The Weird and Wonderful.

[simon]

Most of those posting at the moment seem to have a well read knowledge. Has anyone read, seen or heard of any tales of some of the myriad of weird and wonderful equipment that was trialed, some of it operationally?

I was inspired by something I read recently of a Dornier Do17 during the Battle of Britain that was equipped in the rear gunner's position with a flamethrower instead of the machinegun. The idea was should any British fighter get too close a quick blast of burning fuel would deter him, probably more than a short burst of tracer would.

The problem was that when it was intercepted, the Spitfires and Hurricanes that fired on it were of course greeted by a firey blast from the cockpit and fuselage and rather than being deterred, pressed home their attacks with even more enthusiasm assuming that they had not only hit the enemy bomber, but must have damaged it quite badly as it had apparently caught fire!

The Dornier was eventually shot down on this first and only operation, of the crew one sadly died in a British hospital and the others were captured, and this is the only referrence to this unusual weapon I've found.

I'm assuming the Luftwaffe were not unique in persuing odd weapons and equipment, so has anyone read of any other oddballs? The Odder the better!

[Corsarius]

Can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I might have something for you when I get home. Something Russian and wierd.

I DO know that the British tried using flamethrowers for anti-aircraft, also. I have no idea why, as any child who sweeps his hand quickly through a candle flame can tell you how effective they were.

[Corsarius]

Okay, got one:

http://www.airwar.ru/enc_e/fww2/is1.html

Check it out in all it's glory: The world's first operational variable geometry fighter plane, the IS-1. This sucker had pnuematics involved in it's lower wings so they retracted into the uppers (and fuselage) for speed and range, thus making a monoplane, and dropped down for biplane configuration for manoeverability.

It was to be supplanted by the more aerodynamically pleasing IS-2 of which only a couple were built, but it did see squadron service (only a few airframes) and was withdrawn when even the Soviets worked out that there may be a little problem with the pnuematics from battle damage.

Here's some very sketchy stats on the IS-4, which apparrently flew but was discontinued.

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/is-4.html

[simon]

I would guess another thing along this sort of basic theme would be whoever thought up the idea of shoving handfuls of tinfoil out of the windows of bombers!

[DazDaMan]

What about a seaplane Spitfire??

Originally intended for use in the Norwegian campaign, Supermarine began converting a Spitfire Mk1 to take Blackburn Roc floats, but with the Germans over-running Norway the idea faltered and died out. And with the Battle of Britain coming up, Britain needed all the landplane fighters she could get, so the Mk1 (R6722) was converted back to a landplane.

The idea was revived in around 1942, and this time three Spitfire Vs were converted to carry new-design floats, a four-blade propeller and a modified tailfin increased below the fuselage. The idea was a success and all three were shipped across to Egypt for trials. I think there was some intention of flying them from small Greek islands in order to intercept German transports.

A fifth, and final, floatplane Spitfire, a MkIX, was modified in 1944 for use in the Pacific, and it had a top speed over 370mph. I think the need for the aircraft became less as the war was swinging decidely in the direction of the Allies.

[GregP]

OK, the wierd and wonderful ... hhhmmmmmmmmmm ....


1) How about the Curtiss CW-24? It was a canard like the XP-55 Ascender, but was a "proof of concept" version. They SHOULD have seen the light at THAT time.

2) The Miles M.35 (single engine) Libellula and M.39 (twin engine)version, too. Tandem wing aircraft. Just plain strange.

3) Tandem wing aircraft? Can't leave out the Westland P.12! Theytook a standard Lysander and grafted on a rear turret. Since it was tail heavy (go figure, huh?), they removed the standard tail and added a set of rear wings to hold the tail up. Called it a "beach straffer." Just plain wierd, if you ask me, and I KNOW you didn't.

4) The German Sack As-6 had a wing shaped like a circle. There were more than 4 attempts to fly it, but never got farther than a short hop confirming the inability of the control surfaces to corect for torque and pitch. Even the guys who flew Comets couldn't make it work! Eventually damaged in an Allied straffing attack, and the rest was broken up to save the wood!

More where these came from, but that's enough strange aircraft for now.

[Romantic Technofreak]

For your education (not that I think you need it), take the following link. If you don´t know Polish, follow the pictures with much care and time and get the information from somewhere else.

http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/str003k1.htm

Incredible aircraft inside, even of Slovakian and Turkish origin.

[Corsarius]

Curiouser and curiouser.

As most of you know, I like this place because of the way that it brings people together. There are those of us who follow firearms and ballistics, others who closely follow aerodynamics and design, others yet who follow the life and times of pilots. For me, it's the stories of aircraft, squadrons, people and places. Anecdotes and conjecture I try to bring together in my files, and I love to play the 'what if' game with aircraft that 'might have been'.

One of these aircraft was the vought 'flying flapjack'. This plane may have been responsible for 'flying saucer' sightings at least at some places during the war. It's wing design allowed for very slow landing speeds, and very high dash speeds. Should the fighter version have been built it would have been a formidable aircraft, but large numbers of conventional aircraft relegated it to aviation's backwaters... http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/flapjack.htm

The Sack AS-6 tickled at my memory, and I couldn't remember why apart from it's similarity to the vought product. I'm not entirely a fringe dweller, but I'm sure that some prototypes were crated up and shipped both east and west after the war. Here's a website showing some interesting things (well, I think they are anyway).

http://www.ufx.org/german/sack.htm

Doubly wierd:
Check out the novel construction of the Go-229.. The world's first 'stealth' fighter?
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/HoIX/Go-229.htm

[GregP]

As for weird, I am continuously amazed at the plethora of supposed "projects" attributed to the design bureaus of WWII Germany. They seemed to have designed almost everything imaginable from flying wings to supersonic jets.

This is, of course, a bunch of nonsense.

Almost every design bureau in every country had many "what if aircraft" in their files. It seems that only germany has suffered the fate of having them revealed in public. Some appear to be "futuristic," but they were all predicated on a particular available power plant with a supposed weight and power capability.

By late 1943, the standard layout of a front engined, conventional aircraft had reached its peak development, and so it is only natural taht other layouts were considered.

I'd bet that British, American, and Russian design firms ALL had similar "what if" designes predicated on "vapor engines," too.

But the ARE fun to look at, huh?

[simon]

I think being the loosers there was far less secrecy covering the Luftwaffe projects once the war was overcompared to the Western Allies and Soviets, who were expecting WW3 to kick off at any time and were trying to keep their edge very much to themselves.

But there is another factor of course, the Germans were desperate in a way the Allies never really were. So whilst the Germans by 1944 increasingly seized onto any plan or design that promised to redress the huge imbalance in their national production and manpower when compared to their enemies, the Soviets and Allies by comparisson knew that to win the just needed to keep on producing the tried and trusted aircraft and equipment that everyone knew was working.

For the designers there was no real benefit in persuing hugely expensive oddball designs, and most did not until the results of plundered German research were made available to them and they could shortcut all the usual development processes. Some were good, some were not.

[GregP]

Seems to me I read somewhere about some WWII planes being outfitted with cutters so they could fly low and cut the tethers on barrage baloons.

