Weird & Wonderful
OF THE WORLD’S MOST 35 BIZARRE AIRCRAFT
INCLUDING X-plane marvels German WW2 oddities VTOL madness Super-sized monsters
Multi-winged wonders www.keypublishing.com
100 YEARS OF EXTREME FLYING MACHINES £ 7.941 ISSUE 5 AVIATION SPECIALS ESSENTIAL READING FROM KEY PUBLISHING
AIRFORCES OF AVIATION PHOTOGRAPHER RAF ANNUAL REVIEW 2019 US AIR FORCE AIR POWER THE WORLD 2 The most eminent photographers Providing behind the scenes insight YEARBOOK 2019 From carrier-based fast jets to fixed- take you inside their thought process into the aircraft, equipment, people The fourth edition of the US Air Force wing patrol aircraft and helicopters, the behind some of the most breath- and operations of one of the world’s Air Power Yearbook comes at a time region’s maritime air components are taking aviation images ever produced. premier air forces. when readiness is at the forefront of reviewed in detail the concerns for USAF leaders.
£5.99 inc FREE P&P* £6.99 inc FREE P&P* £6.99 inc FREE P&P* £5.99 inc FREE P&P*
RAF SALUTE HISTORY AIRLINER CLASSICS F 35 LIGHTNING II PATROLLERS AND AND HEROISM Brought to you by the award-winning This 100-page special from the AIRLIFTERS The redevelopment of the RAF team behind Airliner World, this latest team behind Combat Aircraft The third instalment in the Museum’s Hendon site is almost edition of the highly popular Airliner magazine details the F-35’s series focuses on the unsung complete. This impressive overhaul Classics series turns the clock back journey to date. heroes involved in the vital is detailed in this Official Royal Air once again to bring you the very best roles of transport and maritime Force Publication. from the glory days of air travel. overwatch.
£5.99 inc FREE P&P* £5.99 inc FREE P&P* £5.99 inc FREE P&P* £5.99 inc FREE P&P*
AVIATION SPECIALS FREE Aviation Specials App ESSENTIAL reading from the teams behind your FAVOURITE magazines HOW TO ORDER Simply download to purchase digital versions of your favourite aviation specials in one VISIT PHONE handy place! Once you have the app, you www.keypublishing.com/shop UK: 01780 480404 will be able to download new, out of ROW: (+44)1780 480404 print or archive specials for less than the cover price! *Prices correct at time of going to press. Free 2nd class P&P on all UK & BFPO orders. Overseas charges apply. Postage charges vary depending on total order value.
1155/18 INTRODUCTION 3
Weird & Wonderful
uman creativity knows no bounds. Therefore, from the individuality and homogenised most aircraft design, though thankfully moment the Wright Brothers staggered into the air, not in its entirety. There are still mavericks out there who challenge Hthe imagination of aircraft designers began to run riot. conformity and while they exist, so will the ‘weird and wonderful’ nature Challenging, and often lagrantly disregarding, the laws of of their designs. Long may we be astounded by their creations. aerodynamics, manufacturers pushed the boundaries to the edge of reason… and beyond. AVIATION ARCHIVE SERIES The lines between eccentricity and genius became increasingly blurred, In this 41st issue of Aviation Archive, we take an afectionate look at some resulting in some of the weirdest, wonderful and fascinating machines of the most fabulous, crazy, and down-right weird, aircraft to ever take to ever built. Flying saucers, lying barrels, lying wings, nine wings, reverse the skies. It features unparalleled photographic coverage, including many wings, skewed wings, twin fuselage, asymmetric fuselage… practically exclusive and rare shots that have never been published before. Aircraft every coniguration imaginable has been tried and tested, often with are arranged chronologically under the date of their maiden light. The tragic results. No genre of aircraft is sacrosanct, as the eclectic mix words and photographs are complemented by ‘period’ cutaways from the of aircraft types within these pages demonstrates. There are those talented pens of the ‘Flight’ and ‘Aeroplane’ artists of the era. that look futuristic, those that look impossible and even those that look comedic, but no matter how bizarre they appear, they are all the Cover: Built for stealth. The enigmatic Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk. products of visionaries who dared to ‘think outside of the box’. Today it is a little diferent. The dawning of the computer age has stripped away Above: The bizarre-looking Bell X-22 V/STOL X-plane.
Aviation Archive Series Weird & Wonderful • Editor: Allan Burney • Design: Philip Hempell • Group CEO and Publisher: Adrian Cox • Commercial Director: Ann Saundry • Distribution: Seymour Distribution Ltd +44 (0)20 7429 4000 • Printing: Warners (Midlands) PLC, The Maltings, Manor Lane, Bourne, Lincs PE10 9PH. All rights reserved. The entire content of Aviation Archive is © Key Publishing 2018. Reproduction in whole or in part and in any form whatsoever is strictly prohibited without the prior permission of the Publisher. We are unable to guarantee the bona ides of any of our advertisers. Readers are strongly recommended to take their own precautions before parting with any information or item of value, including, but not limited to, money, manuscripts, photographs or personal information in response to any advertisements within this publication. Published by Key Publishing Ltd, PO Box 100, Stamford, Lincs PE19 1XQ. Tel: +44 (0) 1780 755131. Fax: +44 (0) 1780 757261. Website: www.keypublishing.com ISBN: 9781912205639 4 CONTENTS
Weird & Wonderful
6 CAPRONI CA.60 TRANSAEREO 30 MILES M.39B LIBELLULA 8 SAVOIA MARCHETTI S.55 31 NORTHROP XP 56 BLACK BULLET 10 DORNIER DO X 32 DOUGLAS XB 42 MIXMASTER 14 STIPA CAPRONI 36 JUNKERS JU 287 15 KALININ K 7 38 NORTH AMERICAN P 82 TWIN MUSTANG 16 BLOHM & VOSS BV 141 41 DORNIER DO 335 18 MESSERSCHMITT ME 163 46 NORTHROP FLYING WINGS 24 VOUGHT V 173 50 MCDONNELL XF 85 GOBLIN 26 CURTISS WRIGHT XP 55 ASCENDER 52 DOUGLAS X 3 STILETTO CONTENTS 5
56 LOCKHEED XFV 1 73 EDGLEY OPTICA 58 FAIREY ROTODYNE 74 NASA AD 1 61 SNECMA COLÉOPTÈRE 76 LOCKHEED F 117 NIGHTHAWK 64 AVRO CANADA VZ 9AV AVROCAR 81 GRUMMAN X 29 66 ATL 98 CARVAIR 86 PIAGGIO AVANTI 68 AERO SPACELINES SUPER GUPPY 88 SCALED COMPOSITES PROTEUS 70 BELL X 22A 90 AIRBUS BELUGA XL 71 DORNIER DO 31 94 STRATO LAUNCH 72 BARTINI BERIEV VVA 14 6 AIRLINER Caproni Ca.60 Transaereo
oday it is easy to look at the Caproni nations and continents, particularly on the was obtained by cannibalising surplus Caproni Ca.60 and dismiss it as an eccentric highly commercial transatlantic routes. His Ca.4 triplane bombers from World War 1. The Tfolly, but in the 1920s there was a ideas might have been futuristic, but the aircraft was powered by eight Liberty L-12 V12 certain logic to it. If you wanted to produce a available technology was not. Therefore, his engines capable of 400hp each, arranged in record-breaking 100-passenger transatlantic solution was to have more of everything. Eight a complicated push-pull arrangement across airliner, then the obvious solution was to engines and three sets of triple wings set the fore and aft sets of wings. Flight engineers add more wings and engines. The trouble is, above a giant fuselage which resembled that sat in two of the central engine nacelles and Caproni did not know when to stop! of a luxury houseboat. Each set of three wings controlled the power output of the engines in This unlikely aircraft was the creation of response to orders given by the pilot by means Count Gianni Caproni of Italy, a proli c aircraft Caproni Ca.60 Transaereo of a complex system of lights and indicators designer of the time. Often referred to as the located on electrical panels. The main hull Novioplano (nine-wing) or Capronissimo, Type: Airliner contained the passenger cabin, which featured the Caproni Ca.60 Transaereo was easily the Crew: 8 Below: most ambitious of all his creations. Caproni Passengers: 100 Regardless of its questionable aesthetics, the Caproni Ca.60 was a sight to behold. This dreamt of revolutionising air travel and he Wingspan: 98ft 5in (30m) picture, taken at Lake Maggiore in 1921, shows envisioned that his large multi-engined ying Length: 77ft (23.45m) the three wing sets mounted on top of the hull boat would ply the world’s trade routes, Height: 30ft (9.15m) and the booms that connected them, as well as o ering fast and luxurious travel between Max T/O weight: 57,320lb (26,000kg) the panoramic cabin windows. Powerplant: 8 x Liberty L-12 V12 engines of 400hp each Max Speed: 80mph (130km/h) CAPRONI CA.60 TRANSAEREO 7
