918.

At the start of the war, the Germans had two kinds of Minenwerfer - the heavy Minenwerfer (250mm calibre, 97 kilo shell) and the medium Minenwerfer (170mm calibre, 54 kilo shell.) Both weapons had been designed for use in offensive fortress warfare and, in particular, for clearing barbed wire entanglements and other obstacles. Because of these, all of the shells provided were of the high explosive type.

Early in the war, the Germans introduced the light Minenwerfer (76mm calibre, 4.6 kilo shell). Also designed to deal with obstacles, this piece was also provided with high explosive shells. The light Minenwerfer was adapted to fire directly at tanks.

Later in the war, the Germans added a fourth type of Minenwerfer to the inventory, the 240mm Fl端gelminenwerfer, which fired a shell that was similar to that of the heavy Minenwerfer, but had an advantage in the realm of range.

While some smoke, illumination, gas and carrier (for sending messages) shells were provided for the Minenwerfer, high explosive remained the projectile of choice throughout the war.

I've not heard of any attempts to make a shrapnel shell for the Minenwerfer. Indeed, it is hard to imagine an artillery piece that was less well suited to firing the sort of shrapnel shell used during World War I than the Minenwerfer.

The Priesterwerfer was called the 'kleine Granatenwerfer 1916' by the Germans. It was a small spigot mortar that had come from the Austrian army (who called it the Priesterwerfer) and had been designed by a Hungarian priest (Vecer). It fired a 2kg shell with a range of 200-500m and weighed only 40kg. The shell was effective as it hardly penetrated the ground before exploding so most of the shell fragments went horizontally.

[1] William G. Dooly Jr.'s Great Weapons of World War I.

Bristol Aeroplane's Blenheim was a British high-speed light bomber used extensively in the early days of the Second World War. It was later adapted into a successful heavy fighter. A Canadian-made variant named the Bolingbroke was used as an anti-Submarine and training aircraft. It was the first British aircraft to have all-metal stressed skin construction and one of the first to utilize retractable landing gear, flaps, powered gun turret and variable-pitch propellers.

Design and development

The Type 135 civil twin design was on Bristol drawing boards by July 1933.

In 1934 Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, issued a challenge to the British aviation industry to build a high-speed aircraft capable of carrying six passengers and two crew members. At the time German firms were producing a variety of high-speed designs that were breaking records, and Rothermere wanted to recapture the title of fastest civilian aircraft in Europe. Bristol had been working on a suitable design as the Type 135 since July 1933, and further adapted it to produce the Type 142 to meet Rothermere's requirements.

Blenheim cockpit. Note the asymmetry of the instrument console, which indicates the "scooped out" area of the nose in front of the pilot. The ring-and-post gunsight for the forward firing guns is also visible.

Blenheim cockpit. Note the asymmetry of the instrument console, which indicates the "scooped out" area of the nose in front of the pilot. The ring-and-post gunsight for the forward firing guns is also visible.

When it first flew as Britain First at Filton on 12 April 1935 , it proved to be faster than any fighter in service with the Royal Air Force at the time. The Air Ministry was obviously interested in such an aircraft, and quickly sent out Specification B.28/35 for prototypes of a bomber version of the Bristol called the Type 142M (M for "military"). The main changes were to move the wing higher on the fuselage from its former low position, to allow room under the spar for a bomb bay. The aircraft was all-metal with twin Bristol Mercury VIII radial engines of 860 hp (640 kW) each. It carried a crew of three - pilot, navigator/bombardier and gunner/wireless operator and was armed with a forward firing 0.303 inch (7.7 mm) machine gun outboard of the port engine and a 0.303 inch machine gun in a semi-retracting dorsal turret firing to the rear. A 1,000-lb (454 kg) bombload was carried in the internal bay.

To achieve its relatively high speed, the Blenheim had a very small fuselage. Pilot's quarters on the left side of the nose were so cramped that the control yoke obscured all flight instruments while engine instruments eliminated the forward view on landings. Most secondary instruments were arranged along the left side of the cockpit with essential items like propeller pitch control actually placed behind the pilot where they had to be operated by feel alone. Like most contemporary British aircraft, the bomb bay doors were kept closed with bungee cords and opened under the weight of the released bombs. Because there was no way to predict how long it would take for the bombs to force the doors open, bombing accuracy was rather mediocre.

Operational history

The aircraft was ordered directly from the drawing board with the first production model, known at the time as the Bolingbroke (pronounced Bolling-brook), serving as the first and only prototype[3]. The name then became Blenheim I with subsequent deliveries started in March 1937, with 114 Squadron being the first squadron to receive the Blenheim.The aircraft would prove to be so successful that it was licensed by a number of countries, including Finland and Yugoslavia. Other countries bought it outright, including Romania, Greece and Turkey. Total production of the Blenheim in England amounted to 1,351 Mk Is.

After France fell to Germany in June 1940, the Free French Air Force was formed at RAF Odiham in the form of Groupe Mixte de Combat (GMC) 1, consisting of a mixed bag of Blenheims and Westland Lysander liaison/observation aircraft, which eventually went to North Africa and saw action against the Italians and Germans.

By the start of the Second World War, fighter technology had eclipsed the Blenheim's speed advantage and it would only achieve moderate success as a bomber and coastal patrol aircraft. One of the greatest advantages that the Blenheim had over other fighter aircraft was its range. It could penetrate deep into enemy territory, that is provided that they did not come into contact with any other enemy fighters. With a top speed of only 263 mph (423 km/h) and cumbersome and slow in turning, it was soon eclipsed by other more modern types, nonetheless, the Blenheim continued in frontline service throughout the early years of the conflict.

The Bristol Blenheim was used by both Bomber and Fighter Commands. Some 200 Blenheim I bombers were modified into Blenheim IF heavy fighters with 600 (Auxiliary Air Force) Squadron based at Hendon, the first squadron to take delivery of these variants in September 1938. By 1939, seven squadrons were operating these twin engined fighters. In addition to the existing armament, an under-fuselage gun-pack consisting of four 0.303 Browning machine guns were installed. The Blenheim IF proved to be slower and less nimble than expected and by June 1940, daylight Blenheim losses was to cause concern for Fighter Command. It was then decided that the IF would be relegated mainly to night fighter duties where No. 23 Squadron RAF who had already operated the type under night time conditions had better success.

In the German night bombing raid on London, 18 June 1940, Blenheims accounted for five German bombers thus proving they were better suited in the nocturnal role. In July, No. 600 Squadron from RAF Manston had some of their IFs equipped with AI Mk III radar and with this equipment, a Blenheim from FIU at Ford airfield achieved the first success with this radar on the night of 2/3 July 1940, over a Dornier Do 17 bomber. More successes came and, before long, the Blenheim was to prove invaluable in the night fighter role. Gradually, with the introduction of the Bristol Beaufighter in 1940-1941, its role was supplanted by its faster, more modern successor.

Blenheims continued to operate widely in many combat roles until about 1943, equipping 26 RAF squadrons in the UK and in British bases in Egypt, Iraq, Aden, India, Malaya, Singapore and Dutch East Indies. Many Blenheims were lost to Japanese fighters during the Malayan campaign and battles for Singapore and Sumatra. By that point, most fighters could carry similar bombloads at much higher speeds and the surviving examples were relegated to training duties. Bristol's intended successor to the Blenheim, the Buckingham, was considered inferior to the Mosquito, and did not see combat.

In 1936, the Finnish Air Force ordered 41 Mk Is from Britain and two years later, they obtained a manufacturing license for the aircraft. Fifteen aircraft were constructed in Finland prior to the Winter War at the Valtion lentokonetehdas and a further 41 were constructed later on, bringing the total number up to 97 aircraft (75 Mk Is and 22 Mk IVs). The Finns obtained large supplies of ex-Yugoslavian spares from the Germans during the war.

The Finnish Blenheims flew 423 bombing missions during the Winter War, and some further 3,000 bombing missions during the Continuation War. Blenheim machine gunners also shot down five Soviet fighters. Half of the Blenheims were lost to all causes during the wars.

After the war, Finland was prohibited to fly bomber aircraft. However, some of the Finnish Blenheims continued in service as target towers until 1958.

Variants

Work on an extended range reconnaissance version started as the Blenheim Mk II, which increased tankage from 278 to 468 gallons, but only one was completed. Another modification resulted in the Blenheim Mk III, which lengthened the nose to provide more room for the bombardier. This required the nose to be "scooped out" in front of the pilot to maintain visibility during takeoff and landing. However both of these modifications were instead combined, along with a newer version of the Mercury engine with 905 hp (675 kW) and a second gun in the rear cockpit, to create the Blenheim IV. When it was introduced in 1939, the Mk IV (Type 149 to Bristol) was one of the fastest bombers in the world, second only to the Dornier Do 215. In total, 3,307 would eventually be produced.

The longer range also fulfilled a Canadian requirement for a patrol bomber, consequently Fairchild Aircraft Ltd. (Canada) in Quebec, started production of the Blenheim Mk IV as the Bolingbroke, irreverently nicknamed the "Bolly." After a small run of aircraft constructed to British specifications, as the Bolingbroke Mk I, Fairchild switched production to the Bolingbroke Mk IV with American instruments and equipment. These versions also included anti-icing boots and a dinghy. Some of these aircraft served as bombers during the Aleutians campaign, but most of the 150 served in the intended role as patrol bombers on the Atlantic coast. Another 450 were completed as the Bolingbroke Mk IVT as trainers and saw extensive use in the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. One of the final variants was the Bolingbroke Mk IVW which was powered by two 895 kW (1,200-hp) Pratt&Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines. A total of 676 Bolingbrokes was produced.

Another modification led to a heavy fighter version. For this role, about 200 Blenheims were fitted as Mk IF variant, with an underbelly gun-pack with four 0.303-in machine guns. Some of them were also fitted with an Airborne Intercept (AI) Mk III or IV radar, being the first British fighters with radar. Their performance was marginal as a fighter, but they served before the advent of more sophisticated machines. A radar-equipped Blenheim Mk IF scored the first night fighter victory. About 60 of Mk IVs were also equipped with a gun pack as Mk IVF used by Coastal Command to protect convoys from German long-range bombers.

The last bomber variant was conceived as an armoured ground attack aircraft using a solid nose containing four more Browning machine guns. Originally known as the Bisley, the production aircraft were renamed Blenheim V and featured a strengthened structure, pilot armour, interchangeable nose gun pack or bombardier position and, yet another new Mercury with 950 hp (710 kW). The Blenheim V was ordered for conventional bombing operations, with the removal of armour and most of the glazed nose section. The Mk V or Type 160, was used primarily in the Middle East and Far East.