However, my library is in storage, so I can't really say.

Anyone else in here rtemember anything about this ludicrous project?

I can't imagine deliberately flying into a baloon tether ... and I don't CARE what the designers say about it!

Another "strange" project was the Barnes-Wallis spinning bomb intended for "dam busting."

Still another was "skip bombing" with otherwise-standard depth charges. Skip it like a stone into the side of a ship ... and it WORKED. Of course, the attacking plane had to get close enough to release the depth charge. If the target happened to be a Destroyer or heavier, then the AA would surely be an attention-getter, huh? Probably had to be closer than with torpedos since THEY had engines to drive them a pretty good distance into the target. Depth charges had no such propulsion devices, so I'm assuming this was probably mostly useda gainst merchant shipping.

[simon]

Not so ludicrous. Many bombers had versions which were equipped with cutters along the leading edges of the wing, I think the idea was not so much for deliberately running into balloons, just that if you put a couple of "Cutter" equipped planes in the lead of a formation then there was a fair chance that if they hit a balloon cable they'd get through and so would the others, rather than it almost automatically removing the the wing!

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
Seems to me I read somewhere about some WWII planes being outfitted with cutters so they could fly low and cut the tethers on barrage baloons.

I have vague recollections of both a FW-190 AND a He-111 set up with these things. I'll dig around and see what I can find, but I think it looked like a triangular pointy thing (yes, that's techical jargon. "triangular pointy thing") attatched to the wingtips and going out beyond the nose. What it would have done to the CG is anyone's guess, but I'd rather someone else fly it than I, and I still want to fly a Me-163.

quote:Anyone else in here remember anything about this ludicrous project?

yes, me. I also recall (maybe that was the one with FW190) a device attatched to Balloons that if something hit it or gave a sharp jag on the line, an explosive went off from the balloon pointing downwards, peppering the unfortunate aircraft with shrapnel.

quote:I can't imagine deliberately flying into a baloon tether ... and I don't CARE what the designers say about it!

At night, over blacked-out London with your pathfinder (the only one with the dot-dash radio nav) shot down by Defiants or Beaufighters, ack-ack popping all round you, your messerschmitts nowhere to be seen, and these funny big black things floating above, around, and below you as you near what you hope is the target, I don't think running into balloon cables would be entirely deliberate.

quote:Another "strange" project was the Barnes-Wallis spinning bomb intended for "dam busting."

Barnes Wallis was also responsible for the 'Tallboy' bomb that sank the Tirpitz and destroyed the V3 installation, as well as the 'grand slam' bomb. He always believed in absolute precision bombing rather than carpet-style bombing. After reading 'the dambusters', and the history of the 'suicide squadron'(617), I'm inclinde to agree with his philosophies, and see Wallis as a man of peace, rather than of war.

quote:Still another was "skip bombing" with otherwise-standard depth charges. Skip it like a stone into the side of a ship ... and it WORKED. Of course, the attacking plane had to get close enough to release the depth charge. If the target happened to be a Destroyer or heavier, then the AA would surely be an attention-getter, huh? Probably had to be closer than with torpedos since THEY had engines to drive them a pretty good distance into the target. Depth charges had no such propulsion devices, so I'm assuming this was probably mostly useda gainst merchant shipping.


I think (once again not sure) that this was pioneered by the americans in the Pacific. Certainly I have a book that shows B-25s coming in line-astern skip bombing a Japanese freighter. You can actually see a bomb in mid-air, and the splash it has made a few seconds before. In the IL-2 game they call it 'masthead bombing', and I have read a few accounts, mostly from B-25 pilots regarding this most unorthodox, orthodox tactic. I'm not sure that it would be used against capital ships, though.

[CAPILATUS]

Hi, according to my database 'masthead bombing' was widely used by IL-2 and other bombers (and not only!) against ships. And as it was written there it was VERY effective tactic. At least one of two bombs could achive the target.

If someone understands Russian go
www.airwar.ru

Perfect web. I've just found it and it's written really a LOT.

By the way read there were used Do217 with guidind bombs

http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/axis/uab/uab.html

[Romantic Technofreak]

One comment to "masthead bombing". In the Luftwaffe it was, if not invented, surely massively promoted by Martin Harlinghausen. He already used it in the Spanish Civil war flying the He 59 float-biplane. In WWII during the Norwegian campaign, Harlinhausen (functioning as observer) and his pilot Robert Kowalewski (later became leader of KG 76, equipped with Ar 234 and so the world´s first jet bomber unit), together attacked the steamer "Sirius" by masthead bombing (surely not using depth charges, but simple bombs). This time, the ship´s masthead became cut and stuck in the airplane (probably in the wing)! Kowalewski used to store the masthead even after the war as souvenir!
Harlinghausen, a gentleman of exceptional esprit and charme, was at that time already Oberstleutnant (Lt. Colonel), rose to Generalmajor during and to Generalleutnant (in the Bundesluftwaffe) after the war.

[GregP]

Hi Capilatus!

I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you know anything about the Belyaev DB=LK flying wing bomber? I have a very poor photo plus measurements and weights, but I can't really tell what it looks like by the photo I have. Any decent links? Any operational information? How many built?

How many Beriev Be-04's and LL-143's were built?

Do you know any weight or performance information about the Gudkov GU-82? I have measurements and that is all .... also how many were built?

Can you tell me anything about the Kalinin Ka-7?What was the height and payload capability? How many were built? Any operational information?

Thanks!

- GregP

[andyo2000]

I know that when the AVG, American Volunteer Group, wsa in China in the early part of the war, the crew routinely flew heavy bombers with only Tommy guns for the lack of machine gun repair, as well as the necessary crew.

By the way, I know it's reaching back a while, but the metal foil was actually extremely effective against German radar until around 1943-1944, when it was upgraded. Each strip of tinfoil looked like an English bomber on the German radar screens, which relied on reflections to detect aircraft. Thus, a formation of 30 bombers, each laying out 1000 tinfoil strips, "chaff", could easily fool the German radar operators into thinking there were more than 30000 bombers in the sky. Because the tinfoil spread out and fell in differeing rates, it also made it hard for German fighters to scramble and attack effectively on the actual formation. Obviously, this only worked at night.

[simon]

That was basically what I was referring to... ;)

It was also effective against the German radar directed flak, which was really quite deadly whether it was night or day, since they would engage a radar pip and find themselves blasting bacofoil.

And it wasn't called "Chaff" until the US got ahold of the idea, back then the British codenamed it "Window". Still given the fact that we called the Wildcat a Martlet and the Avenger a Tarpon (Amongst others!), I can't help wondering who was in charge of the British naming system, and why they had such a startling lack of imagination!

[andyo2000]

They did have some strange names all right, like the Wellington, but the US had our share too. The Grumman Goose and the Grumman Duck come to mind.

[GregP]

British naming conventions for their WWII aircraft were amusing, but mostly seemed to be pretty good ... with a few exceptions.

The U.S.A. also had funny conventions.

We called the Nakajima Hayabusa an "Oscar" and later called the MiG-15 the "Fagot." Pretty strange, huh?