wide panoramic windows. Travellers were water and was rapidly followed by the nose of of causing the nose to pitch up and stall the meant to sit in pairs on wooden benches that the aircraft, which slammed into the surface, aircraft. Caproni intended to rebuild the aircraft, faced each other. The side-by-side open-air breaking the fore part of the hull. Thankfully, but the project was soon abandoned because cockpit accommodated a pilot in command and the pilot and the light engineers escaped the of its excessive cost. a co-pilot. wreck unscathed. A number of theories have Thus ended the short career of one of the A huge hangar was built in Sesto Calende, on been put forward to explain the accident, but most bizarre aircraft to ever take to the skies. the shore of Lake Maggiore, and construction the most likely is that unsecured ballast (which Below: The wreck of the Transaereo is towed of the Transaereo began in the second half had been placed in the aircraft to simulate the to shore after the accident on 4 March 1921. of 1919. In what must have been an amazing weight of passengers), shifted during take- Thankfully test pilot Semprini survived the crash. spectacle, the mighty aircraft inally took to the water on 9 February 1921, and began a series of taxiing trials in the hands of test pilot Federico Semprini. Sources difer about what happened next. Some state that the aircraft made a short hop in February or early March, during which it exhibited reasonable lying characteristics. Others maintain that the aircraft only made one very short-lived light. What is known for sure is that on 4 March Semprini accelerated the aircraft to 100mph and the Transaereo took of and started climbing in a sharp nose-up attitude. The tail started falling and the aircraft lost altitude, out of control. The tail hit the 8 FLYING BOAT
Savoia-Marchetti S.55
hy build a lying boat with one angle. In a inal lourish, the double tail boom Rome to the Century of Progress celebrations in hull, when you can use two? The sported triple ins. It all worked surprisingly Chicago, taking in Amsterdam, Derry, Reykjavík, WSavoia-Marchetti S.55’s unusual well and the Savoia-Marchetti S.55 immediately Cartwright, Montreal and New York City. Today, catamaran layout might have broken with set about gaining world records for speed, it is diicult to appreciate how futuristic the convention, but that did not stop it from altitude and distance with a payload. It also massed formation looked as it droned over becoming a record-breaking pioneer on became one of the irst aircraft to make a the rising skyscrapers of New York. Thereafter, lights between Europe and the Americas. transatlantic crossing when the aircraft named large leets of aircraft came to be known as a Italian designers have never been shy of the Santa Maria was lown to Brazil via Cape Verde ‘Balbo’. Whilst the S.55 pioneered the dawn of ‘unconventional’, so when Savoia-Marchetti by Francesco de Pinedo, inally arriving on transatlantic air travel, its once revolutionary decided to produce a lying boat that could 23 February 1927. After the crossing, design was rapidly overtaken by advances in operate between continents, it was not enterprisingly the aircraft was traded to Brazil aviation technology. It remained in service altogether surprising that the result was unlike for cofee beans. Further fame followed when with the Italian AF for many years as a long- anything that had ever been seen before. Italian Secretary of State for air and future Air range bomber and patrol aircraft, but was truly Innovation was everywhere. The passengers Marshall Italo Balbo championed the cause obsolescent by the time World War 2 became an and cargo were housed in the twin hulls, while of the S.55 in a series of record-breaking inevitability. However, nothing can take away its the pilots resided in the thicker section of the lights, culminating with the Crociera del deining moment of glory and its pioneering wing joining the two. The twin engines were Decennale, the so-called ‘Italian Air Armada’. role in transatlantic travel. Quite an achievement arranged in a push-pull coniguration and From 1 July to 12 August 1933, 24 of the for an aircraft that seemingly shared more DNA mounted high above the cockpit at a canted seaplanes lew a sensational round-trip from with a boat than a lying machine. SAVOIA-MARCHETTI S.55 9
Savoia-Marchetti S.55
Type: Flying boat Crew: 2, with capacity for 3-4 other crew members Wingspan: 78ft 9in (24m) Length: 54ft 2in (16.5m) Height: 16ft 5in (5m) Max T/O weight: 18,210lb (8,260kg) Powerplant: 2 x Isotta Fraschini Asso 500 engines of 500hp each Max Speed: 127mph (205km/h)
Left: As if one Savoia-Marchetti was not impressive enough. Italo Balbo’s Italian Air Armada caused a sensation when it appeared over US skies in 1933. Thereafter, mass formations came to be known as Balbos.
Below: Is it a boat or is it a plane? From this angle, the catamaran hull arrangement and positioning of the cockpit looks far more nautical than aeronautical. 10 FLYING BOAT DORNIER Do-X 11 Dornier Do-X
hile the Savoia-Marchetti S.55 looked like a racing yacht, the WDornier Do-X was more an ocean- going liner. The scale of the aircraft was such that Dornier strapped 12 engines to the top of its immense wing just to get it airborne. In an age of short-lived decadence, there were few things more decadent than Dornier’s luxury Flugschif (lying ship). Claud Dornier was a man accustomed to thinking ‘big’. He learnt his trade at Zeppelin, so when it came to designing a lying boat, it was natural that he should envisage a giant machine that could carry up to 70 passengers on long-haul lights, or 100 on shorter journeys. These igures might seem small by today’s standards, but in the 1920s they were unthinkable. Design work began in 1924, the project being inanced by the German Transport Ministry. In order to circumvent conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, a specially designed plant was built at Altenrhein, on the Swiss portion of Lake Constance. When it was inished in June 1929, the Dornier Do-X (the ‘X’ designation chosen to give it an air of mystery) was the largest and heaviest lying boat in the world. The Do-X had an all-duralumin hull, with wings composed of a steel-reinforced duralumin framework covered in heavy linen fabric, doped with aluminium paint. The interior of the Dornier Do-X was spread over three decks, with the top one housing the cockpit, navigator’s station, engine control room, and radio room. On the main deck below was the passenger compartment. Here you could ind luxurious seating areas, a bar, dining rooms, bathrooms and sleeping accommodation for longer journeys. On the lower deck there were three separate fuel tanks and nine watertight compartments to ensure the aircraft would remain aloat, even if two of them ruptured. Initially it was powered by 12 524hp Bristol Jupiter radial engines – in a six tractor and six pusher coniguration – though these proved underpowered and were later replaced by Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror water-cooled V-12
Left: The unmistakable skyline of New York provides the backdrop for this historic image from 1930. There is no doubt that the sight and sound of this amazing machine caused a sensation wherever it appeared, but sadly its performance was not so impressive. 12 FLYING BOAT
Dornier Do-X
Type: Flying boat Crew: 10-14 Passengers: 66-100 Wingspan: 157ft 5in (48m) Length: 131ft 4in (40m) Height: 33ft 7in (10.25m) Max T/O weight: 123,460lb (56,000kg) Powerplant: 12 x Curtiss Conqueror V12s of 610hp each Max Speed: 131mph (211km/h) Range: 1,056 miles (1,700km) engines. In a throw-back to its nautical heritage, its engines were not controlled directly by the pilot, but were operated by a dedicated engineer working in a control room located behind the navigator’s station and cockpit. The Dornier Do-X made its maiden ight on 12 July 1929 with a crew of 14 on board. Immediately it was apparent that the monster was not only underpowered but that its bank of 12 engines gulped fuel. However, it did set landed in New York harbour. Clearly this was Above: Even powered by the Curtiss Conqueror a new world record for the number of people not the aircraft that was going to revolutionise V12s of 610hp each, the Dornier Do-X struggled carried in a single ight, when it staggered transatlantic travel. Having failed to attract a to get airborne and gain altitude. Nevertheless, it captured the imagination like few aircraft before into the air with 169 on board, of which 159 single US order, the giant Dornier Do-X returned and remarkably held the record for carrying the were passengers (including 10 unauthorised home to Germany, where it was handed over most passengers for some 20 years. ‘stowaways’). It was a record it was to hold for to Deutsche Luft Hansa. two decades. In a further e ort to drum up Altogether, three Do-Xs were constructed, Right: The immense bulk of the Dornier Do-X sails sales, it was decided to introduce the aircraft to including two for Italy. The Italian variants o into the proverbial