The Blenheim also served as the pattern for the Beaufort which itself led to the Beaufighter.

Specifications (Bristol Blenheim Mk IV)

General characteristics

* Crew: 3

* Length: 42 ft 9 in (13 m)

* Wingspan: 56 ft 4 in (17.17 m)

* Height: 12 ft 10 in (3.91 m)

* Wing area: 469 ft2 (43.6 m2)

* Empty weight: 9,790 lb (4,440 kg)

* Loaded weight: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg)

* Powerplant: 2× Bristol Mercury XV radial engine, 920 hp (690 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 266 mph (231 knots, 428 km/h)

* Range: 1,950 mi (1,690 nm, 3,140 km)

* Service ceiling 31,500 ft (9,600 m)

* Rate of climb: 1,500 ft/min (7.6 m/s)

* Wing loading: 30.7 lb/ft2 (150 kg/m2)

* Power/mass: 0.13 hp/lb (210 W/kg)

Armament

* Guns:

1× .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in the nose

2× .303 in Browning machine guns in chin turret

2× .303 in Browning machine guns in dorsal turret

* Bombs:

4× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs or

2× 500 lb (230 kg) bombs internally, and

8× 40 lb (18 kg) bombs externally

Bristol Bolingbroke

Type: 3 Seater Light Bomber

Manufacturer: Bristol

Designation: Bolingbroke

Location : Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

Powerplant : Two 920hp Bristol Mercury XV

Number of Engines : 2

Wing Span : 56ft' 4"

Length : 42ft '9"

Height : 12ft 10"

Horsepower : 920"

Speed : 266mph

Armament : One 0.303 Vickers K in nose, two 0.0303in Brownings in chin turret and two 0.0303in Brownings in dorsal turret. Four fixed brownings under fuselage. 1000lbs bomb load

Gundlach Peryskop obrotowy

Single-turret 7TP

Type Light tank

Specifications

Weight: 9.9 tonnes

Length: 4.6 m

Width: 2.4 m

Height: 2.27 m

Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)

Armor: 17 mm

Primary armament: 1×37 mm Bofors wz. 37

Secondary armament: 1×7.92 mm Ckm wz.30

Engine: Diesel Saurer VBLDd 110 hp (80 kW)

Power/weight: 11 hp/tonne

Suspension: leaf-spring bogie

Ground clearance: 381 mm

Operational: range 150 km

Speed: 37 km/h

The 7TP was the Polish light tank of the Second World War. A development of the British Vickers 6-ton, it was significantly better armed than its most common opponents, the German Panzer I and Panzer II. A standard tank of the Polish Army during the Polish Defensive War of 1939, its production never exceeded 140 vehicles. Its chassis was used as the base for C7P artillery
tractor.

History

Development

The 7TP was the Polish development of the British Vickers 6-ton (Mk.E) tank licence. The main new features of 7TP were: better, more reliable and powerful diesel engine, 37 mm anti-tank gun and a bit thicker armour (in front, 17 mm instead of 13 mm), together with many minor modifications and additions (like Gundlach tank periscope, different air conditioning system and a radio). Only about 132 tanks were produced between 1935 and the outbreak of the war (plus four iron prototypes). The designation 7TP meant: 7-Ton, Polish (in fact its weight increased after the initial prototype was made and the actual serial tanks weighted approximately 9 tonnes).

Like its British predecessor, the 7TP was initially produced in two variants: twin turret version armed with 2 Ckm wz.30 machine guns, and a single turret version, armed with 37 mm Bofors wz. 37 gun. After initial tests, it became clear that the twin-turret variant was obsolete and lacked firepower, so it was abandoned in favour of the more modern single turret design.

Prior to the outbreak of World War II most of the twin turret tanks were converted to single turret versions and only 24 twin-turret types remained in Polish service (as opposed to roughly 108 of the other type). It is to be noted that twin and single turret variants had no specific designations. In some modern books they are designated with abbreviations: "7TP dw." and "7TP jw." (Polish abbreviation for jednowieżowy and dwuwieżowy). However, these were not the official names of the variants and are used for simplicity's sake only.

Combat use

All 7TP tanks took part in combat in the Polish Defensive War of 1939. Most of them were attached to two light tank battalions (the 1st and the 2nd) fighting as a part of the Polish motorized brigades. The remaining tanks, that is the ones used for training as well as tanks that were finished after the outbreak of the war, were used in an improvised tank unit fighting in the defence of Warsaw. Although technically superior to any of the German light tanks of the era, the 7TP was too scarce to change the outcome of the war.

The 1st Light Tank Battalion (49 single turret tanks) fought in the ranks of the Prusy Army as part of the strategic reserve force of the Polish Army. It entered combat on September 4, 1939 and fought with distinction in a variety of roles, mostly as a mobile reserve and for covering the withdrawal. It fought in a number of battles, most notably in the battles of Przedbórz, Sulejów, Inowłódz, Odrzywół and Drzewica. On September 8 it managed to stop the German advance on the centre of the Polish forces, but the following day it got separated from the main force and had to be withdrawn to the rear. Part of the battalion was destroyed in the Battle of Głowaczów, while the remainder on September 13 managed to break through to the other side of the Vistula, where it joined the Lublin Army and Col. Stefan Rowecki's Warsaw Armoured-Motorised Brigade. As part of that unit, the battalion took part in the Battle of Józefów and formed part of the spearhead of the Polish units trying to break through to Lwów and the Romanian Bridgehead. After the Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski, on September 21, 1939, the remaining tanks were destroyed by their crews and the unit surrendered to the Germans.

The 2nd Light Tank Battalion (49 single turret tanks) was attached to the Piotrków Operational Group of the Łódź Army. It entered combat on September 4 near the river of Prudka, Belchatow. The following day it was ordered to lead the Polish counter-assault on Piotrków, but the attack failed and the unit suffered heavy losses. The battalion was then rallied and withdrawn to Warsaw and then to Brześć, where it shielded the mobilization of the Polish 60th Infantry Division. On September 15 it took part in a two-day long Battle of Włodawa, but suffered heavy losses due to air bombardment and was withdrawn southwards. The remaining tanks had to be destroyed by the crews due to lack of oil and on September 17, after the Soviet Union joined Germany in her war against Poland, the crews and the staff of the unit crossed the border with Romania.

The remaining tanks found in Warsaw were formed into 1st and 2nd Company of Light Tanks by the Command of the Defence of Warsaw. The 1st company had 11 twin-turreted tanks, previously used for training. In the opening stages of the Siege of Warsaw the unit took part in heavy fights for the Warsaw's suburb of Okęcie and the major airport located there. Due to lack of anti-tank armament, the tanks of the 1st company suffered losses and were withdrawn to the rear on September 12, where the unit was joined with the 2nd company.

The 2nd company had 11 single-turret tanks, as well as an unknown number of other armoured vehicles. It took part in successful defence of the borough of Wola against German infantry and armoured units. It was also used for tactical counter attacks, among others for the village of Wawrzyszew, where the company managed to disrupt enemy preparations for the assault. On September 15 the company was ordered to form a spearhead of the Polish attack aimed at linking up with the forces of the Poznań Army withdrawing after the Battle of Bzura through the Kampinos forest north of Warsaw. The attack ended up as a minor success, although the German aerial bombardment caused heavy losses both in personnel and in tanks. The remaining 7TP tanks were used on various sectors of the front until the end of the defence of Warsaw on September 27, when they were destroyed by their crews.

The combat experience proved that the Bofors wz. 37 anti-tank gun used in the 7TP was able to penetrate the armour of any of the German tanks of the time, including the modern Panzer IV. On the other hand, the tank was armoured too lightly, especially against aerial bombardment. Altogether, it is estimated that 20 tanks were captured by the Germans almost intact while one was captured by the Soviets. Additional 20 were successfully withdrawn to Romania and Hungary, while almost 40 had to be abandoned due to engine problems and lack of fuel. No complete 7TP tanks have survived to this day, although it is planned to build a copy of the tank for the Museum of the Polish Army in Warsaw.

Operators

Nazi Germany - A number captured during German invasion of Poland.

Poland - 133 7TP jw and 16 7TP dw.

Soviet Union - 1 7TP jw captured during Soviet invasion of Poland

Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV

The Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV, invented by Polish engineer Rudolf Gundlach, was first patented in 1936 as Gundlach Peryskop obrotowy. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret. The main advantage of this was that the tank commander no longer had to turn his head in order to look backwards.

The design was first used in the Polish 7-TP light tank. Shortly before the war it was given to the British and was used in most tanks of WWII, including the British Crusader, Churchill, Valentine, and Cromwell and the American Sherman. The design was later copied and used extensively in tanks of the USSR (including the T-34 and T-70) and Germany.

LINK

SAAB B-17A

Unit: 2nd Division, F4 Flygflottilj

Serial: C/4 (c/n.17355)

Froson, 1944-1945. Note: 2nd Division, F4 Flygflottilj insignia.

SAAB B-17A

Unit: 1st Division, F4 Flygflottilj

Serial: M/4 (c/n.17342)

Froson, 1944-1945. Note: 1st Division, F4 Flygflottilj insignia.

SAAB B-17A

Unit: Imperial Ethiopian Air Force

Serial: 319 (c/n.17311)

The aircraft from Imperial Ethiopian AF (IEAF) belonging to second batch of SAAB B-17A delivered to Ethiopia in 1950 (5 aircraft).

For the fledgling Swedish aircraft industry the Saab 17 represented a great technological challenge. It was the first all-metal, stressed-skin aircraft ever designed in Sweden.

A light bomber and reconnaissance aircraft for Army and Naval use, the design began under the project designation L-10. For Naval use, a float equipped version was designed.

The L-10 was selected for development following an Air Force evaluation of the two different projects submitted, one by AB Forenade Flygverkstader (AFF), the joint development and contract management company formed in 1937, the other by ASJA. A contract for two L-10 prototypes was awarded to ASJA on 29 November, 1938.

To make possible a rapid start for the development work, ASJA had augmented its engineering staff by hiring a total of 46 American designers and stress specialists in 1938-39. Their stay in Sweden, however, was to prove rather brief as most of them were called back to the United States when war began in Europe in September 1939. Their input of experience was very valuable, however, and significantly contributed to the excellent reliability of the aircraft. The first prototype of the Saab 17, as the aircraft had now been named, made its first flight on 18 May, 1940, with the company's chief test pilot Claes Smith at the controls. The first prototype was powered by a Swedish-built Nohab/Bristol Mercury XII of 880 hp, the second by a Pratt&Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp of 1,065 hp.