Being located in the U.S.A., I can't throw stones at the British until I come to terms with our own sometimes-stupid-sopunding names.

At least the german planes were named in German, so most of us English-speaking people haven't realized yet that their system was a stupid as our own.

I'm waiting for some country to come up with an attack plane called the "Turkey Vulture" or a fighter called the "Pitchfork."

For sheer humor, we had a Vultee trainer aircraft (BT-13) nicknamed the "Vibrator!" Now that's a bad nickname! At least they didn't call it something worse!

Names are strange, huh?

[andyo2000]

Well a few of them have good explanations behind them. The Oscar was part of a system to name all Japanese aircraft after rural, in otherwords "redneck" names. And the Vibrator was named as such because of the terrible vibrations it produced. Still pretty funny though. Actually, I never really hear of too many German nicnames for their planes. I've heard a few russian ones, the Ilyushin Il-2 "Shturmovik" comes to mind, but that actually means "swallow", as in the bird, so I guess that isn't too bizarre.

As for that Mig nickname, "fagot".....what doofus came up with that....

[GregP]

WWII Allied Code Names:

1. Fighters and reconaissance seaplanes had boys names.
2. Bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and reconaissance land oplanes had girls names.
3. Transport aircraft were given girls names that started with "T".
4. Trainers were gibven names of trees.
5. Gliders were given names of birds.

Strange, but true. AT least they had a system, even if it does seem odd.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

WWII Allied Code Names:

1. Fighters and reconaissance seaplanes had boys names.
2. Bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and reconaissance land oplanes had girls names.
3. Transport aircraft were given girls names that started with "T".
4. Trainers were gibven names of trees.
5. Gliders were given names of birds.

Strange, but true. AT least they had a system, even if it does seem odd.


And the REALLY odd thing is that these names were given to them from headquarters in Australia. I have a back-issue of "Flightpath" magazine which details it very well. I'll see if I can dig it out after christmas madness is over. The 'Zero' gave them the most headaches, but most of the girls names were those of the girls who worked around the office, or in some cases the mother-in-law! The only other name I can think of that has an anecdote is the 'tony', which was so named because the aircraft looked very Italian. In fact, at one point in time or the other, the 'tony' was thought to be an Italian design, or a Bf-109.

As for the MiG-15 being called the "fagot", which means a 'bundle of wood', NATO callsigns were designed to be detrimental to the aircraft (the Tu-22M was originally called 'beauty' but was changed to 'backfire').

Fighters had names starting with "F"
(Fagot, Farmer, Foxbat, Fulcrum, Flanker, et)
Bombers started with "B"
(Badger, Blinder, Backfire, Bear)
Miscellaneous with "M"
(Midget, Midas)
Transport with "C"
(Colt, Coot, Cossack, Coaler)
Helicopter with "H"
(Havoc, Hind, Hip, Hound, Helix, Hokum)

[simon]

Most British names were either references to storms for fighters (Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane), British Cities (Lancaster, Manchester, etc), or other things British (Blenheim and Wellington are historic British figures), or just names that the air ministry liked the sound of (Gladiator, Defiant, etc).

I don't think the Russians for the most part bothered with anything more than informal names for their aircraft (Stormovik, Peshka, Rata, etc) although I could be wrong.

Early Luftwaffe military aircraft, pre about 1938 it seems to me but again I could be wrong, don't seem to have names other than a nicknamed reference to the Luftwaffe Phoenetic alphabet, ie the Bf109E was the "Emil", after that however they increasingly were given names of flying creatures, real or mythical (Condor, Greif, Storch, Schwalbe) or flying bodies (Komet), or just suitably emotive names, such as "Zerstorer" or contractions of their official names such as "Stuka". I have read of unofficial nicknames, ones that spring to mind are the "Luftwaffe's Lighter" for the He177, I've also heard an ex-Luftwaffe pilot describe the Bf109G as a "Flying Coffin", due to the cramped cockpit and the casualty rate among Luftwaffe fighter pilots late in the war.

The Italian naming system seemed quite good, Veltro - Greyhound, Centauro - Centaur (?), Ariete - Archer, all pretty solid names.

I tend to think of it in terms of cars myself, would I buy a car called something like "Griffon" or "Spitfire", yes, probably. Could I bring myself to buy a car called a "Vibrator" or a "Tarpon", NOOOO! So the former are good names, the latter are bad.

[andyo2000]

Well I don't know, the Vibrator is a strange name, well, more than strange, but it was a good plane I believe. At least it worked, was easy enough to fly to use as a trainer, and worked well enough to keep. But in any case, have you heard of names for smaller air forces? THe Swedish, the Canadian, the Dutch, all had a sizeable airforce in WWII. I believe the Dutch had some, but I can't recall. Any info?

[Corsarius]

Royal Swedish Air Forc
Royal Canadian Air Force,
Royal Netherlands Air Force

I don't see any problem with any of those names.

Same as Royal Australian Air Force, or Royal Air Force,

And not half as odd as United States Army Air Force (is it an army? Is it an air force? :D)

[simon]

I think he meant the names of the aircraft for those airforces, rather than the names of the airforces themselves, although going by the latter I've always felt that "Fleet Air Arm" is a typically uninspiring British name!

[andyo2000]

Yea, I wasn't clear. Does any one know of any aircraft nicknames in any of those air forces? Or in any other minor WWII airforce, I might add.

[GregP]

By the way Crosarius, the actual name was "United Staes Army Air Corps." At the time, the flying Corps was a branch of the Army. It became a separate entity in 1949 I believe.

[ygb]

This is my first post here. I found this site while looking for specs for German WW2 aircraft engines, in particular the DB601 and its power rating in 1940.

Regarding nicknames for Swedish aircraft, there doesn't seem to be any during WW2 at all. If there were any informal nicks, they were probably in limited use and don't seem to have found their way into the history books.
If we exclude the non-indigenous designs, the first Swedish-designed aircraft with a recorded nickname was the J-5/J-6, called "Jaktfalken" meaning "The Hunting Falcon".
It was designed and built from 1932 by a company that a few years later would become SAAB (Svenska Aero AktieBolaget - lit. Swedish Aero Inc.).
Saw active service until 1940 when it was hopelessly obsolete (300 km/h biplane with open cockpit...).

Around the same time, an immigrated Austrian aircraft designer, Edmund Sparmann, set up an aircraft production company and produced the P-1. It was used through the entire war. Its name was "Sparmann-jagaren" meaning "Sparmann's Hunter".
Both this name and that of the J-5/J-6 were quite possibly marketing names chosen by the respective manufacturer.

The other Swedish aircraft in service during the war, the B-17 (no, not the US B-17), the B-18 and the J-22, have no known nicknames. They were referred to by their designations or, more likely, by simplified variants of their designations. I can imagine that the J-22 would have been called "Tjugotvåan" - "The Twenty-two", for example.

It is not until the early 50s, when the SAAB 29 entered service, that a true nickname appeared. Anyone who's seen the J-29 knows what it looks like (its engine had a centrifugal compressor, hence the huge cross section) - a barrel.
It probably didn't take very long for someone to come up with the name "(Flygande) tunnan" - "The (Flying) Barrel"!
The higher ranks didn't like the name but it stuck and forced SAAB to quickly give their future aircraft proper names lest a worse nickname appear.