sunset. The Do-X lacked the lucrative US market. It took o from Lake were slightly larger and used Fiat A-22R V12 conventional wing oats, instead using fuselage mounted ‘stub wings’ to stabilise the craft in the Constance on 3 November 1930, bound for water-cooled engines. Eventually they were water, which also doubled as an embarkation New York via Amsterdam, Lisbon, Rio de requisitioned and used by the Italian AF based platform for passengers. Janeiro and Miami. Far from promoting its at La Spezia, on the Ligurian Sea. The duo abilities, this ambitious ight soon highlighted were mothballed at Marina di Pisa in 1935 Below left: Many aspects of the Do-X echoed the aircraft’s shortcomings. Although designed and broken up for scrap in 1937. The original nautical arrangements of the time, including the to cruise the transatlantic routes at an altitude Dornier Do-X was damaged in a landing ight deck, which bore a strong resemblance to a ship’s bridge. of 10,000ft, it could not even make a fth of accident in 1933 and although it did y again, this. It was also beset by a number of mishaps its destiny was to become a museum exhibit. It Below: The power output of the 12 engines was that resulted in lengthy delays and it was was nally destroyed by an RAF air raid during controlled by the engineer, following instructions to be almost nine months before the Do-X World War 2. relayed from the pilot. DORNIER Do-X 13 14 EXPERIMENTAL Stipa-Caproni
f ever an aircraft was a complete paradox, then this absurd-looking lying machine Iwas it. The Stipa-Caproni’s barrel-like appearance invites derision, but the aircraft was efectively the world’s irst ducted fan engine with wings attached… and thus was way ahead of its time. Luigi Stipa was a visionary Italian aircraft designer who thought ‘outside the box’, or more precisely ‘inside the fuselage’. He called his revolutionary concept the ‘intubed propeller’ and theorised that a propeller directing its thrust into a tapered venturi tube would result in increased thrust due to the aerodynamics involved. He predicted that propeller tip vortices could be eliminated, thus reducing induced drag from the rotation of the propeller and likely reduce noise as well. Essentially, this is the philosophy behind the turbofan engines powering today’s airliners. But back in the early 1930s this technology was unheard of, and it was not until Stipa was able to team up with Caproni that his dream could be turned into reality. The upshot was one of the strangest the contraption in a small open cockpit. It all Above: Yes, it did get airborne. The Stipa-Caproni machines ever built. The rotund fuselage looked laughable, but it worked. When the was surprisingly stable, in fact it was too stable was hollow, save for the engine pod housing aircraft irst took to the skies on 7 October 1932 for it to have a military future. a de Havilland Gipsy III and propeller. The in the brave hands of Caproni pilot Domenico Italian government could not envisage a stubby wings and miniscule tail looked like an Antonni, it proved surprisingly airworthy and military use for the aircraft and further funding afterthought, while the pilot sat perched atop stable. Stipa had been vindicated. Further was withdrawn. Stipa was left to contemplate Below: It is diicult to take the bizarre lights proved the basic concept, but crucially what might have been as he later observed his Stipa-Caproni seriously, and yet this was the the aircraft sufered from excessive drag that technology being applied to early jet engines forerunner of the modern turbofan jet engine. restricted its top speed. Consequently, the by Germany. KALININ K-7 15 Kalinin K-7
‘ ngainly’ would be the kindest way as a bomber, the authorities recognised the to carry some 120 passengers in addition to to describe the giant Kalinin K-7. propaganda potential of the giant machine. cargo. The military variant was envisioned with UIts massive elliptical wing, twin tail Work on the K-7 started in 1931 and took gun stations at the nose, ahead of each landing coniguration and underslung pontoons all two years to complete. Most notable was its gear fairing and at positions midway along the looked as if they belonged to other aircraft. massive elliptical wing, which housed seven tail booms. Its designer might have had big ambitions, Mikulin AM-34F 12-cylinder piston engines The irst light of the K-7 is recorded as but this was to prove both his and the rated at 750hp each. Six were positioned 11 August 1933, but this immediately revealed aircraft’s downfall. in the leading edge and one in a pusher instability and serious vibration caused by the This unlikely behemoth bore the name of coniguration at the rear. Twin booms made airframe resonating with the engine frequency. its Russian designer. Konstantin Kalinin was a up the aft-portion of the fuselage and were Tragically, on the seventh light the port tail former Red Army pilot who had established connected by a large horizontal plane boom fractured and the giant aircraft plunged a successful design bureau building airliners. mounted under and between two vertical to the ground, killing 15. By this time advances But he wanted more – and his K-7 creation was stabilizers. Completing the unconventional in technology had already made the aircraft certainly that. Because of its radical size and nature of the layout, the undercarriage was obsolete and the project was formally cancelled coniguration, Kalinin had trouble convincing ixed within large ‘pontoons’ slung beneath in 1935. Kalinin, the designer, was also to meet the infant Soviet regime to back the project, but the wings. The K-7 had a standard operating a premature demise when he was executed when he promised to conigure the irst one crew of 11 and the airliner version was slated under orders from Lenin.
Left: With a wingspan close to that of a B-52 and a much greater wing area, the K-7 was one of the biggest aircraft built before the jet age. In its proposed 120 passenger version, accommodation would have been arranged inside the 7ft 7in (2.3m) thick wings.
Below: The Kalinin K-7 was of unconventional design, with twin booms and large underwing pods housing ixed landing gear and machine gun turrets. 16 RECCE Blohm & Voss BV 141
he human eye is accustomed to aircraft with optimal visual characteristics. impressed that he put in an order for 500 to symmetry, so when a machine like Blohm & Voss chief designer Dr Richard Vogt be used in the tactical reconnaissance role. Tthe BV 141 comes along, it assaults decided that the best way to provide ‘optimal However, by the time a batch of 12 BV 141Bs our senses. However, in a triumph of visual characteristics’ was to house the three- had been completed with the more powerful aerodynamics over aesthetics, this lop-sided man crew in an independent plexiglass BMW 801 engines, the RLM had decided that machine actually lew rather well. gondola, clear from the conines of the fuselage the ‘recce’ future lay with the more conventional Clearly messrs Blohm & Voss had never and engine. The aerodynamics of the wing were Focke-Wulf Fw 189. Of the 20 BV 141s that heard of the maxim that ‘if it looks right, designed to counter the resulting imbalance, as had already lown, some were delivered to it’ll ly right’, either that or they decided to was the tailplane. Another beneit was that the Aufklarungsschule I at Grossenhain, Saxony launt it in the most extreme way possible. torque of the single-engine was cancelled out for evaluation, and this was the closest that But surprisingly, the design of the BV 141 by the asymmetric design. It might have been a the world’s most asymmetric aircraft ever was not completely without merit, and some radical solution, but it worked. got to seeing service. Had the fates treated it would argue that the logic of it makes perfect Three prototypes and an evaluation batch diferently, Allied ighter pilots could well have sense. In 1937, the German Air Ministry – the of ive BV 141As were produced. Ernst Udet, encountered the BV 141 on a regular basis, at Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) – issued a then in charge of the Air Ministry’s aircraft which point its greatest form of self-defence speciication for a single-engine reconnaissance development, lew the aircraft and was so might have been the confusion it created! BLOHM & VOSS BV 141 17
Blohm & Voss BV 141
Type: Recce/light bomber Crew: 3 Wingspan: 57ft 3in (17.45m) Length: 45ft 9in (13.95m) Height: 11ft 10in (3.6m) Max T/O weight: 13,448lb (6,100kg) Powerplant: 1 x BMW 801A of 1,538hp Max Speed: 229mph (368km/h) Range: 1,181 miles (1,900km)
Right: No matter from which angle you view the BV 141, it still looks ‘wrong’. Nevertheless, it demonstrated a good performance and none other than Ernst Udet was a big proponent of the design.