The aircraft had very sleek lines and many advanced design features, including flush-riveting for low drag. For maximum strength the centre section was designed without any cut-outs for the undercarriage. The rearward-retracting main undercarriage units and their covering doors were intended for use as air-brakes during dive-bombing, and the tailwheel was also retractable. The aircraft was also almost unique in having a retractable ski undercarriage which actually produced less drag than the wheel type. Even the water-based version which was normally equipped with floats was converted to have skis in the winter. The floats were of the Edo type manufactured under licence by Hagglund & Soner at Ornskoldsvik in Northern Sweden.

The fuselage, which had a roomy, high-visibility cabin for the pilot and observer/navigator/rear-gunner, contained an internal bomb-bay. The Saab 17 carried up to 700 kg of bombs of various sizes from 50 up to 500 kg. In the internal bomb-bay a 250 kg bomb (or eight 50 kg) could be carried. The armament comprised two 8 mm machine-guns in the wings and one flexible 8 mm machine-gun at the rear seat. An early version of the aircraft used for classic dive-bombing tactics was equipped with a special 'fork'm lowering the external carried 500 kg bomb free of the propeller arc.

During the production life of the aircraft the Saab BT-2 'toss' bombsight became available, making dive-bombing obsolete. This also made the use of the undercarriage doors as air-brakes unnecessary.

The reconnaissance version carried an N-2 camera in the fuselage.

The development and production of the Saab 17 was complicated by the problems of engine availability. Initially, the aircraft was planned for the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp. This version was designated B 17A in the Air Force. The Twin Wasp engine however did not become available until 1943-44, and therefore the first version of the aeroplane to go into production was the B/S 17B powered by a Swedish SFA-built Bristol Mercury XXIV of 980 hp. This engine also powered the seaplane version which was designated S 17BS. In 1941 the Air Force was able to procure the Italian Piaggio P XIbis RC 40 of 1,040 hp which powered the B17C version. The Wasp powered B 17A thus became the last version to go into service. The engines in the B 17A and B had Hamilton Standard variable-pitch propellers built under licence in Sweden by Svenska Flygmotor. The Piaggio engines drove Piaggio P 1001 propellers.

In addition to the three prototypes, the Swedish Air Force ordered a total of 322 B 1718 17s in four batches during the period 27 December, 1940, to 1 September, 1942. The first production aircraft flew on 1 December. 1941, and the last delivery took place on 16 September, 1944.

The type was manufactured both in Linkoping and at Trollhattan. In fact, only 55 of the 322 production aircraft were completely built at Linkoping. The production of the four versions was split as follows: 132 B 17A; 116 B/8 17B (38 were delivered as seaplanes under the 8 17B8 designation); and 77 B 17C.

The Air Force career of the Saab 17, which began in early 1942, was very distinguished and six light-bomber and reconnaissance Wings (F 2, F 3, F 4, F 6, F 7, and F 12) were equipped with the aircraft. It was retired as a combat aircraft in 1948.

In the final phase of the Second World War it was feared that the German troops in Denmark (and Norway) would not obey Germany's order for total surrender. In Sweden the Danish Brigade, first organized in 1943, also included a number of Danish Air Force officers who in 1944 had been trained in the use of the Saab 17. Fifteen B 17Cs were actually allocated to the Brigade and were ready for deployment to Denmark and carrying Danish colours at the Swedish Air Force F 7 Wing at Satenas, but the order to fly to Denmark never came from the Danish Government.

In the period 1947-53 the Ethiopian Air Force, which had been organized by Swedish officers after the war at the request of Emperor Haile Selassie, eventually procured a total of 47 Saab 17As in three batches. Responsible for the organization of the Ethiopian Air Force was the Swedish Colonel Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen. The Saab 17s proved ideal for the rugged conditions in Ethiopia. In the late 1950s a number of Fairey Firefly attack aircraft were acquired from Canada in order to modernize the Air Force but these aircraft finished their service in Ethiopia well before the Saab 17s, which were still operating in squadron strength in 1960. Even in the 1970s some Saab 17s were operating in Ethiopia after more than 25 years of service in that country. The Ethiopian Saab 17s had their main base at Asmara, 2,300 m above sea level. The Saab 17s endurance of more than 4 hours was vital in that part of the world. Ethiopia, with its many high mountains and few airfields, covers twice as large an area as Sweden which itself is as big as the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria combined.

Starting in 1951, the Air Board released a number of Saab 17As to serve as civil registered target-towing aircraft for the Swedish armed forces. The aircraft were still owned by the Air Board but operated by private companies, Svensk Flygtjanst and AVIA, the latter company based on the island of Gotland. Eventually, a total of 20 Saab 17s were on the Swedish civil aircraft register, most of these serving with Svensk Flygtjanst. Two S17BS seaplanes were also in civil use during 1949-51 owned by Ostermans Aero AB. One ex-Flygtjanst target-towing 17A was sold to Austria in 1957 and two years later two similar aircraft went to the Finnish Air Force.

BI7A

Span 13.7 m (45 ft 1 in); length 9.8 m (32 ft 2 in); height 4.0 m (13 it 1 in); wing area 28.5 sq m

(307 sq ft). Empty weight 2,600 kg (5,7321b); loaded weight 3,970 kg (8,752Ib). Maximum

speed 435 km/h (270 mph); cruising speed 390 km/h (242 mph); landing speed 125 km/h (78

mph); initial rate of climb 10 m/sec (1,968 ft/min); ceiling 8,700 m (28,500 ft); range 1,800 km

(1,120 miles).

B17B

Span 13.7 m (45 ft 1 in); length 9.8 m (32 ft 2 in); height 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in); wing area 28.5 sq m

(307 sq ft). Empty weight 2,635 kg (5,800 lb); loaded weight 3,835 kg (8,450 lb). Maximum

speed 395 km/h (245 mph); cruising speed 375 km/h (233 mph); landing speed 125 km/h (78

mph); initial rate of climb 9 m/sec (1,770 ft/min); ceiling 8, 000 m (26,250 ft); range 1,400 km

(870 miles).

S 17BS

Span 13.7 m (45 ft 1 in); length 10.0 m (32 ft 10 in); height 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in); wing area 28.5 sq m (307 sq ft). Empty weight 2,700 kg (5,950 lb); loaded weight 3,800 kg (8,370 lb). Maximum speed 330 km/h (205 mph); cruising speed 315 km/h (196 mph); landing speed 125 km/h (78 mph); ceiling 6,800 m (22,300 ft); range 2,000 km (1,245 miles).

B17C

Span 13.7 m (45 ft 1 in); length 10.0 m (32 ft 10 in); height 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in); wing area

28.5 sq m (307 sq ft). Empty weight 2,680 kg (5,900 lb); loaded weight 3,870 kg (8,5251b).

Maximum speed 435 km/h (270 mph); cruising speed 370 km/h (230 mph); landing speed 125

km/h (78 mph); ceiling 9,800 m (32,150 ft); range 1,700 km (1,060 miles).

Saab 17 production serials

(prototypes): 17001, 17002

(SFA/II Twin Wasp-powered bomber version); 17006, 17238-17368

(SFAI Mercury-powered bomber version): 17003-17005, 17007-17016, 17101, 17105-

17115,17151-17164,17187-17202

S 17BL: (land-based reconnaissance version): 17103, 17131-17150

S 17BS: (water-based reconnaissance version): 17104, 17116-17130, 17165-17186

E17E: (Piaggio-powered bomber version): 17017, 17057, 17102, 17203-17237

Civil registered Saab 17s

Saab 17A

17239 SE-BYH To Flygvapen Museum

17249 SE-BUD

17251 SE-BYG

17256 SE-BYE

17267 SE-BZH

17268 SE-BRN

17284 SE-BRR

17296 SE-BPP

17308 SE-BPR

17313 SE-BUM

17318 SE-BWA

17320 SE-BWe To Finland as SH-2

17334 SE-BUL

17336 SE-BYK

17339 SE-BYF To Austria

17355 SE-BRO To Finland as SH-l

17356 SE-BUN

17358 SE-BUK

17364 BE-BUH

Saab 17BS

17174 SE-APe Ostennans Aero AB

17185 SE-BFA

LINK

LINK

ITALIAN MACHINE GUN MODEL 1915 O.V.P. 9MM SN# 7192
Manufactured by Officine di Villar Perosa, Villar Perosa, Italy in 1916 - Standard Italian WWI machine gun equipped with two 25-round detachable box magazines. Retarded blowback design. 6-groove rifling; right hand twist. Full-auto fire only. Muzzle velocity 1312 fps. Cyclic rate of fire 1200 rpm (per barrel). Spade grips with wood handles. Equipped with bipod. Weapon weighs approximately 14.3 lbs. (twin barrel). Weapon also known as "Revelli" or "Fiat." Originally introduced as light machine gun; weapon was not suitable for this role. Cartridge: 9mm Glisenti.

Markings:
Spade handle: OFFICINE/DI/VILLAR/PEROSA/NO. 7192 (in oval).
Bolt: 2 (in circle)/RE.
Various inspectors' marks on sub assemblies.

"Developed in 1914 by Major Revelli of the Italian Army, the Villar Perosa was originally intended for aircraft use. As a light machine gun, the first fully automatic arm designed to fire a pistol cartridge, it could not compete with other models that fired heavier rifle cartridges. The two barrels could be fired either simultaneously, with a cyclic rate of fire of 3000 rounds per minute, or separately. It was not long before the two units were separated and put on stock, making an effective infantry weapon for close fighting, in effect a new breed of weapon, the sub-machine gun."