SAAB 32 was named "Lansen" - "The Lance".
It was supersonic in a powered dive.

SAAB 35 was given a perfect name. "Draken" means both "The Dragon" and "The Kite". It is shaped almost like a kite flying backwards and dragon is always a good name for an afterburning aircraft,don't you think?

SAAB 37 is of course better known as "Viggen". The name means both "The Lightning Bolt" and a name of a seabird. Lightning bolt because of its shape which resembles the jagged shape of a lightning bolt.

SAAB 39 with the name "Gripen". Meaning "Griffin", it probably refers to the multi-purpose nature of the design. The griffin is a mythical animal made up of the forward half of an eagle and the rear half of a lion.

A bit off topic maybe, but still...

[GregP]

Welcome VGB. This entire forum can get a bit "off topic," so don't worry about it. Nice to have a Swedish participant.

I have long admired Swedish aircraft. The J-29 was, in fact, slightly faster than the F-86 Sabre so, although it looks a bit strange, it flew very well and served Sweden well.

The only one I never really liked was the SAAB 32. I suppose that is true because , to me at least, it looks like a swept wing F-80, and I think SAAB could have done better. However, the performance was good, so it doesn't really matter.

To me the Viggen abd Gripen look every inch to be cutting edge, high-performance aircraft taht deserve to be ranked among the best in the world at the time of their development.

OK, now we're friends ... so get back to WWII and tell us something about the J-22.

[simon]

Welcome onboard, a teensy bit off topic, but this whole thread seems to be leaning that way anyhow, and in anycase it was interesting to read!

[Ricky]

Going back a bit...

I seem to recall that the Russian Il-16 was actually cristened 'Rata' in the Spanish Civil War, by the Nationalists. It means 'Rat', which is perfectly in line with the system of naming your enemy's planes in a detrimental way.

Oh, and I believe the Polish had a 1930's light bomber (saw service in WW2) called (translated) the Carp.

Nice

[Corsarius]

Yes. My sources also indicate that the names it is well known by are of Spanish origin. "Rata" (rat) by the Nationalists and "Chato" (flat nose) by the Republicans.

The I-15 was known as the "Chaika" (gull, or seagul) in Russian service due to it's wing plan.

[Ricky]

Mind you, my favourites have to be the Japanese names for their planes, which translate to such delights as 'Cherry Blossom' and 'Violet Lightning,' to name the two that I can remember...

[8D]

[Corsarius]

yes, but what were they like? The Violet Lightning was a sweet, SWEET bird, but the Cherry Blossom?... eugh.

Remember, I'm the guy on this forum who if he went back in time would fly a Me-163, and there is no way you'd strap me into a Baka... uh... Okha.

Baka, btw, was the allies name for the cherry blossom. It rhymes (sort of) with Okha (cherry blossom) but means "fool" in Japanese.

[Ricky]

Getting back to the weird aspect...

Didn't we (the British) experiment with an anti-aircraft system where long wire cables would be fired in front of an enemy bomber formation?
I think I'm right in saying that the cables had a parachute on one end, to slow the rate of descent, and a weight on the other to keep the cable straight & taut. The bombers would then be forced to break formation / alter course or risk severely damaging their aircraft on the cables.
Basically, it was a way of instantly producing the effect of barrage balloons without needing the balloons.

Needless to say, it was not a great success...

[:p]

[Romantic Technofreak]

As much as I know, these cables were used during the Battle of Britain to protect airfields against low-flying German bombers. The cable would entangle with the bomber thus bringing it down. Fired in the right moment (this was of course difficult), it was quite succesfull!

[robert]

Ah, the British naming system! I wrote a long article which I posted on another web site about the various naming systems of WW2 aircraft, so here's the part on Great Britain:

-----------------------------------------------------

Great Britain and the Commonwealth: Unlike other air forces, the RAF and FAA used names, rather than an alphanumerical system, to designate aircraft types. These names were not chosen haphazardly, but as part of a complicated system that had been used by the RAF since its formation in 1918, although very much revised by the time WW2 rolled around.

Contrary to popular belief, alliteration was not part of the RAF/FAA naming system, although it had been mandatory under the 1918 rules. Nevertheless, this tradition was often used well into the WW2 period and after, as in Hawker Hurricane, Short Stirling, Blackburn Botha, or Fairey Fulmar.

Most WW2-era aircraft were named under either the 1932 or 1939 naming systems, which were quite similar, except for the names for naval aircraft. The FAA had been transferred back to the Royal Navy from the RAF in 1937, and names of naval aircraft were henceforth selected by the Admiralty, rather than the RAF. Names were either suggested by the manufacturer, or assigned by the military. There’s a wonderful story, probably apocryphal, of Reginald Mitchell greeting the news of the selection of the name Spitfire for his fighter with the exclamation, “That’s just the sort of bloody silly name they would choose!”

Manufacturers, of course, had their own internal designation systems for their aircraft, which often used an alphanumeric system. De Havilland’s internal system was probably the best known, with designations such as the D.H.82 for the Tiger Moth and D.H.98 for the Mosquito being common knowledge. Other manufacturers had similar systems; the Sunderland was known to Shorts as the S.25, and the Lancaster to Avro as the Type 683. These were internal systems, however, and not part of the RAF system.

Under the 1932 and 1939 RAF systems, here is how the names were chosen:

Fighters were given “General words indicating, speed, activity, or aggressiveness.” This left quite a lot of room for variety. Meteorological names were common, such as Hurricane, Whirlwind, Lightning, and Typhoon. Other names featured fast animals, such as Mustang, or even appropriate adjectives, such as Defiant. Gladiator is pretty self-explanatory. Exactly how Buffalo, which hardly indicates “speed, activity, or aggressiveness” slipped through, I’m not sure, but it probably had something to do with the portly fuselage of the aircraft. It is possible that the aircraft was named for the African animal, which had a much more fearsome reputation than the American buffalo, but that fuselage does look a bit like a bison!

It’s probably worth mentioning here how American aircraft used by the RAF, which began to appear in numbers in the late 1930s, were integrated into the naming system. Where possible, American-built aircraft were named under the same system, but with much more leeway. Under the basic RAF system, bombers, transports, and flying boats were given British, or British Empire, place names. American aircraft, however, were given suitably American names, such as Douglas Boston, Curtiss Cleveland, Martin Baltimore, or Consolidated Catalina, under the guidelines of the basic system. Some aircraft that originally had names assigned by their US manufacturers kept those in RAF service, such as the Bell Airacobra, which was going to be renamed Caribou, but which was finally given its manufacturer’s name. Many of those manufacturer’s names did not fit the guidelines, but some, such as Thunderbolt, certainly did. Many of the British names, such as Catalina and Lightning, worked their way back across the Atlantic to become official USAAF/USN names. Most British aircraft built in Canada kept their British names; one notable exception was the Bristol Blenheim, whose Canadian version was renamed the Bolingbroke.