Below: Had Allied pilots ever intercepted the BV 141, their combat reports would have made for interesting reading.
20 FIGHTER Messerschmitt Me 163
oday, history has familiarised us with the visual impact of the Messerschmitt TMe 163, but when the diminutive rocket ighter irst tore through Allied bomber formations during the latter stages of World War 2, it was simply terrifying. It was terrifying for its pilots too, though for another reason. For a weapon that could have been summoned by the gods of war, the Messerschmitt Me 163 actually owed its origins to the peaceful world of gliding. It was from this background that designer Dr Alexander Lippisch drew his inspiration when asked to produce an aircraft that would serve as a testbed for a new type of rocket engine, the Walter R I-203 with a rating of 400kg thrust. What emerged was an innocuous-looking somewhat stubby tailless swept-wing aircraft. However, when its rocket engine was ignited, fast-lying ighter. While the American ‘heavies’ it was transformed into a ire-spitting beast. were far from fast, combined with the speed The rocket engine worked on the principle of the Me 163 in its attacking dive the pilots of a steam generator into which the two had to get the target in the crosshairs at a diferent fuel types T-Stof (mainly concentrated closing velocity of some 800mph (1,300km/h). hydrogen peroxide), and Z-Stof (based on a The window of opportunity in which to press solution of calcium permanganate in water), home an attack with any chance of success were sprayed using compressed air. This in was just three seconds. After having broken turn drove a turbine, which powered a pump from combat, the pilot of the Komet now faced to deliver T-Stof to the combustion chamber. Above: The fuselage of the diminutive Me163 the challenging task of returning back to terra It proved a highly volatile and unpredictable was constructed of light alloy, with the surface irma. The undercarriage of the Me 163 was a of the aircraft covered by numerous detachable concoction. The aircraft was lown in summer panels in order to provide access to the various hangover from its sailplane origins, and was 1940 and after completing a successful internal subsystems. The largest single internal poorly suited to a rocket-propelled ighter. After test campaign an order was placed for six item was the tank for the T-Stof rocket fuel, take-of the pilot jettisoned the wheeled dolly, prototypes, designated as Me 163As. Following which had a capacity of 1,040 litres. The tank which meant that landing had to be achieved further testing, a signiicant redesign was was located in the space between the cockpit and using a sprung skid. For a successful recovery, the powerplant. Additional T-Stof reserves were carried out and six pre-production prototypes the Komet had to be dead into wind. If not, carried in a series of smaller tanks, which were were ordered for the Me 163B production found either side of the cockpit. Meanwhile, the the aircraft would slew violently, and the pilot ighter, to be followed by the irst batch of 70 C-Stof reserve was located in a pair of 173-litre ran the risk of overturning, since the rudder series-built aircraft of the same variant. Among tanks between the wing spars as well as in two provided no control at slow speeds. the modiications was a revised wing, designed 73-litre tanks in the leading edges of the wing. In the event, the Me 163 accounted for just a to combat the threat of an uncontrolled spin. handful of the daylight raiders, while sustaining The deinitive rocket motor was the II-211, It was the summer of 1944 before the Me 163 heavy attrition among its own ranks. Ultimately, which now used C-Stof in place of the previous was inally thrown into the cauldron of war. the two operational squadrons of Me 163s Z-Stof. That the new fuel was no less hazardous I./Jagdgeschwader 400 was created in May claimed just nine bomber kills, while 14 of their than its predecessor was made clear when 1944, and began to receive aircraft from late own number fell to enemy ighters and bombers. two engines exploded during testing. Dubbed July. On the 28th of that month the Komet However, these combat losses represented a Komet (comet), the irst of the pre-production saw action for the irst time, in the irst-ever relatively moderate toll of just 5 per cent, and Me 163Bs was lown in summer 1942 and by operational use of a rocket-powered manned a staggering 80 per cent of attrition was as a early 1943 light testing had progressed to ighter. On that occasion ive Me 163s were result of take-of or landing accidents, often in a stage whereby a test squadron could be launched against a formation of B-17s. It association with the unstable rocket fuels. established within the Luftwafe. The unit was was an inauspicious debut. The Komet pilots While its ensuing combat record was less based at Peenemünde, the home of German very quickly became aware of the inherent than stellar, the little Me 163 was nonetheless a rocket developments. diiculties in engaging the enemy in such a milestone in aviation history. MESSERSCHMITT Me 163 21
Messerschmitt Me 163B-1a
Type: Rocket ghter Crew: 1 Wingspan: 30 ft 6in (9.32m) Length: 19ft 2in (5.84m) Height: 9.09ft (2.77m) Max T/O weight: 9,061lb (4,110kg) Powerplant: 1 x Walter HWK 509A-2 Max Speed: 596mph (960km/h) Armament: 2 x MK 108 cannon
Left: Rudolf Opitz being assisted into his Komet at Bad Zwischhenahm. His one-piece ying suit and overboots were made from a special acid resistant material which was supposed to protect the occupant from the corrosive T-Sto , in the far from likely event of a bad landing - assuming his aircraft did not explode. Although a relatively tight t for a well-proportioned pilot, the cockpit was nevertheless reasonably comfortable. The canopy itself was a less-than-robust Plexiglas moulding and was attached using a hinge on the starboard side. Although he was not provided with an ejection seat, the pilot was a orded some protection in combat by front and back armour.
Below: This Messerschmitt Me163B was brought to the UK after the war and given the number VF241 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, England, May 1945 and put on public display.
24 EXPERIMENTAL Vought V-173
ot surprisingly, this oddity was dubbed the ‘Flying Pancake’. But don’t Nlet that fool you. This odd machine ew rather well and had it not been for the advent of the jet engine, could well have been developed into a successful ghter. No one could ever accuse Charles H. Zimmerman of being an orthodox aerodynamicist. In the 1940s, when the US Navy was looking for a ghter that could be deployed from ships to counter Japanese kamikaze and submarine attacks, he proposed a strange, at, round vehicle that was immediately nicknamed the ‘Flying Pancake’. Zimmerman reasoned that the drag, which is created by disturbed air ow near the tip of conventional wings, would be minimised by placing the propeller at the wing tip. By maintaining a uniform ow over the entire span, he felt that it could take o and land at exceptionally low speeds and still have good high-speed performance. His ideas evolved into the Vought V-173, a proof-of-concept vehicle that had a circular wing of some 23ft in diameter. A huge three- bladed prop was mounted at the tip of each airfoil, blanketing the entire aircraft in their
Above: Flight testing of the ‘Flying Pancake’ went on through 1942 and 1943 with 190 ights, resulting Vought V-173 in a number of UFO sightings from surprised Connecticut locals.
Type: Experimental Below: The original prototype, designated the V-173, was built of wood and Crew: 1 canvas and featured a conventional, fully symmetrical aerofoil section. Wingspan: 23ft 4in (7.1m) Length: 26ft 8in (8.128m) Height: 14ft 9in (4.51m) Max T/O weight: 2,258lb (1,024kg) Powerplant: 2 x Continental A-80 of 80hp each Max Speed: 138mph (222km/h) VOUGHT V-173 25
Left: The irst light of the V-173 was on 23 November 1942 with Vought chief test pilot Boone Guyton at the controls. be handled efectively. One of the beneits of Zimmerman’s design was that the entire aircraft generated lift, so it was able to achieve a zero-roll take-of with a 25kt headwind. Consequently, it survived several forced landings, including a nose-over, with no serious damage to the aircraft or injury to the pilot. The US Navy saw enough promise that it ordered two XF5U-1s, enlarged all-metal versions with 1,350hp Pratt & Whitney R-2000 radial engines and retractable landing gear. Power from the engines was transmitted to the two four-bladed props through heavy slipstreams. The propellers were so large that 80hp Continental A-80 air-cooled engines, the transmission gearboxes and some intricate the aircraft rested at a 22-degree-upward angle, V-173 irst lew on 23 November 1942. cross-shafting. The irst of the XF5U-1s had forcing the pilot to look through the windows The Pancake made more than 190 lights begun taxi tests when the US Navy cancelled at his feet when taking of or landing. The wing/ as part of a US Navy test programme and the programme in 1947. Essentially, the Pancake fuselage had a complex empennage, consisting accumulated 131 hours of light time (with was killed by the arrival of the jet engine. The of two normal-looking horizontal stabilizers and Charles Lindbergh taking it for at least one V-173 was placed in storage in Norfolk, Virginia, elevators, two rudders, and two large elevators light). Inevitably it demonstrated unusual light and the US Navy ordered the surviving XF5U-1s on the midpoint of the fuselage. Driven by two characteristics and control responses, but could destroyed sometime after January 1949.