Notes: "The VILLAR PEROSA (V.P.) was the first known weapon to fire pistol ammunition automatically and is, therefore, rated as 'the first submachine gun.' It is also referred to as the REVELLI, a name derived from its designer, Abiel Betel Revelli. The patent for this weapon was filed in the United States in December, 1915, and the Italian Government during World War I, designated the original model of the VILLAR PEROSA (V.P.) as the Model 1915.
The weapon underwent very minor modification, primarily adaptations of the gun to various mounts. As these models appeared, the designations 'Model 1916' and 'Model 1917' were awarded the latter guns. To add to further confusion, the weapon was also rather liberally referred to in Italian Military literature of the First World War period as the 'FIAT.' This latter designation was, of course, the Revelli-designed V.P. was produced. The VILLAR PEROSA was also manufactured by Officine Di Villar Perosa, located in Villar Perosa, Italy, and the Canadian General Electric Company, Ltd., in Toronto, Canada. The Canadian firm produced the weapon in limited numbers for the Italian Government during the last two years of the war. Literature from that firm called the weapon the 'REVELLI Automatic Machine Gun', and offered it with a variety of mounts, including a rather elaborate tripod mount.
The fact that the V.P. was called an 'Automatic Machine Gun' was one of its great misfortunes, since the weapon was introduced during the early phases of the war to fill the gap as a light machine gun. This type of weapon was in great demand by the Italian Army for the rugged mountain fighting, particularly because the Italian Army had no reliable machine gun. The V.P. was, therefore, thrust into a role which it could not fulfill, since it did not fire rifle ammunition.
Later in the war, after the VILLAR PEROSA had been used in the mountain warfare for some time, and its limitations were better understood, its correct tactical use was developed to a fine art.
It is interesting to note that the V.P. was used to a limited degree during the early part of the war as armored car, aircraft and naval armament. It was dropped from these roles as the war progressed and a better tactical appreciation of the weapon evolved.
With limited knowledge of what the weapon and its corresponding pistol ammunition could be expected to accomplish, the Italians pushed the weapon into service without giving their troops any practical training in its use. The VILLAR PEROSA naturally did not meet original expectations, primarily due to bad tactical handling. It was not, nor could it ever have become a machine gun in the tactical sense. It simply did not have the range to act as a true light machine gun and, consequently, could not fulfill the task required of it, since most were beyond its scope and capability.
The VILLAR PEROSA, when used by Italian infantry, was usually fitted with a bipod for ground use and with a shield in fixed positions. It was also used on the assault and carried into battle mounted on a flat board which extended in a perpendicular position from the firer. The board was suspended by straps hung around the soldier's neck. The entire arrangement had the same effect in principle as the box carried by a cigarette girl in a nightclub. Apparently the soldier fired the weapon while walking in on the assault. A special badge was worn by Italian troops using the VILLAR PEROSA and was called 'Trofeo de braccio - Pistola Mitragliatrice.'" - Thomas B. Nelson

"Designed by Revelli for the Officina Villar Perosa in 1915, the Mitragliatrice Legerra Villar Perosa M15 was actually two guns in one, twin barrels and actions being mounted side by side, each one with a vertical box magazine, sharing a single trigger. The guns were fitted with paired spade grips, and had no buttstock. They were notable chiefly for their extremely high cyclical rate: said to be 1,200 r.p.m., from each each barrel. However, since the magazines held but 25 rounds each, the rate actually achievable was considerably less. Many different mountings were available, including bipods and tripods, pintle mounts for vehicles and even a bicycle mounting, but the gun was never a success in its original form - as a light support weapon - due to the inadequacies of the ammunition for which it was chambered.
Most examples were later converted, either by OVP or by Beretta, into more conventional sub-machine guns with solid wooded buttstocks, each one original making two new weapons, of course." - Roger Ford

"...the tactical application of the Vilar Perosa was far from being that of a submachine-gun; it was actually intended as a light machine-gun for infantry support. This arose from the fact that the Italian Army had difficulties with their machine-guns, largely owing to the peculiar systems they chose to adopt and the somewhat peculiar small-calibre rifle cartridge they used. Their standard First World War machine-gun was the Revelli, a heavy and not particularly reliable weapon which was far from ideal in the mountain warfare conditions which the Italians encountered on most of their front with the Austrians. The lightweight Vilar Perosa was therefore intended as the mountain troop machine-gun, mounted on bipod or tripod and sometimes even with a heavy steel shield. However, due to the relatively weak pistol round, it was not a conspicuous success in this role, since its range was limited, and it eventually found its niche when slung form the shoulders of a walking soldier by means of a strap and supporting tray. In this way he could hold the spade grips at waist level and fire the guns as he advanced. The rate of fire was astronomical - 3000 rounds a minute when both barrels were firing - and this was unfortunate, since the magazines only held 20 rounds for each barrel and they emptied very quickly. It was normal to fire only one barrel at a time in order to conserve ammunition, and the operator carried some 600 rounds, ready loaded in magazines, but magazine changes at frequent intervals was still quite a performance.
This, then, is the weapon generally considered to be the grandfather of the submachine-gun. But it will be clear from the description that while it may qualify on mechanical grounds, it certainly bears little resemblance to the weapons which came later. - Ian Hogg

References:
Ford, Roger. THE GRIM REAPER: MACHINE GUNS AND MACHINE GUNNERS IN ACTION. Sarpedon Press. N.Y., N.Y. 1996.
Hogg, Ian. THE COMPLETE MACHINE GUN: 1885 TO THE PRESENT. Exeter Books. N.Y., N.Y. 1979.
Nelson, Thomas B. THE WORLD'S SUBMACHINE GUNS (MACHINE PISTOLS). Vol. I. T.B.N. Enterprises. Alexandria, Va. 1977.

LINK

Probably the most advanced of all Japanese carriers, Taihō had an armoured night deck, enclosed bow and the la test in ÄA defences (including an air warning radar for the first time). Taihō was lost just before the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

In many ways technically the most advanced of the Japanese carriers, the Taihō was unique. In 1939 Japanese intelligence learned that the British 'Illustrious' class carriers would have armoured decks, and so a new type of armoured carrier was planned under the Fourth Reinforcement Programme. The appalling carnage of Midway lent even more emphasis to the need for armoured flight decks, and two units more were ordered in 1942.

The Japanese design differed considerably from the British 'box-hangar' concept, for only the flight deck was protected by 75-mm (3-in) armour, and then only between the lifts. There were two hangars, the lower hangar being protected by 35mm (1.3 in) armour as well. Waterline armour was also provided but on a more lavish scale, 150mm (5.9 in) abreast of the magazines and 55 mm (2.2 in) over the machinery. All this armour involved a colossal top weight penalty, and to preserve stability the designers were forced to allow one less deck above the waterline, in comparison with the 'Shokaku' class. This meant that the lower hangar deck was just above the waterline, and the bottom of the lift wells was below the waterline. She was also the first Japanese carrier to incorporate a hurricane bow.

The opportunity was taken to use the latest defensive guns: a new high velocity 100-mm (3.9-in) Type 98 twin mounting, For the first time an air warning radar was included. It had been hoped to operate 84 aircraft, but only 75 could be spared by the time the ship was ready: the aircraft were available, but not sufficient trained aircrew.

The new carrier, to be called Taihō, was laid down on the 10 July 1941 and launched almost two years later, on 7 April 1943, and was finally completed eleven months afterwards on7 March 1944. Immediately she joined Carrier Division 1, and was sent with the Shokaku and Zuikaku to Singapore. As soon as her air group was trained CarDiv 1 was sent to Tawi Tawi in the southern Philippines to join the First Mobile Fleet.

On 19 June, during the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Taihō had just launched her aircraft when the American submarine Albacore fired a spread of six 21-in (533- mm) torpedoes, one of which hit. The submarine chanced upon the carrier while she turned into the wind and was launching her planes. Even the breakdown of the sub's attack computer did not matter as she fired a spread of six torpedoes. One of the Taihō's strike pilots, Sakio Komatsu had just taken off when he saw the torpedo wakes and deliberately dived his plane on the path of a torpedo in a vain attempt to save his ship. One of the torpedoes hit Vice-Admiral Ozawa's flagship, the 31,000-ton carrier, the newest and largest floating air base in the Japanese fleet in a part where her armour is thickest. The explosion jammed the ship's forward aircraft elevator, and filled its pit with gasoline, water, and aviation fuel.

Although her fuel tanks were ruptured, the Taihō lost only a little speed, and preparations were made to plank over the jammed forward lift, to permit flying operations to continue. However, no fire erupted, and the flight deck was unharmed. Ozawa was unconcerned by the hit and launched two more waves of aircraft. Meanwhile, a novice officer took over the damage control responsibilities. He believed that the best way to handle gasoline fumes was to open up the ship's ventilation system and let them disperse throughout the ship. This action turned the ship into a floating time bomb. But deadly gasoline vapour was spreading throughout the ship, and about 5 hours after the torpedo hits, some mischance (probably the switch on an electric pump) sparked off a colossal explosion. At 1330, the tremendous explosion jolted Taihō and blew out the sides of the carrier. Taihō began to settle in the water and was clearly doomed. Although Admiral Ozawa wanted to go down with the ship, his staff persuaded him to transfer to the cruiser Haguro. After Ozawa left, Taihō was torn by a second explosion and sank stern first, carrying down 1650 officers and men. The armoured flight deck was split down the middle, the sides of the hangar were blown out, and it seems that holes were blown through the keel. About 90 minutes later the remains of the Taihō sank.

Specification

Taihō

Displacement: 29,300 tons standard, 37,270 tons full load

Dimensions: length 260.5 m (854 ft 8 in); beam 27.7 m (90 ft 10 in); draught 9.6 m (31 ft 6 in)

Machinery: 4-shaft geared steam turbines delivering 180,000 shp (134225kW)

Speed: 33 knots

Armour: see text

Armament: six twin 100-mm (3.9-in) AA and 15 triple 25-mm AA guns

Aircraft: 30 Yokosuka D4Y 'Judy1 dive-bombers, 27 Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighters and 18 Nakajima B6N Jill' torpedo-bombers

Complement: 1751 (2,150 as flagship) officers and men

SPITFIRES: THE POST-WAR YEARS

By Christopher Whitehead

To prevent a complete rundown of the aviation industry, the manufacture of the Spitfire continued after the end of the war, albeit in far fewer quantities than originally ordered. By the end of 1946, the only home front-line squadrons still operating Spitfires were No 41 with F.21s and No 63 with LF Mk XVIEs. However, the Auxiliary Air Force was reformed in June of that year and 13 of its squadrons were equipped with Spitfires and when the RNVR squadrons formed, they operated Seafires until 1954. On the continent, the last Spitfire squadron to leave Germany was No 80, which took its F.24s to Hong Kong in the second half of 1949. They re-equipped with Hornets in January 1952 and some of the F.24s were then continued in service with the Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force until April 1955.

The first two-seat Spitfire is thought to have been a local modification to a Mk V carried out by No 261 Squadron in the Middle East in 1944. Shortly after the war, a Mk VIII Spitfire was converted by Supermarine into a two-seat trainer as a private venture. A few Mk IXs were subsequently similarly converted, all for overseas customers. Other exports included 50 PR.19s to Sweden in 1948 and a smaller number to India in 1951.