Curtiss had traditionally called their fighters Hawks, and the RAF kept up this tradition, with the Mohawk (yes, I know it’s actually a Native American tribe), Tomahawk, and Kittyhawk. The Merlin-engined P-40F was scheduled to be named the Goshawk, but was eventually named the Kittyhawk Mk.II.

The Bristol Beaufighter is an interesting case. The Beaufighter was developed using as many components of the Beaufort torpedo bomber as possible, and the name reflected that. The name is a condensed version of the unwieldy “Beaufort fighter”, and while Beaufighter may not make much literal sense, it sounds good.

After 1937, naval fighters did not fall under the RAF guidelines, and were often named after seabirds, as in the Fairey Fulmar. Adaptations of RAF fighters in naval service usually used the name “Sea” in front of the original name, as in Sea Hurricane or Sea Gladiator. Seafire is a condensed version of Sea Spitfire. American naval fighters were originally renamed to conform to this standard, (the Wildcat was renamed Martlet, and Hellcat was changed to Gannet), but in 1944 the FAA reverted back to the American names for all aircraft with different British and American names to avoid confusion.

Bombers were named after “Place names – an inland town of the British Empire or associated with British history.” This gives us lots of bombers named after British towns, such as the Avro Lancaster, Handley-Page Halifax, or Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley. (Previous to this revision in the naming system, bombers had been named after animals, such as the Fairey Fox and Hawker Hart, but bombers named under that system were mostly obsolete by WW2).

The Fairey Battle may seem to be outside this sequence, but it’s not. Battle is a town near Hastings, where the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066.

The Vickers Wellington is a special case. There are two towns in England and one in New Zealand named Wellington, so the name technically fits the guidelines, but it was probably named to honor the Duke of Wellington, rather than a town. A previous Vickers bomber had been the Wellesley, which was the Duke of Wellington’s family name, so that strengthens the suspicion.

Some non-British towns in the old Empire were also chosen, such as the Bristol Bombay. Most American bombers used by the RAF followed the guidelines, although the choices of Douglas Boston and Martin Baltimore under a naming system that specified “inland towns” indicates that someone didn’t have a map!

Both the Boeing Fortress and Consolidated Liberator were granted names adopted by their manufacturers, not names under the British system.

Transports were named after “Counties or districts of the British Empire,” which led to Avro York, and when US aircraft were obtained, to Americanized names such as Douglas Dakota.

Flying boats were named after “Coastal towns and seaports of the British Empire,” leading to Short Sunderland, Supermarine Stranraer, and SARO London. It’s interesting that an undistinguished biplane flying boat should get the honor of being named after the nation’s capitol. Whoever came up with the name Consolidated Catalina, after an island off the California coast, deserves a medal. It just rolls off the tongue...

Army Co-Operation aircraft were named after “Classical words,” whatever that means. This led to such aircraft being named after Greek or Roman figures, both mythological, as in Armstrong-Whitworth Atlas, and historical, as in Westland Lysander or Hawker Hector. Lysander, in case you’re wondering, was a very successful Spartan admiral and statesman who died in 395 B.C.

General Purpose/Torpedo/Reconnaissance aircraft were given “British historical names”. The Bristol Beaufort was named after the Duke of Beaufort. The Avro Anson, as a coastal reconnaissance aircraft, took on a nautical name, being named for Lord George Anson, a famous 18th Century Admiral of the Royal Navy. This irritated the Royal Navy, who didn’t like the idea of an RAF aircraft carrying the name of a Royal Navy icon. An agreement was later reached between the Air Ministry and Admiralty that prevented the RAF from using many famous names associated with the Navy, but by that time not only the Anson but the Hawker Hardy, named after Nelson’s Flag Captain at the Battle of Trafalgar, had entered service.

Trainers and target tugs were named for “Words indicating tuition and places of education (but not Air Force training establishments). This led to names such as Airspeed Oxford and Cambridge honoring famous universities, and Avro Tutor, or Miles Master, Magister, and Martinet, being named after things associated with schools. US-built designs were usually named after universities, as in North American Harvard and Yale, and Fairchild Cornell. The open-cockpit Fairchild PT-19 was scheduled to be called the Freshman, but when the contract was amended to the sliding canopy PT-26 version, the name was dropped in favor of Cornell.

The de Havilland Tiger Moth obviously does not fit into this system. The Tiger Moth was developed as a civil aircraft, and then adopted by the RAF. Sir Geoffrey de Havilland was an avid lepidopterist, and named many of his aircraft after moths. The Tiger Moth name became so well known that it was considered counterproductive to change the name when the RAF ordered the type, so Tiger Moth it stayed.

Gliders were named after “Historical military leaders,” and some unknown person unofficially decided that all glider names should start with an “H”. This person either had a finely developed sense of the absurd, or had way too much time on his hands.

Let’s take a look at these individually, for they have to rank, as a group, as the most bizarre set of names to be given to any military aircraft. The General Aircraft Hotspur was named after Sir Henry Percy, also known as Hotspur, a 14th Century historical figure whom I vaguely remember from Shakespeare’s plays. The WACO Hadrian was named after the Roman Emperor who built Hadrian’s Wall across the top of England to keep out the Picts. The General Aircraft Hamilcar was named for a Carthaginian general, who was the son of Hannibal (and why Hannibal wasn’t chosen as a name, I don’t know). This leaves the Slingby Hengist, and Airspeed Horsa. Hengist and Horsa were brothers, Germanic chieftains who invaded Britain in 449 A.D. That’s right, the main British glider used in the defeat of Germany was named after a German whose claim to fame was leading an invasion of Britain. The mind simply boggles...

Under the 1932 system, naval fighters got mythological names, naval fighter/reconnaissance/bombers got names of sea birds, torpedo bombers got names of oceans and seas, and spotter/reconnaissance aircraft got the names of marine mammals. This perfectly accounts for names like Supermarine Walrus, Blackburn Skua, and Fairey Seafox. It even accounts for Blackburn Roc, which was a mythological bird from the “Arabian Nights”, although the fact that the Roc fighter had all of the aerodynamic qualities of a rock may have figured in there somewhere. But how does the most famous British naval aircraft of all-time, the Fairey Swordfish, fit into this series?

The Admiralty named naval aircraft under the 1939 system, and this produced a lot of fish, seabird, and marine mammal names for aircraft introduced after 1939, such as Fairey Barracuda, Fairey Albacore (somehow, going to war in a weapon named after a big tuna doesn’t seem to be the right way to inspire confidence), Grumman Martlet, and Supermarine Sea Otter.

Some aircraft names appear to fall outside of the general naming guidelines. The de Havilland Mosquito is a perfect name for that aircraft, but hardly conforms to the name of a British town, as bombers were supposed to.