Flying Flapjack A developed version of the original V-173 prototype, the XF5U-1 was a larger aircraft. Of all-metal construction, it was almost ive times heavier, with two 1,600hp Pratt & Whitney R-2000 radial engines. The coniguration was designed to create a low aspect ratio aircraft with low take-of and landing speeds ,but high top speed. Sadly the XF5U-1 did not take to the air before the programme was cancelled. 26 EXPERIMENTAL FIGHTER CURTISS-WRIGHT ASCENDER 27 Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender
anard-equipped, swept-wing and accepted, low-risk, aircraft design practices and rear-engined. Today this might be embrace radical new technology. It sponsored Cthe coniguration of choice for a jet three unorthodox ighter aircraft designs by ighter, but in the 1940s it was unheard Vultee (a twin-boom pusher called the XP-54), of. But that did not stop the engineers Northrop (a bobbed-tail lying wing called the from Curtiss-Wright producing the XP-55 XP-56 Black Bullet) and Curtiss-Wright (XP-55 Ascender, a futuristic-looking aircraft that Ascender). With shackles released, the Curtiss- sadly did not live up to the hype. Wright designers let their imaginations run riot With the prospect of the US being drawn into and conigured a short wing, or canard, near World War 2 becoming ever more likely, in 1941 the nose, added two vertical tails to the swept the US Army Air Corps sought to ‘jump-start’ wings and mounted an engine in the tail with ighter designers and spur them to depart from pusher propeller. Initially all three designs were to be powered Left: A rare colour image of the irst XP-55 during by a unique liquid-cooled Pratt & Whitney an early test light. On 15 November 1943, test 28-cylinder ‘H’ engine. However, development pilot Harvey Gray was carrying out high level problems arose and the engine fell short of stall tests, when the aircraft suddenly entered projected power ratings, forcing the US Army an inverted spin from which he was unable to recover. He exited the aircraft safely before it Air Corps to turn to less powerful but more crashed. A special feature of the XP-55 was a conventional powerplants. Exhaustive wind- propeller jettison lever located inside the cockpit tunnel tests on the unorthodox Curtiss-Wright to prevent the pilot from hitting the propeller design produced disappointing results, but during bailout. this did not prevent a contract being issued Below: The XP-55’s canard foreplanes were for three prototypes equipped with the new unconventional for the time. Note the four 0.50in Allison V-1710 engine under the designation (12.7mm) machine guns in the nose. XP-55 Ascender.
CURTISS-WRIGHT ASCENDER 29
The aircraft made its rst test ight on 15 November 1943. Harvey Gray was testing 19 July 1943 from the Army’s Scott Field near the aircraft’s stall performance at altitude when Curtiss-Wright the Curtiss-Wright plant in St Louis, Missouri, in the XP-55 suddenly ipped over on its back and XP-55 Ascender the hands of company test pilot J. Harvey Gray. fell in an uncontrolled, inverted descent. The Initial testing revealed that the take-o run was aircraft fell out of control for 16,000ft (4,900m) Type: Experimental ghter excessively long. To solve this problem, the before Gray was able to parachute to safety. The Crew: 1 nose elevator size was increased and the aileron aircraft was destroyed. Wingspan: 40ft 7in (12.37m) up trim was interconnected with the aps so Ascender number 2 ew for the rst time Length: 29ft 7in (9.02m) that it operated when the aps were lowered. on 9 January 1944, with major restrictions on Height: 10ft 0in (3.05m) The test schedule progressed satisfactorily until in- ight manoeuvring. The third prototype Max T/O weight: 7,930lb (3,597kg) ew late in April. After much testing, it looked Powerplant: 1 x Allison V-1710-95 of 1,275hp Left: The second XP-55, 42-78847, displaying as though Curtiss engineers had cured the the type’s unusual con guration. Because of its deadly stall situation that doomed the rst Max Speed: 390mph (628km/h) pusher design, it was sarcastically referred to as XP-55. Curtiss retro tted the stall xes into Armament: 4 x 0.50in (12.7mm) the ‘Ass-ender’. machine guns in nose prototype number 2 and resumed testing Below: The third prototype XP-55 (s/n 42-78847). in September 1944. The US Army Air Forces This aircraft was lost on 27 May 1945 during an (USAAF) carried out some armament testing during an air show. Ultimately, the Ascender’s airshow at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. After a with Ascender number 3 but the end was performance and handling were too poor for an low pass in formation with a P-38 Lightning and near for the whole project. Pilots feared the e ective combat ghter. Fast-forward to today, a P-51 Mustang on each wing, its pilot, William C. Ascender’s vicious stall characteristics, and it and the Curtiss-Wright engineers have the right Glasgow, attempted a slow roll, but lost altitude and crashed, sending aming debris into vehicles was slow compared to most ghters already to feel vindicated in their unorthodox design on a highway near the air eld. The crash killed in production. The programme ended after con guration. Many would argue that, as such, Glasgow and four civilians on the ground. the third prototype crashed at Wright Field it really was an aircraft ahead of its time. 30 EXPERIMENTAL Miles M.39B Libellula
lthough designed as a test-bed for a future bomber, the Miles AM.39B Libellula shared many of its innovative traits with the Curtiss Ascender ighter. So much so, that one wonders if one inspired the other. Sadly, it also befell the same fate. With resources at a premium during World War 2, British aircraft designers could ill aford the luxury of ‘of the wall’ experimentation. The Miles M.39 Libellula was an exception. Rather ambitiously named after a genus of dragonly (presumably because of the tandem wing arrangement), the Miles M.39B was a development of the equally unusual M.35 and was born from Air Ministry speciication B.11/41 for a high-speed, high- altitude bomber. Miles submitted its M.39, a revolutionary design to be powered by three Above: The little Miles M.39B was certainly in 1944. By this time, the sole M.39B had been Power Jets W.2/500 turbojets, and to feature a unorthodox. It was only ever designed to prove passed to the Royal Aircraft Establishment the concept, but Miles never got the opportunity crew of three in a pressurised cabin. It was to be at Farnborough for further evaluation. It was to build the jet-powered ‘real thing’. equipped with a bomb bay amidships and with damaged and repaired after two accidents. The two 20mm cannon in the roots of the forward on the rear wing and the front wing had an Air Ministry eventually cancelled the full-sized wings. To prove the concept, Miles designed auxiliary aerofoil/lap/elevator device, which bomber’s project and one of the strangest- and built the M.39B, a 5/8th scale version could vary the wing area without changing lift looking aircraft to ever take to the skies was powered by a pair of de Havilland Gipsy Major coeicient. The unusual aircraft irst took to the unceremoniously scrapped. piston engines. The rear wing was higher than air on 22 July 1943 and handled well, showing Below: The one-of Miles M.39B was scrapped the forward one to avoid downwash and give no undesirable characteristics. following the cancellation of the programme, ground clearance for the propellers. The M.39 Testing continued while Miles worked on meaning that all we are left with today to prove it design had inboard laps and outboard ailerons an improved M.39 design that was submitted existed are a few grainy phototgraphs. NORTHROP XP-56 BLACK BULLET 31
Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet
tubby, menacing and tailless. The simultaneously). Northrop used elevons on the Above: Jack Northrop’s Black Bullet was an XP-56 Black Bullet was well-named. inboard wing sections. The design team made attempt to radically improve combat aircraft The unconventional airframe layout the fuselage ‘pod’ the minimum size necessary performance by using an unconventional, near S all-wing, airframe design. Although it ultimately with a truncated fuselage and almost no to carry two 20mm cannon and four 0.50in failed, the XP-56 was built using a new material, empennage pointed the way to Northrop’s machine guns in the nose, a pilot behind the magnesium, and a new construction process, future, but it was too ambitious for its time. armament, a powerful Pratt & Whitney engine, Heliarc welding. The origins of the Black Bullet can be traced and two three-blade contra-rotating propellers. back to 17 July 1939, when the US government At the rear of the fuselage, a large ventral in were revealed. Further modiications delayed released $6 million as a monetary incentive protruded prominently into the air stream to testing until 8 October when the left main tyre to ive companies to develop new single-seat increase directional stability. Another unique failed during a high-speed taxi test. The pilot ighter aircraft with designs that departed from aspect of the XP-56 was the exotic metal used survived the ensuing crash, but the aircraft the conventional. For Jack Northrop, a man to build the ighter, lightweight magnesium. did not. Further light tests were halted until who had long been fascinated by the lying To join the metal, Northrop-patented the the second prototype (42-38353) took to the wing concept, this was manna from heaven. Heliarc welding system. Northrop originally air on 23 March 1944. This was equipped with He was well along with a proof-of-concept planned to use a new engine to complement a larger dorsal in to control yaw problems, aircraft called the Northrop N-1M and he the Black Bullet’s other exotic features. Pratt but it was quickly obvious that major stability immediately seized on the federal money as the & Whitney was developing a liquid-cooled, and control problems still plagued the aircraft. opportunity to design and build a lying wing 24-cylinder ‘H’ engine, but this was cancelled Testing also revealed a maximum speed well ighter. The wing of the resulting XP-56 was and a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 air-cooled radial below predictions and in August 1944 the very similar to that used on the N-1M. Patented was substituted instead. The engine switch and second XP-56 was grounded after just 10 lights. split-surface drag rudders were located in other problems delayed delivery of the irst The anticipated performance of jet-propelled the drooped outer wing panels and provided prototype, USAAF serial number 41-786, until aircraft then on the drawing board permanently yaw control when opened (the horizontally March 1943. The experimental ighter did not ended the programme. But Northrop was not split halves opened upward and downward ly until 6 September when control problems yet inished with his lying wing designs… 32 EXPERIMENTAL BOMBER Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster
ontra-rotating pusher propellers were inest hour. Developed as a private venture for and fuselage clean and free of drag-inducing all the rage in the 1940s, but they did a high-speed long-range bomber, there is no protrusions. Air intakes were in the wing Cnot look good on all aircraft. A case in questioning the innovative nature of the design, leading edge. The pilot and co-pilot sat under point was the Douglas Mixmaster, an aircraft which embedded its pair of Allison V-1710- twin bubble canopies, and the bombardier that unwittingly lived up to its odd name. 125 V-12 engines within the fuselage behind sat in the extreme front behind a plexiglass Douglas aircraft designers have been the crew’s cabin. They drove a pair of contra- nose. Defensive armament consisted of two responsible for some of the most iconic aircraft rotating propellers mounted at the cruciform 0.50in (12.7mm) machine guns each side in the in the world, but the XB-42 was not their tail in a pusher coniguration, leaving the wing trailing edge, which retracted into the wing DOUGLAS XB-42 MIXMASTER 33
Above: The irst prototype became the XB-42A yaw. The unusual twin bubble canopies also once itted with underwing Westinghouse caused problems of communication between 19XB-2A turbojets. the pilots, so a single canopy was incorporated Left: Perhaps the most striking feature of the on the second prototype. XB-42 was its cruciform tail featuring a ventral The cessation of World War 2 immediately put in/rudder unit to prevent the coaxial propellers the project on hold, but that did not stop the from striking the ground. However, careful second prototype XB-42, 43-50225, from setting handling during taxiing, take-of, and landing a new transcontinental speed record when it was required because of the extremely limited was lown from Long Beach California to Bolling ground clearance. AFB in Washington, covering the 2,300 miles in when not in use. These guns were aimed by the 5hrs 17 min. Sadly this triumph was short-lived co-pilot through a sighting station at the rear when the aircraft crashed following engine of his cockpit. Two more guns were itted to failure during a routine light, though thankfully ire directly forward. The design was proposed all its crew managed to bail out successfully. to the USAAF in May 1943 as a cheaper The remaining prototype, 43-50224, was alternative to the B-29 Superfortress and the itted with uprated engines and underwing service was interested enough to contract for Westinghouse 19XB-2A axial-low turbojets, two prototypes. When the XB-42 was unveiled making it the XB-42A. In this coniguration, in 1944, it is fair to say that its unconventional it irst lew at Muroc (now Edwards AFB) on appearance was not overly pleasing on the 27 May 1947 and achieved 488mph (785km/h) eye. But, more importantly, when it irst took to during testing. After 22 lights, the lower the air on 6 May at Palm Springs, California, its vertical stabilizer and rudder were damaged performance matched expectations, though it in a hard landing in 1947. The XB-42A was did experience some instability and excessive repaired but never lew again. 34 EXPERIMENTAL BOMBER
Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster
Type: Experimental bomber Crew: 3 Wingspan: 70ft 6in (21.49m) Length: 53ft 8in (16.36m) Height: 18ft 10in (5.74m) Max T/O weight: 35,702lb (16,194kg) Powerplant: 2 x Allison V-1710-125 of 1,325hp each Max Speed: 410mph (660km/h) Armament: Guns: 6 x 0.50in (12.7mm) machine guns Bombs: 8,000lb (3,600kg) in internal bay
Above: The XB-42 always looked an ‘awkward’ aircraft, seemingly combining disparate features into a single airframe. Nevertheless it was a fast beast and could well have entered production had the jet engine not come along.
Right: The unusual con guration of the XB-42 attracted attention wherever it appeared. This view shows well the insect-like double canopies of the original design.
Far right: A low fast pass at Muroc AFB by the XB-42A during testing. Fitted with the underwing turbojets, this aircraft achieved a speed of 488mph (784km/h). DOUGLAS XB-42 MIXMASTER 35 36 EXPERIMENTAL JET BOMBER Junkers Ju 287
hile some aircraft might look as if they had been built from Junkers Ju 287V1 components scavenged from other W Type: Experimental aircraft, the bizarre Junkers Ju 287 actually jet bomber was – except for its wings, which were most Crew: 2 de nitely of Junkers invention… Wingspan: 66ft 0in (20.11m) During World War 2, it had become apparent Length: 60ft 0in (18.3m) that aircraft with straight wings had a built-in Height: 15ft 5in (4.7m) speed limit imposed by air compression at the Max T/O weight: 44,092lb (20,000kg) leading edge. It was known that a swept back Powerplant: 4 x Junkers Jumo 004B-1 wing would reduce compressibility, but Junkers turbojets of 1,984lb each engineer Dr Hans Wocke went one step further. Max Speed: 347mph (558km/h) He believed that a swept-forward wing would have even more advantages and that it would Right: A rare shot of the rst Ju 287 in ight. increase stability in ight, especially at low The un nished second and third prototypes, speeds. He also maintained that the central part which would have far more accurately re ected of the wings would stall rst, so the controls the design of the eventual production bomber, on the outer part of the wings would remain were captured by the Soviet Union in the closing stages of World War 2. e ective for longer. As a side bene t the design would also give more room for an internal main wheels from a Ju 352 transport and even bomb bay. a nose wheel from an American B-24 Liberator. Consequently, Junkers was given a contract The revolutionary wings would be the only in March 1944 to produce a prototype of a major new component. Two Jumo 004 engines new high-speed multi-engined jet bomber were hung in nacelles under the wings, while that could avoid interception by outrunning two more were mounted rather clumsily to the enemy ghters. The rst aircraft, Ju 287 V1, sides of the forward fuselage. The jets provided was to be a ying test bed produced from as 1,984lb of thrust each providing the aircraft many existing components as possible. The with a maximum speed of 347mph (558km/h). resulting hybrid aircraft used the fuselage from It was manned by a crew of two. an He 177A, the tail from a Junkers Ju 388, the This remarkable aircraft made its maiden ight from Brandis air eld on 16 August 1944 in the Below: German aircraft engineer Dr Hans Wocke was responsible for the proof of concept Junkers hands of Siegfried Holzbaur. Initial ight tests Ju 287 swept-forward wing fast jet bomber, were generally successful, although the forward- which was designed to be capable of outrunning swept wing caused problems under some any known enemy air defences. ight conditions. The most notable of these second and third prototypes, V2 and V3, were to was ‘wing warping’ of the main spar and wing have employed six of these engines, in a triple Below right: Designed to prove the concept of a swept-forward wing, Junkers did not pay too assembly. Tests suggested that the warping cluster under each wing. Both were to feature much attention to aesthetics, lending even more problem could be eliminated by concentrating an all-new fuselage and tail design intended for to the bizarre appearance of the machine. greater engine mass under the wings. The the production bomber, the Ju 287A-1. V3 was to have served as the pre-production template, carrying defensive armament, a pressurised cockpit and full operational equipment. Work on the Ju 287 programme, along with all other pending German bomber projects, came to a halt in July 1944, but Junkers was allowed to go forward with the ight testing regime on the V1 prototype. The wing section for the V2 had been completed by that time. Seventeen test ights were undertaken in total, which passed without notable incident. In March 1945, as the Allies closed in on Germany, the Ju 287 was belatedly ordered into production. However, within a month the JUNKERS Ju 287 37
Junkers factory building the V2 and V3 was overrun by the Red Army. Wocke and his staf, along with the two incomplete prototypes, were taken to the Soviet Union. There, the third prototype (returned to its original Junkers in-house designation, EF 131) was eventually inished and lown on 23 May 1947, but by that time jet development had already overtaken the Ju 287. A inal much-enlarged derivative, the EF 140, was tested in prototype form in 1949 but soon abandoned. Above right: In addition to providing speed, the wing was also designed to provide extra lift at low airspeeds, then necessary because of the poor responsiveness of early turbojets at the vulnerable times of take-of and landing.