The only squadron to operate the F.22 was No 73, which briefly flew them in the Middle East. The main users were the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, which operated them until the last received jets in 1951.

In the Far East, No 155 Squadron retuned to Singapore from the Dutch East Indies in September 1945, where it briefly exchanged its Mk VIIIs for Mk XIVs before disbanding in August 1946. At the same time, No 273 Squadron took its Mk VIIIs to Bangkok and, a week later, to Tan Son Nhut in French Indo-China. The squadron re-equipped with Mk XIVs in November 1945 before disbanding the following January. In April 1946, the Mk XIVEs of No 17 Squadron were ferried by HMS Vengeance to Japan, where they were based at Iwakuni as part of the Allied Occupation Force. The squadron moved to Miho before disbanding early in 1948.

In 1947, six Spitfires flew from Singapore to Hong Kong to test the feasibility of reinforcing the colony. Two years later, with China in the throes of civil war, No 28 Squadron moved to Hong Kong from Singapore to be joined by No 80 Squadron which arrived by sea. No 28 Squadron relinquished its FR.18s in January 1951, while No 80 kept its F.24s until December of the same year.

When the Malayan Emergency was declared in May 1948, the RAF had Nos 28 and 60 Squadrons available with FR.18s and No 81 Squadron with some PR.19s. The first strike of the campaign was carried out on 6 July by two of 60 Squadron's aircraft which virtually destroyed a terrorist camp. Ten days later, an attack was mounted against a hut which was particularly difficult to reach at ground level and ten terrorists were killed. However, old and faulty wiring leading to an accidental ground discharge of a rocket towards the end of August led to a ban on the carriage of rockets by Spitfires. On 28 February 1949, Spitfires carried 20lb fragmentation bombs for the first time and, in conjunction with Beaufighters, killed at least nine terrorists. In April, six attacks in 12 days accounted for 37 terrorists; and, on 21 October the largest attack to date involved 62 sorties by a variety of aircraft including Spitfires and Seafires. Twelve Seafires of No 800 Squadron also supplemented other aircraft between July and September 1950.

Compared to results achieved during the Second World War, operations against terrorists who could not be seen and whose location was in doubt might seem to have achieved little. Yet, they were effective, if not so much in causing casualties as in forcing the enemy to move and hide and in lowering morale. Over 1,800 operational sorties were flown against the terrorists by Spitfires. Age and climate took their natural toll and, in the year before they were withdrawn, the serviceability rate could only average 50%.

The air reconnaissance task was performed almost entirely by No 81 Squadron, whose equipment included a small number of FR.18s and PR.19s. For the first two to three months of the campaign, all tactical air reconnaissance was performed by one Spitfire and one pilot who, at one stage, flew at least once a day on 56 consecutive days. By June 1949, there were three Spitfires on detachment from Singapore at Kuala Lumpur. In March 1950, all were transferred to No 60 Squadron at Tengah. They returned to No 81 Squadron later in the year, bringing that unit's strength to five Spitfires.

The last RAF Spitfire offensive sorties anywhere were flown by the FR.18s of No 60 Squadron on 1 January 1951. No 81 Squadron continued to operate three FR.18s in the reconnaissance role, together with two PR.19s until replaced by Meteor FR.10s in 1954. The Spitfire's last operational photographic reconnaissance mission was flown by PR.19 PS888 on 1 April 1954. That same year, the Burmese Air Force acquired 30 LF Mk IXs from Israel to replace the 20 Seafire Mk IIIs and a handful of Spitfire FR.18s originally supplied by the UK, for use in the close support role. The last Spitfire sortie in Hong Kong took place on 21 April 1955 when a Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force F.24 participated in The Queen's Birthday flypast.

No Spitfires saw service in the Korean War, although No 2 Squadron of the South African Air Force trained on LF Mk IXs before taking its Mustangs to war. HMS Triumph was in Far East waters with No 800 Squadron and its Seafire F.47s on board however, and their first operation was a strike by 12 Seafires and 9 Fireflies on Haeju airfield on 3 July 1950. Because of their short range, the Seafires were frequently given the Combat Air Patrol task over the fleet. During the Inchon landings in September, Seafires flew armed reconnaissance missions and spotted for the bombarding cruisers. But, by the end of the month, No 800 Squadron had only three serviceable aircraft and no replacements were available in the Far East. The inevitable crop of landing accidents and cumulative airframe stress damage meant the end of the Seafire's operational life. Nevertheless, the squadron flew 245 offensive patrols and 115 ground attack sorties before HMS Triumph was replaced by HMS Theseus with its Sea Furies and Fireflies.

Nearer to home, the State of Israel came into being on 15 May 1948. To mark the occasion, two Egyptian LF Mk IXs bombed and strafed Tel Aviv, one being shot down by ground fire. A few days later, the RAF's Nos 32 and 208 Squadrons were strafed at Ramat David. Later the same day, four more Spitfires attacked the airfield and three were shot down by the combined efforts of four FR.18s of 208 Squadron and the RAF Regiment's gunfire. Being the meat in the Israeli-Egyptian sandwich was not a sinecure for the RAF as was evidenced on another occasion when, during the course of a routine patrol along the border between the two countries, an FR.18 of No 208 Squadron was shot down by Israeli ground fire. While circling the crash site, the other three members of the formation were 'bounced' and shot down by Israeli Spitfires, with one RAF pilot being killed.

Spitfires operated alongside Bf-109s in the embryo Israeli Air Force, as they had earlier alongside Fw-190s in the Turkish Air Force. With the lifting of the arms embargo, Israel acquired newer types with which to re-equip. The last nation in the Middle East to operate Spitfires was Syria, which kept its F.22s until 1953.

The final Seafire was the F.47, the naval version of the Spitfire F.24. Ninety were built, the last being delivered in March 1949. It had the longest range of any Seafire mark and had a top speed of 452 mph. However, a Mk XVII holds the record for the Fleet Air Arm's fastest aircraft when a machine from No 778 Squadron achieved Mach 0.88 in a dive. It was also the last Seafire to see service, No 764 Training Squadron finally relinquishing its Mk XVIIs on 23 November 1954.

Even though withdrawn form front-line service, the Spitfire had continued in a number of non-operational roles, including anti-aircraft co-operation. The last three actively employed by the RAF were the PR.19s of the Temperature and Humidity Flight which made over 4,000 meteorological flights before being replaced by Mosquitoes in June 1957.

In November 1944, the Air Fighting Development Unit had recommended that, because of the instability of the first F.21s, not only should the mark be withdrawn from service immediately but no more effort should be made to perpetuate the Spitfire family! Fortunately, the F.21's faults were rectified and both the Spitfire and the Seafire were further developed to the stage where they warranted new names - the Spiteful and the Seafang. Beautiful and fast though they were, the jet age had arrived with its potential of expanding performance still further, and thus a mere 17 Spitefuls and 18 Seafangs were built, only 11 of the latter actually flying. Nevertheless, both types played a part in the research into transonic aerodynamics, particularly in the area of laminar flow wings as used on the Attacker.

In all, over 20,000 Spitfires and Seafires were built. Today, a handful fly on in the hands of private owners and with the Royal Air Force's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.

Whenever the song of a Merlin is heard, it will always evoke an image of Reginald Mitchell's magnificent creation - the Spitfire.

#

Supermarine Spitfire F Mk 22&24

A major design overhaul was made, again using the Mk.IV Spitfire as the development prototype. The new design was designated the Mk.XX. Design work started in 1942 on a new wing, including totally redesigned ailerons, and a new series of torsion boxes to prevent the wing twisting under load. The aircraft was originally intended to carry an armament of six 20mm Hispano cannon, but this was later reduced to four. Development continued with new prototypes and the new mark was re-designated the F.21. They entered service from January 1945, but did not see action. The F.22 Spitfire was essentially similar to the F.21, but replaced the high-back fuselage with the cut down rear fuselage and teardrop canopy. The F.24 was also a minor development, the only significant changes being the switch from a 12-volt electrical system to a 24-volt one, and the change from pneumatically fired armament to electrical triggers. The Mk.24 was the final variant of the Spitfire built, and the last delivered to the RAF was VN496 on February 24th 1948.

Mk 22 (type 356)

The Mk 22 was identical to the Mk 21 in all respects except for the fitting of a cut-back rear fuselage and tear-drop canopy and a more poweful 24 volt electrical system in place of the 12 volt system of all earlier Spitfires. Most of the Mk 22s were built with further enlarged tail surfaces, similar to those of the Supermarine Spiteful. A total of 272 Mk 22s were built: 250 by Castle Bromwich and 27 by Supermarine at South Marston.

The Mk 22 was used by only one regular RAF unit, No. 73 Squadron RAF in the Middle East. However 12 squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force used the variant and continued to do so until March 1951.

Mk 23

The Mk 23 was to be a Mk 22 incorporating a revised wing design originally created for the Supermarine Spiteful when trialled on the prototype Mk 21 PP139, the aircraft was designated F Mk 23. However, the new wing gave less than perfect handling characteristics and so the Mk 23 was never built from the Mk 22 airframe as intended.

Mk 24 (type 356)

The final Spitfire variant, the Mk 24, was similar to the Mk 22 except that it had an increased fuel capacity over its predecessors, with two fuel tanks of 33 gallons (150 l) each installed in the rear fuselage. There were also zero-point fittings for rocket projectiles under the wings. All had the larger "Spiteful" tail units: modifications were also made to the trim tab gearings in order to perfect the F 24's handling characteristics. Late production aircraft were built with short-barrelled, electrically fired Mark V Hispano cannon.

Performance was impressive - the F 24 achieved a maximum speed of 454mph, and could reach an altitude of 20,000 ft in eight minutes, putting it on a par with the most advanced piston-engined fighters of the era.

Although designed primarily as a fighter-interceptor aircraft, the Spitfire proved its versatility in several different roles. In fighter configuration the F 24's armament consisted of four short-barrelled 20mm Hispano cannon - operational experience had proved that the hitting power of these larger weapons was necessary to overcome the thicker armoured plating encountered on enemy aircraft as the war progressed. The aircraft also served successfully in the fighter-bomber role, being capable of carrying one 500lb and two 250lb bombs, with rocket-projectile launch rails fitted as standard.

A total of 81 Mk 24s were completed, 27 of which were conversions from Mk 22s. The last Mk 24 to be built was delivered in February 1948. They were used by only one RAF squadron, No. 80 Squadron RAF, until 1952. Some of the squadron's aircraft went to the Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force where they were operated until 1955.