The British used an alphanumerical system to indicate variants and subtypes. At the start of the war, the system used Roman numerals; the first production variant of each type was the Mk.I, the second the Mk.II, and so forth. New mark numbers were not assigned except for major engine or airframe changes, which led to some drastic differences between aircraft of the same mark. Hurricane Mk.Is, for example, could have metal or fabric-covered wings, or have two-blade wooden or three-blade metal props. Over 14,000 Hurricanes were built, and all were one of three production versions, the Mk.I, Mk.II, or Mk.IV. Obviously, there were a lot of differences between many of them. The situation reached the absurd with the Spitfire Mk.IX, which could have either a regular or bubble canopy; a pointed rudder or rounded one; regular or clipped wings; a high, medium, or low altitude engine; regular or tropical filters; and many armament variations. Sometimes a modified aircraft was so different as to require a notation; the Lancasters modified for 617 Squadron’s unique operations were designated Lancaster B.I (Special), but exactly which modification was indicated is not spelled out.

Suffixes of lower case letters were used to indicate the armament fitted. This can best be explained by showing the various subtypes of the Hurricane Mk.II – the Mk.IIa had eight guns; the Mk.IIb had twelve guns; the Mk.IIc had four 20 mm cannon; and the Mk.IId had two 40 mm cannon. Suffixes of this kind were only used to designate armament changes.

As the war progressed, the need to identify changes became more crucial, and the system was revised. In about mid-1942, the catchall Mk.I or Mk.II designation was sometimes replaced by letters identifying a specific role, as in Supermarine Spitfire LF.IXb, which indicated a Spitfire Mk.IX fighter with an engine optimized for low-level operations, and with mixed cannon and machine gun armament. This designation is sometimes seen written as LF.Mk.IXb, but the omission of “Mk” soon became common. Examples of other designations that reflect roles include Avro Lancaster B.III, a bomber, de Havilland Mosquito NF.II, a night-fighter, or Bristol Beaufighter TF.X, a torpedo/fighter. For unknown reasons, this system was not universal. I’ve never seen the Hawker Tempest Mk.V, for example, referred to as the Tempest F.V.

In 1944, the use of Roman numerals for mark numbers was discontinued, and Arabic numerals were used in their place. This changeover took some time to take effect, and was not always retroactive. The Spitfire F.21 is always written as such, but the Spitfire F.14 is often written as F.XIV, or even Mk.XIV.


--------------------------------------


Anyone wanting to see the entire article can find it at:

http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/Aircraft_Designations_WW2.htm

[James]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Capilatus!

I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you know anything about the Belyaev DB=LK flying wing bomber? I have a very poor photo plus measurements and weights, but I can't really tell what it looks like by the photo I have. Any decent links? Any operational information? How many built?

How many Beriev Be-04's and LL-143's were built?

Do you know any weight or performance information about the Gudkov GU-82? I have measurements and that is all .... also how many were built?

Can you tell me anything about the Kalinin Ka-7?What was the height and payload capability? How many were built? Any operational information?

Thanks!

- GregP

[James]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Capilatus!

I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you know anything about the Belyaev DB=LK flying wing bomber? I have a very poor photo plus measurements and weights, but I can't really tell what it looks like by the photo I have. Any decent links? Any operational information? How many built?

How many Beriev Be-04's and LL-143's were built?

Do you know any weight or performance information about the Gudkov GU-82? I have measurements and that is all .... also how many were built?

Can you tell me anything about the Kalinin Ka-7?What was the height and payload capability? How many were built? Any operational information?

Thanks!

- GregP



DB-LK
See E. Gordon, D Khazhanov, Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Volume Two at 96 which has 4 photos and a 3-view line drawing, all of good quality. Text is good, but generic. For a more technical and more thorough treatment, see V.B. Shavrov, Istoriya Konstruktsii samelotev v SSSR 1938-1950 gg, at 37-40. This has a poor photo and a small 3-view, but lots of technical information, of no use whatsoever unless you read Russian. No operational information exists, since the DB-LK never entered ops, having failed to pass State acceptance trials after some 100+ test flights. While performance figures (slightly better than contemporary Il-4) and "flyability" were reported as generally good, it was faulted for having poor visibility from pilot and navigator's positions, as well as what Shavrov describes as a "series of design defects and imperfections" (whatever that means). From information that I have, it is doubtful that more than the one prototype was built. Interestingly, of the photos that I have, one can see what appears to be chord-wise fences on the horizontal tail surfaces in some photos, but not in others, so it is not clear whether this reflects a separate airframe or a modification to a single aircraft. Offhand, I would bet the latter, as it was not common in Soviet practice to build a second prototype (they refer to them as "understudies") until initial tests of the first prototype showed at least a promise of needing another. By the way, "DB-LK" is a cyrillic acronym formed from the first letters of its four-word description; in English it would be "LB-FW", for "Long-range Bomber-Flying Wing." Aerodynamically, however, it's not really a flying wing in either English or Russian; it's actually more like a canard, in that the forward swept wing-tips operate as positively loaded foreplanes counteracting negative pitching moment about the center of pressure of the wing, or so says theory.

Be-4; LL-43/Be-6
I have no numbers.

Gudkov Gu-82. Appears only the one was built to completion, as Gudkov (he's one of the "G's" in "LaGG" first got evacuated and then sidetracked working on armament questions on the LaGG-3, so testing was incomplete. See E. Gordon, Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters at 40, 41. Shavrov at 226, describing the G-82 as having "taken the power installation of the Su-2 wholesale", which I read as describing essentially a grafting of the Su-2 forward fuselage/firewall to the LaGG-3 airframe. I really don't see the question you frame, however, since the Gu-82 was nothing but another approach to the LaGG-3 M-82 project, which became the famous and well known La-5. The Gu-82 and Lagg-3 M-82 [La-5] differed mostly in the installation/design of the cowling and cooling system for the radial engine; the Gu-82 having borrowed its installation from the Su-2 (skirt fitting uniformly around its circumference), while the LaGG-3 M-82's was closely cowled and cooling was controlled by two variable outlet flaps on the fuselage sides. The engine was the same M-82 in either case, and the rest of the airframe was virtually identical to any LaGG-3 taken off the assembly line, as indeed both were. Quantity? Shavrov says, at page 226: "By the beginning of the war one exemplar of [the Gu-82] was ready, but still unflown; a second was being finished." Only the one was eventially flown; it was interest in the concept, proven by Gudkov, of mating the more powerful radial engine to the LaGG-3 airframe it that led Lavochkin to move more sprightly with the LaGG-3 M-82 project, which was the La-5, then La-5FN, La-7, -9 -11, etc. Gudkov got there first, but Lavochkin got there better, at least as far as Stalin was concerned, which was all that mattered. Gudkov also didn't fair so well after his Gu-1 [AKA Gu-37] splashed itself and test pilot A.I. Nikashin on its first flight 12 July 1943. Results mattered in Stalin's day, and he could be unforgiving. I can't find much about Gudkov after July 1943, and Shavrov, at 226, enigmatically offers nothing but the cryptic expression: "In 1944 the Lavochkin Design Bureau returned from evacuation. Gorbunov and Gudkov by this time had finished their work in aircraft design." The verb Shavrov uses in this expression is the same verb that can be used colloquially to refer to someone's dying, as in the expression: "One bullet to the head will finish him." Russians often used such puns or literary devices to convey to the reader through the veil of Soviet censorship other subtler messages, and here the message could be read be read both figuratively and literally that Gudkov was well and truly finished. Unfortunately, my Russian, acquired as a second language, is not good enough for me to tell; you need a native speaker to pick up these kinds of subtleties. But I digress.