Right: The Ju 287 was both innovative and derivative, combining new technology with parts scrounged from other aircraft.
40 FIGHTER North American P-82 Twin Mustang
North American F-82G Twin Mustang
Type: Long-range ghter Crew: 2 Wingspan: 51ft 3in (15.62m) Length: 42ft 5in (12.93m) Height: 13ft 10in (4.22m) Max T/O weight: 25,591lb (11,608kg) Powerplant: 2 x Allison V-1710 V12s of 1,600lb each Max Speed: 461mph (742km/h)
Left: Mustang take two. The second XP-82 prototype, 44-83887, being ight-tested from Muroc Army Air eld (now Edwards AFB). The rst XP-82 prototype (44-83886) was completed on 25 May 1945 and made the type’s rst successful ight on 26 June 1945.
versions, the P-82E, P-82F and P-82G. The P-82F and G models carried a radar operator in the right cockpit instead of a co-pilot. On 11 June 1948, the newly formed US Air Force eliminated the P-for-pursuit category and replaced it with F-for- ghter. Subsequently, all P-82s were re- designated F-82. Radar-equipped F-82s were used extensively by the Air Defense Command he legendary P-51 Mustang was instruments for relief and emergency operation. as replacements for the Northrop P-61 Black undisputedly the best piston-engined A simpli ed cockpit arrangement improved Widow as all-weather day/night interceptors. T ghter of its time. So, when North pilot comfort, including a tilting, adjustable During the Korean War, Japanese-based F-82s American came to design a successor, they seat to reduce fatigue during long ights. With were among the rst US Air Force aircraft to decided that the only thing better than one a speed of more than 475mph (764km/h), the operate over Korea. The initial three North Mustang, was two! Twin Mustang had a combat range of more Korean aircraft destroyed by US forces were in Designed in 1943, the North American than 1,600 miles (2,574km) with full armament. fact shot down by F-82s, the rst being a North- Aviation P-82 Twin Mustang was the pinnacle Range could be extended by use of external Korean Yak-11 downed over Gimpo Air eld by of a long production series of the famous drop tanks on the wings. Its remarkable the the 68th Fighter Squadron. World War 2 ghter. A radical departure from 40,000ft service ceiling, was designed to protect Owing to the dawn of the jet age, the Twin the conventional single-fuselage version, the B-29 Superfortresses on deep strike missions Mustang had a very short operational life. About Twin Mustang was formed by two slightly over Japan. In the event, it was ordered too late two years after its introduction to Strategic Air elongated fuselages joined by the wing and to see service during World War 2, but post-war Command, the F-82E was phased out of service the horizontal stabilizer. With a pilot in each its impressive capability made it the standard in favour of the jet-powered Republic F-84E fuselage, it reduced the problem of pilot fatigue long-range, high-altitude escort ghter for the Thunderjet. Some were modi ed into F-82Gs on ultra-long-range missions, for which the US Air Force. Its versatility also made the P-82 and sent to Korea for combat as replacement aircraft was intended. Both engine throttles and adaptable to a wide variety of roles, including aircraft, others were converted to F-82Hs and both propellers were controllable from either long-range reconnaissance, night ghter, attack sent to Alaska, but most were sent to storage. cockpit. The pilot’s cockpit on the left contained bomber, rocket ghter and interceptor. North The last Twin Mustang in the operational the normal ight and engine instruments, American produced 250 of the double-fuselage inventory (F-82H, 46–377) was o cially retired while the co-pilot on the right had su cient machines for the US Air Force, embracing three on 12 November 1953. DORNIER Do 335 41 Dornier Do 335
he powerful Dornier Do 335 was run; a wing leading edge de-icing system; Above: What made the Dornier Do 335 ghter unlike anything Allied pilots had hydraulically operated aps; and a tunnel unique amongst its twin-engined peers in ever encountered before. Technically radiator for the rear engine. The presence of World War 2, was its low-drag push-pull engine T con guration. Powered by pair of liquid-cooled innovative, heavily armed and possessing the rear pusher propeller also dictated the engines of 1,750hp, one in the nose and the other unrivalled performance, it was fortunate provision for an ejection seat, one of the rst of in the tail, Germany claimed that a pilot ew a that this Luftwa e ghter never really got its kind. For a ghter, the Do 335 was big and Do 335 at a speed of 474mph (846km/h) in level the chance to prove itself in combat. Delayed very heavy being powered by two Daimler-Benz ight at a time when the o cial world speed by high-ranking indecision and Allied DB-603 V-12 cylinder engines. It was armed record was 469mph (755km/h). bombing raids, it simply ran out of time. with one 30mm MK103 cannon (70 rounds were The challenge for any aircraft designer is carried) ring through the propeller hub and with EK335. Some were also used by III/KG2 in to maximise engine power and minimise two 15mm MG151/15 cannon (200 rounds per the spring of 1945. French ghter ace Pierre drag. This was especially crucial during World gun) ring from the top cowling of the forward Clostermann related an encounter with a War 2 when aircraft performance meant the engine. The aircraft was also equipped to carry Do 335 in April 1945, during which the German di erence between life and death. Therefore, an internal bomb load of 1,100lb (500kg). aircraft easily outpaced the pursuing Hawker when Prof Claude Dornier was tasked with The Do 335 V1 rst prototype, CP+UA, ew Tempests and escaped. developing a Schnellbomber (fast bomber), on 26 October 1943 in the hands of Hans it was of little surprise that he should turn Dieterle. He was enthusiastic and commented Dornier Do 335A-1 to his preferred con guration of a push-pull favourably on its general handling behaviour, arrangement with two engines mounted manoeuvrability and in particular on its Type: Twin-engined, fore-and-aft in tandem. The obvious bene ts acceleration and turning circle. However, heavy ghter of this layout include reduced frontal area (ie further testing revealed some instability at Crew: 1 less drag), an aerodynamically clean wing and high speeds and other serious aws. The rear Wingspan: 45ft (13.8m) the elimination of the asymmetric problems engine often overheated, and the landing Length: 45ft 5in (13.85m) associated with engine failure. Development of gear was very weak and prone to failure. Height: 15ft (4.55m) his radical Do 335 bomber was well advanced Following initial testing, the RLM ordered 14 Max T/O weight: 21,164lb (9,600kg) when in the Autumn of 1942 he was informed prototypes, ten preproduction aircraft with Powerplant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB that the bomber was no longer required, the su x designation A-0, eleven production 603A 12-cylinder inverted engines but that the aircraft was to be redesigned A-1 single-seat aircraft, and three A-10 and Max Speed: 474mph (765km/h) as a multi-role aircraft capable of duties as A-12 two-seat trainers. On 23 May 1944, Armament: Guns: 1 × 30mm a single-seat ghter bomber, high speed Hitler ordered maximum priority to be given (1.18in) MK103 reconnaissance, heavy ghter, and two seat to Do 335 production. By the time the war cannon (as forward night and all-weather interceptor. Dornier set ended, Dornier had nished building as many engine-mounted to work and the prototype Do 335 V-1 (‘V’ for as 48 Do 335s and another nine or so were Motorkanone), Versuchs or experimental) was completed under construction. Plagued by mechanical 2 × 20mm MG151/20 by September 1943. Aside from its unusual unreliability and lack of aviation fuel, the cowl-mount, synchronised cannons. engine layout, the design incorporated several operational career of the Do 335 is rather Bombs: Up to 2,200lb other unusual features, including: a reversible- obscure. Do 335A-0 and A-1 aircraft are thought (1,000kg) capacity pitch tractor airscrew, to shorten the landing to have own a number of operational missions
44 FIGHTER
Left: The choice of a full ‘four-surface’ set of cruciform tail surfaces in the Do 335’s rear fuselage design, included a ventral vertical in– rudder assembly to project downwards from the extreme rear of the fuselage, in order to protect the rear propeller from an accidental ground strike on take of.