Introduced into service in 1946, the F 24 differed from the original Spitfire Mk I in most respects and undoubtedly brought the design to the peak of perfection, being twice as heavy, more than twice as powerful and exhibiting an increase in climb rate of 80% over its predecessor. These remarkable increases in performance arose chiefly from the introduction of the Rolls-Royce Griffon engine in place of the famous Merlin of earlier variants. Rated at 2,050 hp, the twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled Griffon 61 engine featured a two-stage supercharger, giving the Spitfire the exceptional performance at high altitude that had been sometimes lacking in early marks.

1. Ju.87D-3

Unit: 207 Squdriglia, 103 Gruppo Bombardamento a Tuffo

Serial: 207-10

Decimomannu (Cagliari), Sardinia, July 1943. Between April and June of 1943, both Regia Aeronautica dive bombing groups (103 and 121), were re-equipped with Junkers Ju 87D-3s. The two gruppi were to be practically swept away during the invasion of Sicily by the overwhelming Allied air power. The attrition of the Picchiatelli units was terrific; within days there were virtually none to continue the suicidal attacks on the invasion fleet. The Italian Doras received their individual identification numbers on the fuselage, just after the squadriglia number, and not on the wheel spats as it had previously been the case with the B-2 and R-2s. (Camouflage: RLM71 Dunkelgrun upper surfaces with RLM65 Hellblau under-sides).

2. Ju.87D-3

Unit: 213 Sqn, RAF

Serial: AK? (ex S7+LL)

213 Squadron RAF personnel captured this Ju.87D at the aerodrome LG101 (Sidi Haneshi) - North Africa in November 1942. The Stuka has RAF markings and code 'AK?', and test flown on 12 November 1942.

3. Ju.87D-3 Captured by Soviet forces.

Unit: StG 77

4. Ju.87D-3

Unit: unknown

Serial: unknown

American Ju.87D-3 captured in North Africa (Tunisia) in 1943. It had British and US markings applied to avoid confusion. This aircraft was flown by USAAF as a hack, but within a short time they crashed and wrote it off.

5. Ju.87D-5

Unit: Romanian 74 Squadron

1944/1945

6. Ju.87D-5

Unit: unknown

Serial: OK-XAC (3)

The plane with civil registration and Slovak military markings. June - August 1944. The aircraft was assembled in Slovakia in 1944.

Ju.87D-8 Germany (Russian Liberation Army)

Unit: Schlachtstaffel 8, ROA

Serial: ??+GH

Spring 1945. It was transformed into Nachstchlahtstaffel 2 soon and operated from13th April 1945

Ju.87G-2

Unit: Stab/SG 2

Serial: (W.Nr.494193)

Pilot - Geschwader-Kommodore of SG 2 Oberstleutnant Hans Ulrich Rudel. East Front, 1944-1945.

With the phasing out of the Fh 104 Hallore, Siebel put in hand a considerably enlarged development of this aircraft know as the Si-204. This was, in fact, a completely new design having an all-metal structure, a single-spar wing, and a dihedral tailplane with twin fins and rudders. The main undercarriage members retracted backwards into the twin engine nacelles. The aircraft could carry a crew of two and eight passengers and was to fulfill the duties of instrument, radio, radar and navigation training for Luftwaffe crews.

The Si-204A flew for the first time in 1941, powered by two 360 hp Argus As 410 engines and fitted with a stepped cockpit, similar to the Fh 104. In the following year, the Si-204D appeared, with a shorter, fully-glazed, unstepped nose, and powered by two 600 hp Argus As 411 twelve-cylinder engines driving two-bladed propellers with pitch-changing vanes in front of the spinners. Principal production of the Si-204 was done in France, after its surrender to Germany, by the SNCAC concern. Five aircraft, per month, were being produced by the end of 1942.

The Si-204 was a very pleasant aircraft to fly, and its usefulness warranted production to continue after WWII. In the year 1943, production was initiated in the Czech aircraft factories of Aero and CKD Praga. After the war, captured Si 204s flew in a variety of roles in the Soviet Union, including with Aeroflot and TsAGI, but were all quickly phased out of service as local aircraft manufacturing was re-established.

After WWII, production continued from 1945 to 1949, reaching a production of 179 aircraft. The Czechoslovakian designation for the Siebel 204D was the C-3 (Army) and C-103 (civil version). Also, in France, SNCAC continued 48 to build the Si-204A as the NC 702 and the Si-204D as the NC 701. Total post-war production there reached more than 300. Both versions were known by the name MARTINET.

Tech Data:

• Wingspan: 21,28 m
• Length: 11,95 m
• Max Speed: 380 km/h
• Service ceiling: 7 500 m
• Range: 890 (1410) km

Porsche had created additional automotive/turret position concepts for the VK 45.02 (P) as Typ 180B, 181A, 181B and 181C.

By "Porsche Tiger" I mean any Tiger prototype designed by Porsche.

VK4501(P) was the unsuccessful prototype for the Tiger I. The design did not include the turret, which was designed and manufactured by Krupp. The story of how it was designed to fit only a Krupp gun is also interesting, but it is clear that the 88mm/L71 KwK won't fit into it. Between 80 and 100 hulls (depending upon the sources) were built by a subcontractor as Porsche was only a design office. Most of these hulls were later reconverted into the Ferdinand/Elephant Jagdpanzer.

VK4502(P) was again unsuccessful competing for Tiger II design. These prototypes (3) were built by a subcontractor (Nibellungenwerk?) as Porsche didn't have a factory adequate for heavy work. The turrets were designed by Krupp and made by Krupp. 50 turrets were built for the Tiger II tank and later fitted to Henschel Tiger IIs. Three Krupp Tiger II turrets were built for Porsche during 1944.

The Tom Jentz, Osprey Kingtiger book does not mention explicitly that the three Porsche prototypes were completed with turrets, although later it mentions that a Porsche Tiger with 88mm/L71 was operational in 1945, and we know only a Porsche Tiger II turret could have that gun.

Development

Porsche redesigned the chassis to mount the turret for the 88mm KwK 43 L/71, and to increase protection by sloping the front armor plates. The new design was specified as the Typ 180 by Porsche. The hull was fabricated using 80mm armor plate for the front, sides, and rear. The front upper hull was sloped at 45 degrees and the front lower hull at 35 degrees. This provided infinitely better protection than the predecessor with an upright 100mm driver front plate.

As was his trademark for tank power trains Porsche again specified a gasoline-electric drive for the Typ 180. Due to the time needed to order and fabricate components, contracts for assembly of 100 Porsche Typ 180 were already issued in February 1942. The Porsche Typ 180 was designated by WaPr端f 6 as the VK 45.02 (P) sometime before April 1942.

The first five vehicles complete with turret were to have been accepted and delivered by Nibelungenwerk in March 1943. Because of continuing problems with the drive train and suspension, the contracts for assembly of the production series were canceled on 3 November 1942. New contracts were issued by WaPr端f 6 for the assembly of a reduced order of only three prototypes.

By October 1942, Porsche had created additional automotive concepts for the VK 45.02 (P) as Typ 180B, 181A, 181B and 181C.

Krupp received a contract on 25 January 1943 to fabricate and assemble three operational turrets fitted with 88mm KwK 43 L/71 along with three armored hulls for the VK 45.02 (P) to be delivered to Nibelungenwerk in Austria. Krupp reported on 28 January 1943 that the three hulls had already been delivered to Nibelungenwerk and the armor components for the three turrets had already been completed. On 17 February 1943, reported that three prototype VK 45.02 (P) with electric drives and new suspensions were being assembled in Nibelungenwerk. At this time, the production series was not expected to occur until far in the future.

Prof. Dr. Porsche's influence decreased substantially in December 1943 when he was succeeded, as president of the Panzer Komission, by Dr. Stiele von Heydekampf, general manager at Henschel. In a post-war interrogation, Dr. Heydekampf revealed: 'Dr. Porsche had been in disfavor for some time owing to the unsatisfactory performance of tanks of his design, The many changes he demanded, and the fact that when a new weapon was requested, he proposed a completely new and unorthodox design without regard to the use of existing production facilities or past experience, was retarding production.'

Milicast on their website say that the 8.8cm Porsche Tiger P2 Typ 180 VK4502(P) was produced in prototype form. One example with a so called "Porsche" Tiger II turret on it. They have been unable to provide me with additional information except that it saw action at Kummersdorf in 1945. I cannot find any other sources for this information, and the few photos I have seen of Tiger II's at Kummersdorf with the "Porsche" turret seem to have the standard hull. Does anyone else have more definitive information about this vehicle?

Laid down: 29 August 1913

Launched: 30 October 1915

Commissioned: 19 October 1916

Fate: Scuttled 21 June 1919

Sunk as target by UK 16 August 1921

General characteristics

Displacement: 32,200 tons

Length: 180 m

Beam: 30 m

Draft: 9.4 m

Propulsion: Steam turbines, 3 shafts, 56,275 shp

Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h)

Range: 5000 st. miles at 12 knots (22 km/h)

Complement: 1,271

Armament: 8 × 38 cm guns

16 × 15 cm guns

2 × 8.8 cm guns

5 × 60 mm torpedo tubes

SMS Baden was a Bayern class battleship of the German Imperial Navy during World War I. Launched in 1916; she was saved from scuttling in Scapa Flow by beaching and later sunk in extensive gunnery testing by the Royal Navy in 1921.

Baden was one of four planned Bayern battleships, the other three were the Bayern, Württemberg and Sachsen.

Baden was not originally intended to be surrendered under the terms of the Armistice, but was substituted for the battlecruiser Mackensen, which lay incomplete and could not put to sea.

Baden's' crew attempted to scuttle her along with the rest of the interned fleet at Scapa Flow, but British tugs succeeded in beaching her. Baden was then carefully examined by Royal Navy technicians.

Baden was eventually expended as a gunnery target. First the monitors Erebus and Terror fired their 15 inch guns into selected parts of the hull and superstructure. Various bombs were detonated on her decks and finally the battleships of the Atlantic Fleet used their main guns on her. Baden sank southwest of Portsmouth on 16 August 1921. Her wreck lies in 180 metres of water.