Re Ka-7, see
http://avia.russian.ee/air/russia/kalinin_k-7.html
http://www.biic.de/aviation-museum/planes/country/russia/planes/47.htm

Have fun. Hope this helps. I am sort of a nut about things with wings and all things Russian. I build flying scale models, as well as play at being an arm-chair history professor.
Jim

[James]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

Well a few of them have good explanations behind them. The Oscar was part of a system to name all Japanese aircraft after rural, in otherwords "redneck" names. And the Vibrator was named as such because of the terrible vibrations it produced. Still pretty funny though. Actually, I never really hear of too many German nicnames for their planes. I've heard a few russian ones, the Ilyushin Il-2 "Shturmovik" comes to mind, but that actually means "swallow", as in the bird, so I guess that isn't too bizarre.

As for that Mig nickname, "fagot".....what doofus came up with that....

Whoa, hold on there, partner! I see that others have already identified the WW2 Allied coding for the Japanese as well as NATO's convetions in place for eastern bloc aircraft. I hadthought (but cannot find the reference now), that one of the other of these also used multisyllabic names to identify multi-engine aircraft, such that "Irving" was a twin, while "Zeke" and "Frank" were not (This seems to work fairly well, except for "Nick" and "Oscar".) Be that as it may, I am most decidedly sure that "Shturmovik" does NOT mean "swallow." Shturm comes from (and is pronounced similarly to the German "Sturm" [storm, gale, fury, onset, attack] as in "Sturmabteilung" being "Storm Troopers." The russian word "Shturm" also carries the several maenings of both "storm" (as in weather) and "storm" as in "to storm the barricades." A Shturmovik is literally "one who storms", ie, attacks, and by convention, has come to refer exclusively to ground attack aircraft. Like with "Stuka," it is incorrect to refer to any one plane as "Shturmovik," because it is a generic term, not a species label. All dive bombers, not just Ju-87s were Stukas, all ground attack planes, not just the Il-2 were "shturmoviks." In Russian, it gets even more confusing, since Shturmovik is a function description even more than a type description. If you hang rockets and bombs under an La-5 and assign it to a ShAP (dedicated ground attack "regiment"), it will be a Shturmovik, not an Istrebitel (fighter). Shturmovik means "Attacker." Our A-10 Warthog is a shturmovik. As to other names, Russians are very fond of puns, acronyms, and cutesy clever expressions. The LaGG-3, designed by the team of La vochkin, G orbunov, and G udkov, was made of wood, had coolant systems particularly vulnerable to ground fire, and was underpowered. It earned itself the acronym La kirovanny [La cquered/varnished]) G arantirovanny [G uaranteed] G rob [G rave/Coffin]. This was not an appelation to be used whenever the Political Officer was around, needless to say. The "Peshka" (name for the Pe-2) is a diminutive (and favorable) reference to the chess piece "pawn," the busy little troublemaker of the playing board. "Rata" is spanish for "rat," I beleive, and the I-16 earned this one while flying in Spain; Russians refer to it coloquially as "Ishak" ["donkey"]. "Donkey" to us does not seem very flattering, but to a Russian an "ishak" is a beast of burden that is fairly small, absolutely sure of foot, tremendously adroit in rough terain, easy to control, reliable, and won't let you down if you treat it with even a modicum of respect, but which will just as quickly nip at you if you aren't paying attention. There are lots of other names that Russians have used, but few of them, if any, are applied as a matter of formality or even used in any kind of official correspondences.

Jim

[GregP]

Hi James and welcome.

Thanks for the information. I had some of it and have one picture of the DB-LK as well as a photo of a model ... I was looking for a better photo of the actual aircraft.

I have also seen the Ka-7 links (thanks anyway), but would love to see any other pictures of it. I understand it broke up in flight, so the pictures are likely to be few ... maybe the two I have seen are all that exist.

Appreciate the data about the Gudkov.

[James]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi James and welcome.

Thanks for the information. I had some of it and have one picture of the DB-LK as well as a photo of a model ... I was looking for a better photo of the actual aircraft.

I have also seen the Ka-7 links (thanks anyway), but would love to see any other pictures of it. I understand it broke up in flight, so the pictures are likely to be few ... maybe the two I have seen are all that exist.

Appreciate the data about the Gudkov.


Up until the demise of the USSR, any kind of good photography was scarcer than chicken lips. Even now, many publications still suffer from having to rely on Soviet style "photography," in which the primary tool was not a camera, but a paintbrush! Still, in the last 10 years or so there has been a deluge of materials made available and some very fine texts are making their appearances, with all kinds of information and photos that have never before been seen to my knowledge. Being sort of a nut about Russian aviation, I have a hard time staying current, as well as staying financially afloat resisting buying everything. Re Ka-7: Somewhere in my archives I have some information that the monster suffered from violent vibrations in the extremities, the cure (speedy, if inelegant) was to take several long and thick (and HEAVY) slabs of steel (no kidding!) and weld them on to the sides to stiffen them--at the cost of several hundred pounds of payload capacity. I am not confident that this anecdote is true, but it bears researching; like many, many other things, western publishers were for many years essentially compelled by cold war sensitivities to ridicule russian aviation efforts. The truth is that Soviet aeronautical science was at no time inferior to western capabaility, and in many areas, the soviets actually were ahead of the west. There were numerous instances when Stalin's iron hand warped commons sense (Kalinin's welding job may be one of them). If memory serves, it didn't work, and the beast broke up in flight and killed the entire crew (foggy memory suggests the crew was 18-20 or so!?). I think Kalinin himself ultimately collected his own bullet as an Enemy of the State in 1937 or 1938. Anyway, Russian aviation is truly fascinating, and the deeper one digs, the more one appreciates the real genious of many of their efforts, regardless of whether recognized in the West. It's like those myths that circulated about the Japanese: can't build good airplanes, can't possibly make good pilots, all have bad eyes, mechanically inept, all their airplanes are copies of obsolete western models, etc. In 1939-42, the Japanese naval aviator was probably the best in the world at combat flying and was equipped with arguably the best all-around fighter aircraft going. I wonder how many of our flyers got killed being mislead by such senseless bigotry? And then again, we got suprised when the MiG-15 proved better than anything we could put into play, so we told the world that the Russians had simply copied the Germans. Made us feel better, but didn't make the MiG fly any worse or make it any less an indigenous design. I would send you what I have on the KA-7, but I know I haven't any photos. Gee, I guess I know where the next paycheck is going: Soviet aircraft designs between the wars!
Jim

[CAPILATUS]

Hi Capilatus!

I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you know anything about the Belyaev DB=LK flying wing bomber? I have a very poor photo plus measurements and weights, but I can't really tell what it looks like by the photo I have. Any decent links? Any operational information? How many built?
How many Beriev Be-04's and LL-143's were built?

Hi, Greg, just realized you asking... I have to look through the topics more attentively...

I mainly go through Russian sources, but here the link with pics
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/dblk.html
Built only one. I have no information if it was broken while test flights.