LINK

LINK

TU-100Y at Kublinka Proving Ground

In the mid 1930's the multi-turreted T-35 heavy tank entered service with the RKKA (Red Army). It was developed in the Design Bureau (later Zavod #185) of the Leningrad's "Bolshevik" plant in 1932. In 1933, all blueprints was transferred to the Kharkov Locomotive Works (ChPZ) named after Komintern and the improved T-35A was manufactured here. The T-35 was to be manufactured until an even more powerful super-heavy tank was developed. A super-heavy T-39 tank was designed in 1932-34, but none of them was approved. In July 1932, a government decision was taken that recommended the designers at ChPZ to design a new variant of a T-35 with improved (uparmored, upgunned) hull and turrets. Because of a delay at ChPZ, designers from Leningrad's Kirow Plant (LKZ) and Zavod #185 were called in to design own variants. A team at Zavod #185 led by N. Barykov designed a T-100 (Izdieliyc 100). The Leningrad's Locomotive Works (LKZ) team was led by Colonel Z. Kotin , and it developed the SMK heavy tank. It was a three-turret tank with a 76.2mm gun fitted in the main turret and two 45mm guns in the smaller turrets. Maximum armor protection was 60mm and it was to protect the machine from 76mm gun projectiles. Several T-35 components were used, and completion of the first prototype was scheduled for May 1st 1939. A 1:1 scale wooden mock-up of the SMK was presented to a special commission on October 11th 1938, and on December 9th 1938, the first finished prototype was demonstrated at the Kremlin. Stalin reportedly personally removed one of the smaller turrets and recommended an increase in armor thickness. Since January 1939 construction of the first double-turreted SMK prototype began. On 30th April 1939, a nearly finished prototype rolled out from the assembly building for the first time. The prototype was sent to Kubinka Proving Grounds on 25th of July, and trials began in the night of July 31st and 1st of August. On the 20th of September that SMK prototype was presented to representatives of the Communist Party, Defence Commissariat and other industry agents.

In December 1939 it was decided to send the SMK to continue its trials under real combat conditions. The crew partially consisted of LKZ workers and partially of army tank crew, the SMK under command of Senior Lieutenant N. Pietin was sent by rail to Karelian Pass. Here, the SMK linked up with experimental tanks T-100 and KW, and joined the special super heavy tank company under command of Captain I.L Lolotushkin of the 91st Tank Battalion in the 20th Armored Brigade. The tank saw combat for the first time on December 17th 1939 in the area of Hottinen. On 19th of December it took part in an attack on Finnish fortifications near Summa and was immobilized and the crew was evacuated by the T-100 heavy tank.

The SMK remained in this position for more than two and a half months. The Finns made several attempts to tow away this unknown tank; however they didn't possess any equipment powerful enough for its purpose and in addition Soviet artillery was shelling the area heavily to prevent access to the abandoned SMK. Many stories about the Finnish attempts to examine the SMK in detail were later reported in the USSR (for example that on a mysterious disappearance of the driver's hatch), but no stories have been found in Finland. German intelligence quickly found out the appearance of this new "100 ton tank", but it was pretty overlooked. In German tank recognition directorates the SMK tank were named PzKpfw. Mark T-35C 752(r). In February 1940 Soviets gained access to the SMK, and on February 26th the SMK was inspected by a representative of the ABTU (Armored Forces Directorate) who found a damaged bottom and a lack of external equipment. In March 1940, six (!) T-28 tanks connected to each other could tow the SMK to the Perkij채rvi rail station. The SMK were here stripped and were sent back to LKZ by rail. After this, ideas were abandoned to construct super-heavy tanks, and such was the end of one of the "Leningrad-monsters".

Variant:

TU-100Y: Self-propelled 130mm gun in fixed superstructure on T-100 hull. Armour up to 80mm. Probably only one built.

Projects:

TU-100Z: Tank with KV II 152mm type turret

TU-100X: Self-propelled gun

Object 103: Coastal defence tank

Specifications:

Crew: 7

Weight: 55.000kg

Speed: 35km/h

Range: 225km

Length: 8.75m

Width: 3.36m

Height: 3.35m

Ground clearance: 50cm

Range: Road - 220km, Terrain - 160km

Armament: 1 x 76.2mm L-11 Model 1939, 1 x 45mm Model 1932 L/46 gun, 4 x 7.62mm DT,

Gun depression/elevation: -7 +35

Ammunition: 150 x 76.2mm shells, 300 x 45mm shells, 3.969 DT rounds

Vision&sight device: 2 x POP device, PT-1 vision devices, vision slits

Armor: 20mm - 60mm

Engine: V-12 cylinder GAM-34BT petrol engine, 850hp

Fuel capacity: +1200 liter

Fuel consumption: 600 liter / 100km

Transmission: 5 forward gears, 1 backward gear

Length of track on ground: 585cm

Tracklinks / side: 120

Track width: 700mm

Communication equipment: 71-TK-3 radio set, TPU-6 intercom,

SMK Experimental Heavy Tank - The Russian Battlefield

LINK

LINK

La Couronne (French for "crown") was an emblematic ship of the French Navy built on the orders of Richelieu.

La Couronne was a war Galleon built by the French themselves in accordance to Richelieu's plans to renew the French Navy, after a series of ships built by the Dutch. The construction was overseen by the famous carpenter Charles Morieur, from Dieppe. She was one of the most advanced units of her time. She bore 68 heavy guns, 8 firing to the bow and 8 to the aft, an unusual feature until Dupuy de L么me redesigned naval artillery.

The Couronne took part in the siege of Hondarribia in 1638, and another expedition to Spain in 1639 under Henri de Sourdis.

Laid down in 1629 on the banks of the Seudre River in Brittany, La Couronne was the largest French warship built to that time, 25 feet longer and 7 feet broader in the beam than the next largest of the King's ships. As significant, she represented a major shift in French policy, being French-built rather than an import from Holland, as was usual at the time. The inadequacy of contemporary French shipbuilding can be gauged by the fact that La Couronne was not launched until 1635. Sometime later she was dismasted, but in the spring of 1639, she was Isaac de Launay Razilly's flagship when the French fleet sailed from Brest for La Corunna, Spain. The French fleet sailed again in June, and after storms arrived at Laredo in July, where they captured an admiral's ship. Subsequently laid up at Brest, La Couronne was broken up in 1641, either because too many of her timbers were rotten to make repairs possible, or possibly because a jealous naval officer denied command of the ship arranged for her scrapping.

She was reputedly a good sailer, and much admired in England, Holland, and the other countries she visited in her brief career. Despite her great size, her arming was anachronistic when compared with Dutch and English practice. Although the inadequacy of galleys against larger ships had been confirmed during the siege of the Huguenot stronghold of La Rochelle in 1627-28, La Couronne was armed with 12 guns in the stern and 8 in the bows, as protection against the more maneuverable galleys. Moreover, she was lightly armed; England's Sovereign of the Seas (1637) carried 102 guns on a hull about 20 feet shorter than La Couronne.

It is interesting to note that the timbers used for construction of La Couronne were taken from the forests of the defeated Huguenot leader, Duc de Rohan. Asked her opinion of the new ship, the Duchess de Rohan remarked, with a partisan lack of enthusiasm, 'I truly believe that the two forests of Monsieur de Rohan which have been used to build this ship were more beautiful than what I see.'

Builder: Charles Morieur chantiers de La Roche Bernard

Commissioned: 1636

Decommissioned: 1645

In service: 1631

Out of service: 1645

Fate: scrapped

General characteristics

Length: 52 metre hull, 10 metre-long bowsprit

Beam: 14.30 metres

Complement: 643 men

Armament: 68 guns

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Together with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force, the AV-MF (Soviet Naval Aviation) is the last major service to operate fleets of combat flying-boats and amphibians. Elsewhere, the role of the patrol flying-boat was taken over by long-range landplanes in the 1950s. This process may continue, as no amphibious replacement for the Beriev Be-12 Tchaika (Seagull), codenamed 'Mail' by NATO, has been reported, and the AV-MF has introduced specialised landplanes for the anti-submarine role, the llyushin 11-38 'May' and the Tupolev Tu-142 'Bear-F'.

The Beriev design bureau, based at Taganrog on the Sea of Azov, has been the main supplier of marine aircraft to the Soviet Navy since 1945, most of its aircraft going to the Northern and Black Sea Fleets. The origins of the Be-12 go back to the LL-143 prototype of 1945, which led in 1949 to the Be-6 'Madge'. This latter twin-engined flying-boat served with success until 1967.

Following the Be-6, the Beriev team carried out a considerable amount of research into jet-powered flying-boats, producing the straight-winged Be-R-1 of 1952 and the swept-wing Be-10 of 1960-1. The latter, powered by two Lyul'ka AL-7RVs (unaugmented versions of the Su-7 powerplant), established a number of seaplane records in 1961, but only three or four are believed to have been built.

The lessons learned in the design of the Be-R-1 and Be-10, however, were incorporated in the design of a much improved flying-boat based loosely on the Be-6 and identified originally by NATO as a re-engined version of the older type. In fact, the Be-12, designated M-12 in AV-MF service, bears little more than a general resemblance to the Be-6, sharing only the gull-wing layout and twin tail of its predecessor. The greater power and lighter weight of the turboprop engines have permitted a forward extension of the hull, with a new planing bottom similar to that of the Be-10. The prominent spray suppressor around the bows of the Be-10 is also a feature of the turboprop aircraft. The most significant change, however, was the addition of massive and sturdy retractable landing gear, making the Be-12 amphibious and thus considerably more versatile than the earlier Beriev designs. The turreted gun armament of the Be-6 has been deleted, being replaced by MAD (magnetic anomaly detection) gear in the tail, above the tailwheel well, while the search radar is carried in a long nose housing instead of the ventral retractable dustbin radome of the Be-6. One of the drawbacks of the high-wing layout, the excessive height of the engines above the ground, has been mitigated by the design of engine cowling panels which drop down to form strong working platforms.

The considerable weight-lifting capability of the Be-12 was demonstrated in a series of class records for amphibians set up in 1964, 1968 and 1970, suggesting a normal weapons load as high as 5000kg (11,023lb). The Be-12 can load on the water through large side hatches in the rear fuselage, and stores can be dropped through a watertight hatch in the hull aft of the step. Unlike land-based ASW platforms, a marine aircraft can, in reasonably calm conditions, settle on the water, and search with its own sonar equipment, rather than relying exclusively on sonobuoys. This assumes that the Be-12 has this capability.

With the increasing use of the Mil Mi-14 'Haze' ASW helicopter and the llyushin II-38 'May', there would seem to be a diminishing ASW role for the Be-12, although the type will certainly remain in service as a high-speed search-and-rescue (SAR) vehicle. It is also believed to have been used for mapping, geophysical survey and utility transport. By Soviet standards the type was not built in large numbers, only 95 being reported in service in the late 1980s.