Do you know any weight or performance information about the Gudkov GU-82? I have measurements and that is all .... also how many were built?

Gu-82 (m82 engin) september 1941, two were built
Max speed 580km/h at 6400m
climb 5000m for 7min
max rate of climb 878m/min
range 680km
weapon 2x20mm SHVAK, 2x12,7 BS
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/gu82.html

Can you tell me anything about the Kalinin Ka-7? What was the height and payload capability? How many were built? Any operational information?

K-7 super heavy bomber, first flight 11August 1933

crew 11
6 engines M-34F (750ph)
6x7,62SHKAS
payload 9000kg

all I found yet [:I]


Be-4
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sww2/be4.html

I have just were produced in small numbers.


LL-143 ?/Be-6 123 built total till 1953

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sww2/ll143.html

http://www.butovo.com/~nw/Beriev.htm
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/be6.html
http://www.beriev.com/rus/photos1.html

[CRASHSITESLIMBURG]

Hello All!!

Iam searching for close-up pictures from ARMSTRONG WHITLEY V
TO id ALL parts on my site!

ALL PICTURES ARE VERY WELCOME !!!!

regards,

http://members.chello.nl/j.bloemers/

CRASHSITESLIMBURG[/b][/b]

[MikeD]

The mention of balloon cable cutters is correct, these were used on He111 airframes and must have played havoc with their centre of gravity not mentioning the affect to the stability and flight characteristcs when contact was made with these ground tied cables.

[MikeD]

I read a message re the firing of cables with parachutes and weights to try and break up enemy formations. A more effective but seemingly silly way to bring down a helicopter was used in the Vietnam war. An arrow was fired into the blades of a low hovering helicopter in the jungle, this had a thin string attached. To this thin string was tied a heavier string and so this goes on until it was connected to a rope. And you've guessed it these became tangled in the blades and the rope was tied to a tree. Therefore the helicopter towed itself down.

[GregP]

Hi Capilatus,

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it. The links were useful.

[laske1]

Talking about cutting stuff up, I found this in one of my books:

Zeppelin 'Rammer'
This project for a glider fighter was proposed by the RLM in November 1944. The take-off was to be made using a detachable device similar to the BV 40's, and afterwards movedto the combat area towed by a conventional fighter (Probably a Bf 109G).
After being released, the pilot ignited the auxiliary rocket and accelerated 970 km/h to then launch its bunch of rockets against the 'box' of enemy bombers, like a 'Natter'.
A second attack had been foreseen as in the BV 40, but instead of a towed mine the weapon would be the airplane's own wings built from a high resistance material for ramming purposes, similar to those made by the Fw-190A-8/R2 of the IV/JG3.
The designer estimated that the wing of a 'Rammer' could cleanly cut the tail of a 'Flying Fortress' without great loss of of speed or stability for the fighter. The return was in a gliding, and the landing was made by means of a retractable skid as in a Me 163.

By the way I think I have seen the wire thingys in a german design, launched by rockets.

[Trexx]

Northrop worked real hard and smeared out a terrific test pilot developing a "Flying Ram" rocket powered, single seat flying wing. It had a reinforced leading edge that was supposed to enable the plane to slice through enemy aircraft. The concept seems silly.

Also, didn't the Germans tinker with a "sonic" canon? It was a gizmo that was supposed to shake aircraft apart with sound waves. Imagine... in an era before Van Halen!

I love the mortars that the Germans affixed to their fighters for dealing with the bombers. Perfect for flinging big projectiles... I think around six to eight inch coffee-can-like tubes under the wings of Fw-190s.

[Double T]

How about the Grumman F4F-3S Wild Catfish?

Grumman's F4F Wildcat was transformed into a floatplane fighter aka the "Rufe" floatplane of Japanese heritage.
200 sets of floats were mfg'ed but not retrofitted as it was determined the float-plane sensation had already passed it's prime.
When you add a pair of floats and bracing to an already 'stubby' Wildcat... well, it looks like a 'Fatcat' to me.

Tim

[Red Admiral]

http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/planes_it/jet/images/campcap1.jpg

The Caproni-Campini N.1

The world's second jet aircraft to fly. Its not even a real jet engine.


Some american chap mounted a 75mm cannon in the nose of a P-38. Luckily he test fired it before taking off. It didn't work.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/planes_it/jet/images/campcap1.jpg

The Caproni-Campini N.1

The world's second jet aircraft to fly. Its not even a real jet engine...


...That machine could barely top 200 mph...

[Red Admiral]

I'm quite amazed it actually flew. Its a huge plane with only 900hp.

[Ricky]

I once read about a german AA shell designed to disrupt bomber formations. Apparently it had powdered coal inside, which caused a huge blast, which would ruin the formation...
Truth, or legend?

[simon]

I'd guess legend although I'll defer to better judgement if anyone knows better. Why would powdered coal be more destructive than conventional explosive? OK, it is quite explosive (As are many powders, even custard powder can explode under the right circumstances! (He-he, imagine custard bombs! One more for the Great Citrus Conspiracy!)) and it is apparently the reason given (I think by Dr Robert Ballard, but am not sure) for the loss of the Lusitania, but I'd imagine she'd have gone down a lot quicker if her coal bunkers were filled with TNT instead!

My guess would be that it may have been trialed as an alternative to using normal HE as the latter would probably be better used in artillery on the Eastern Front, and with so many shells typically needing to be fired to get a hit ack-ack must have been pretty wastefull.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by simon

...and with so many shells typically needing to be fired to get a hit ack-ack must have been pretty wastefull.


Yeah more than likely, but still the Germans were pretty good shots ...scary-good with those 88mm's.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

I'm quite amazed it actually flew. Its a huge plane with only 900hp.


By-the-way, that's the only photograph of that aircraft I've seen in flight. Cool, thanks!:)

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by laske1

...the weapon would be the airplane's own wings built from a high resistance material for ramming purposes, similar to those made by the Fw-190A-8/R2 of the IV/JG3.
The designer estimated that the wing of a 'Rammer' could cleanly cut the tail of a 'Flying Fortress' without great loss of of speed or stability for the fighter...


Better sharpen those leading edges while you're reinforcing 'em...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Battle_damaged_fortress.gifhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Battle_damaged_2.gif


Apparently B-17's had a bit of resistance built into them too. Never underestimate the toughness of the flying fort.
I've read that the early Bf-109s and Fw-190's armed as they were, could not bring one down even after unloading all ammunition into target. After careful gun camera review, to show what the fighter pilots were complaining about,they started increasing the firepower.
Our Rosie the riviter built 'em good, damn good!

[simon]

What's that falling away from the Fortress in flight? Did someone bottle it and bail out?

There's another picture that crops up quite frequently in books (So is probably on the net somewhere as well!) of the Tail of a Fortress which had been rammed, the top of the tail has been cut off and there are a couple of deep cuts downwards which were supposedly made by the ramming plane's propellor as it passed over. Apparently the tailgunner didn't even realise they'd been hit until they landed and he got out!

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by simon

What's that falling away from the Fortress in flight? Did someone bottle it and bail out?...

Naw... It's just poopie underwear!