Variants

Ukrainian Be-12

Be-12

Twin-engined maritime reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare flying-boat.

Be-12EKO

Ecological reconnaissance version.

Be-12LL

Flying laboratory version.

Be-12Nkh

Utility transport, experimental passenger trasport version.

Be-12PS

Search and rescue version.

Be-12P

Fire-fighting version.

Be-12P-200

Firefighting version.

Be-12SK

Used for nuclear depth charge tests.

Be-121

Scientific research version.

Be-12P-200 amphibian has been designed at the BERIEV Aircraft Company on the basis of Be-12 production aircraft and was employed as a flying laboratory of Be-200 new generation aircraft and Be-12 amphibian modification aimed at firefighting operations.

As a flying laboratory it is equipped with a special fire extinguishing system which has no principle differences with Be-200 amphibian system. The water scooping into the fire extinguishing system tanks can be performed in the sea, lakes and rivers area at the gliding speed close to the takeoff speed (0.9 - 0.97 of takeoff speed).The possibility of the tanks filling in the aerodromes is also provided. Be-12P-200 amphibian was tested in 1996, and for seasons of 1997-1998 it was successfully employed for the forest fire extinguishing in Irkutsk and Khabarovsk regions.

Specification

Type: maritime patrol amphibian

Powerplant: two 3125-kW (4,190-shp) Ivchenko AI-20D turboprops

Performance: maximum speed 610km/h (379mph); economical patrol speed 320km/h (199mph); maximum range 4000km (2,485 miles)

Weights: (estimated) empty 21700kg (47,840lb); maximum take-off 30000kg (66,139 Ib)

Dimensions: span 29.7m (97ft 5 1⁄4 in); length 30.2m (99ft 1 in); height on land 7m (22ft 11 1⁄2in)

Armament: bombs, rockets or guided ASMs on underwing pylons; depth charges and sonobuoys

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

AMBITIEUX - Vaisseau de 1^er rang de 92 canons, Built: Guichard, Rochefort 1693, 1600tonnes, Canons: 28-36, 28-18, 26-8, 10-6. FC : 1713. Source : Liste 1696.

Ki.56, Kawasaki 'Thalia' (Army Type 1 Freight Transport)

This was a development of the Lockheed 14, but both bigger and lighter, and generally

superior. 121 were built.

Type: Ki.56

Function: transport

Year: 1941 Crew: 4 Engines: 2 * 990hp Nakajima Ha-25

Speed: 400km/h Ceiling: 8000m Range:

Load: 2400kg

In Sep 1939, while Kawasaki was gearing up to build the modified Model 14 described above, the JAAF Air Headquarters told Kawasaki to design an improved version of the aircraft. Designated Ki-56, the emphasis was on improved take-off characteristics and a larger cargo capacity. Without assistance from Lockheed, the Kawasaki engineers lengthened the fuselage by 4 feet 11 inches (1.5 m) vs 5 feet 6 inches (1.58 m) on the Model 18; they also redesigned the Fowler flaps to increase efficiency, the tailplanes were retained in the original location of the Model 14 atop the rear fuselage, the Ki-56 had a large cargo door, with a small passenger door, on the port side of the fuselage, the weight of the wing structure was reduced, and it was powered by two 950 hp Nakajima Ha-25 (Army Type 99) radial engines. The first two production aircraft were completed in Nov 40, and after further testing, production was ordered and 119 additional Army Type 1 Freight Transports were delivered between Aug 41 and Sep 43. This aircraft received the Allied Code Name THALIA.

LO, Tachikawa 'Thelma'

License-built Lockheed 14. 119 built.

Type: LO

Function: transport

Year: Crew: 3 Engines: 2 * 660kW Mitsubishi Ho-26-I

Speed: 418km/h Ceiling: Range:

Load: 12 seats

In 1939, Tachikawa exercised its license rights and submitted a proposal to the Japanese Army Air Force to build a modified Model 14 powered by two 900 hp Mitsubishi Ha-26-I (Army Type 99 radial Model 1) 14-cylinder radial engines. A total of 119 of these aircraft, designated Army Type LO Transport, were built by Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo KK (55 machines built 1940- 41) and Tachikawa (64 aircraft built 1940-42) and were given the Allied Code Name THELMA.

Japan turned out to be the largest user of the Super Electra. Thirty Super Electras were sold to the Tachikawa Hikoki KK (Tachikawa Aeroplane Co Ltd of Japan, which acted as an agent for Nihon Koku KK (Japan Air Transport Co. Ltd.). This airline was later renamed Dai Nippon Koku KK (Greater Japan Air Lines), and became the largest commercial user of the Super Electra. This version of the Super Electra was known as Model 14-WG3B, and was powered by two Wright Cyclone GR-1820-G3B radials, rated at 900 hp for takeoff and 840 hp at 8000 feet. The Tachikawa company also obtained a license to build a version of the Super Electra in Japan. Production for the Imperial Japanese Army was undertaken both by Tachikawa and by Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo KK (Kawasaki Aircraft Engineering Co. Ltd. These companies respectively built 64 and 55 aircraft between 1940 and 1942. They were powered by Mitsubishi Ha-26-I (900 hp Army Type 99 Radial Model 1) engines. In Japanese army service, they were designated Army Type LO Transports, and were operated as military transports during the Pacific War. The Allies assigned the code name *Thelma* to the Japanese-built version and the name *Toby* to the civilian versions purchased from Lockheed.

Captured NC.470 used by the German and Italian air forces as a transport.

Initial testing of the prototype NC.470 was done from on land for which it was naturally fitting with landing gear.

Here is the prototype fitted with floats.

Floatplane trainer; some were used for reconnaissance in 1939. The NC.470 was initially developed by Farman as the F.470. Germany captured 14 in 1942. Approx 24 built.

The origins of NC.470 date back to 1935, when the Farman Company was interested in the development of a floatplane for training. Farman had been absorbed by the national aircraft construction of the Centre (one of the firms arising from the nationalization 1936-1937), the new aircraft designation was NC.470.

Presented to the technical department of aeronautics in February 1936, the prototype was built in Billancourt, and undertook its maiden flight above Toussus-le-Noble, December 27, 1937 with landing gear. In February 1938, this machine was shipped to Marignane, where it received floats. The French Navy ordered ten units in the first instance, then thirty others in September 1939.

In March 1939 the NC.471 appeared, which was characterized by engines Gnome-Rh么ne 500 hp, but only one of five aircraft ordered by the Navy was actually delivered. One version, bearing the name of NC.472 and equipped with American Pratt & Whitney Wasp engines was considered, but never adopted. The worsening of the international situation brouhgt awareness among authorities of France's almost total lack of maritime reconnaissance aircraft. The NC.470 and NC.471, originally designed for training schools, were used for reconnaissance missions during May-June 1940. In late 1942, the Luftwaffe gave the Italians the fourteen machines the Luftwaffe captured after November, 1942 and had pressed into service as transports.

Specification

TYPE: Seaplane twin-engine reconnaissance and training

MODEL: NC.471

CREW: 6

ENGINE: 2 x 500hp Gnome-Rhone 9Kgr piston engines

WEIGHTS

Take-off weight: 6000 kg, 13228 lb

Empty weight: 3710 kg, 8179 lb

DIMENSIONS

Wingspan: 24.45 m, 80 ft 3 in

Length: 16.10 m, 52 ft 10 in

Height: 4.85 m, 15 ft 11 in

Wing area: 95.00 m2, 1022.57 sq ft

PERFORMANCE

Max. speed: 230 km/h, 143 mph

Cruise speed: 190 km/h, 118 mph

Ceiling: 6000 m, 19700 ft

Range: 1140 km, 708 miles

ARMAMENT 1 x 7.5mm machine-gun in turret, 200kg of bombs (4 x 50 kg)

Infra-red detection equipment (Spanner Anlage} operating in conjunction with a Q-Rohr sighting screen.

Kauz - screech owl

Dornier Do 17 Z-7/Z-10 Kauz I/II

After bomber production ended in 1940, the Z model was modified with a "solid" (Waffenkopf) nose from the Ju 88C, fitted with one 20 mm MG FF cannon and three 7.92 mm MG 17s, to be used as night fighters. Three prototypes were converted from existing Z-series airframes to the Do 17 Z-7 Kauz I (screech-owl) configuration. One of these was tested by the I./NJG2 and, on 20 July 1940, Lt. Streib scored one kill -an R.A.F. Whitley bomber- flying this aircraft. The first 2 nightfighter kills made by the new "Nachtj채ger" force are credited to Do-17z's shooting down 2 Wellingtons on 23 July 1940 (the day after NJG1's official creation). Later the design was further modified to the Do 17 Z-10 Kauz II, the solid nose now containing an IR searchlight for the Spanner infrared detection system. The Z-10 was armed with four 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns grouped above the IR light and two 20 mm MG FF in the lower nose. Only ten (or nine depending on source) of these Kauz II designs were converted from existing Z-series airframes. The Spanner system proved to be essentially useless and many Z-10 were left without detection system. At least one Z-10, coded CD+PV, was used as a flying test bed to help developing the Lichtenstein radar system in late 1941/1942, but no further development followed as better aircraft appeared.

Dornier Do 215 B-5

Night fighter version called Kauz III. 20 aircraft converted from B-1 and B-4 versions with Do 17 Z-10 "Kauz II" nose equipped with IR searchlight for the Spanner infrared detection system. Do 215 B-5s were armed with four 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns grouped above the IR light and two 20 mm MG FF in the lower nose. The Spanner system proved to be useless and the Lichtenstein 202 B/C radar was installed on some aircraft starting from the middle of 1942.

Of the versions of the Do 215 that existed, the A-1 bomber with DB 601 motors, and the B-0 and B-1 export machines both reequipped with FuG 10 navigation device for the Luftwaffe. The Do 215 B-5 was the first night fighter to be equipped with the FuG 202 "Lichtenstein BC" navigation device. These aircraft saw action from January 1941 to May 1944 with I.IV./NJG 1 and II./NJG 2.

4./NJG 2 during the spring of 1941 used Kauz III for intruder sorties over British bomber bases and, following a fair degree of success (18 RAF bombers were lost to intruders between April and June 1941), further examples equipped I, III and IV/NJG 1 and I and II/NJG 2 later in that year.

17Z-7 = Kauz I' 1 or 2 converted from Z-2.
17Z-10 = Kauz II' about 9 converted from Z-2; at least one had radar, possibly a Schrage Music testbed!
215B-5 = Kauz III' 20 converted from B-1 and B-4's; radar installed sometime later.