Right: Pilots reported exceptional light performance in acceleration and turning radius, and docile handling with no dangerous spin characteristics. However, they criticised its lack of rearward vision.
Below left: The cockpit of Do 335A-0 VG+PH was streamlined and compact keeping the aircraft’s drag to the minimum. Because of the obvious dangers of bailing out of the Dornier Do 335, the aircraft was one of the irst to be equipped with an ejection seat to propel the pilot away from the rear propeller.
Below: Although given the nickname ‘Pfeil’ (arrow) by Dornier test pilots, on account of its speed, service pilots quickly dubbed it ‘Ameisenbär’ (ant-eater) because of its long nose.
Below right: After the war, an airworthy A-12 two-seater was lown to Britain and light tested at RAE Farnborough. This aircraft was one of two Dornier Do 335s (the other crashed in France during transit) obtained from the USAAF in exchange for ten FW-190s. On 18 January 1946 it was being lown on a test light when it was seen approaching Farnborough with smoke coming from the underside of the fuselage ahead of the rear engine. The aircraft turned and then descended in a shallow dive, crashing on the village school at Cove. Six people on the ground were injured and its pilot, Grp Cpt Alan Frederick Hards, was killed. DORNIER Do 335 45 46 BOMBER Northrop Flying Wings
here are few sights in aviation more as the future. Therefore, when Northrop was When it did emerge, Northrop’s XB-35 was ‘weird and wonderful’ than a ying invited by the US Army Air Corps to submit a elegant and stunningly impressive. Its wing Twing. The concept has fascinated proposal for a bomber that could carry 10,000lb was a great graceful sweep of polished metal designers from the beginning, but it was Jack (4,500kg) of bombs to a round-trip mission of with all of the ight controls being mounted Northrop who took the idea further than 10,000 miles (16,000km), it was natural that he on the trailing edges. These comprised a set of anyone else. Thus it is appropriate that we would instruct his designers to work on a ying clamshell-like, double split aps, the so called focus our ‘ ying wing’ coverage on his ‘big’ wing, designated XB-35. The future looked aperons. When aileron control was input, they creations, the mighty and awe-inspiring XB-35 promising when in 1942 the USAAC cancelled were de ected up or down as a single unit, and its jet-powered variant, the YB-49. Without a contract for 402 Martin B-33 bombers and when rudder input was made, the two surfaces them, there would be no B-2 Spirit today. split the revised order evenly between the on one side opened, top and bottom, creating For many years, the ‘ ying wing’ was regarded XB-35 and Consolidated’s XB-36. Since Northrop drag, and yawing the aircraft. There were a few as the ‘holy grail’ of aviation design, a perfect had no space for an assembly line at its plant bumps and blisters on top of the wing, notably airfoil unhindered by the drag-inducing e ects in Hawthorne, CA, XB-35 production was the plexiglass bubble above the pilot’s position of control surfaces. Though recognised as planned to be handled by Martin. Northrop and a smaller one in the tail cone for the highly-e cient, taming the concept had proved forecast delivery of the rst XB-35 in November gunner. Production aircraft were planned to too challenging and it was not until the 1940s 1943, but the programme was hounded by have defensive armament of 20 0.5in (12.7mm) that advances in technology truly allowed production problems that caused serious delays. machine guns or 20mm cannon, carried in six the dream to become reality. Jack Northrop turrets, two along the aircraft’s centreline, four Below: Awe-inspiring from every angle. Northrop was a man on a mission. Having cut his teeth advocated a ‘ ying wing’ as a means of reducing above and below the outer wings, and four in working for Lockheed, he now ran his own parasitic drag and eliminating structural weight the ‘stinger’ tail cone. The aircraft’s bomb load aviation company and viewed the ying wing not directly responsible for producing lift. was to be carried in six bomb bays, three in each wing section, tted with roll-away doors. Power for the beast was supplied by four Pratt & Whitney R-4360 radial engines of 3,000hp each, driving eight contra-rotating propellers. By 1944, the XB-35 programme was seriously behind schedule and over budget, and with the end of piston-engined combat aircraft in sight, the production contract was cancelled, though testing of the two prototypes was approved. The XB-35 nally made its maiden ight in June 1946, a 45min trip from Hawthorne to Muroc Dry Lake. It looked stunning, but actual ight tests revealed several problems: the contra-rotating props caused constant heavy drive-shaft
Northrop YB-35
Type: Strategic bomber Crew: 9 Wingspan: 172ft (52.2m) Length: 53ft 1in (16.2m) Height: 20ft 3in (6.2m) Max T/O weight: 209,000lb (94,802kg) Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Max Speed: 393mph (632km/h) Armament: Guns: 20 × 0.5in (12.7mm) M3 Browning machine guns. Bombs: Up to 51,000lb (23,133kg) capacity NORTHROP FLYING WINGS 47
Above: One of the most charismatic sights in aviation. When the Northrop XB-35 irst took to the skies, the world had seen nothing like it. Note the turrets that would have housed defensive armament in production aircraft.
Right: The XB-35’s massive wing under construction, illustrating the thickness of the airfoil. The wing was deep enough at the root chord to provide cramped cockpit space for a standard crew of nine: pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, navigator, engineer, radio operator and three gunners. vibration and the government-supplied gearboxes had frequent malfunctions and reduced the efectiveness of propeller control. After only 19 lights, Northrop grounded the irst XB-35; the second aircraft was grounded after eight test lights. During this time, the contra-rotating propellers were removed and replaced with four-blade single-rotation propellers. Nevertheless, the lying wing design was still suiciently interesting to the USAAF and Northrop was ordered to convert 48 BOMBER
two YB-35 airframes into YB-49s, essentially tests, killing all ive of its crew. The irst was also substituting the four reciprocating engines for destroyed after its forward landing gear strut eight jet engines. The irst of these new YB-49 and wheel collapsed during a highly unusual jet-powered aircraft lew on 22 October 1947 taxi test procedure made with the engine’s fuel and immediately set an unoicial endurance tanks full, causing a ire that spread rapidly. The record of staying continually above 40,000ft inal blow came when the order for 30 YRB-49s (12,200m) for 6.5 hours, thus vindicating the was cancelled in January 1949, marking the end eiciency of the design. The prospects for the of the programme. lying wing were restructured in September But Jack Northrop was not to be denied his 1948 when Northrop received a contract for vison of an operational lying wing bomber. 30 reconnaissance YRB-49s, but even then its Before he died, he got to see his dream fulilled future was far from assured. The die was cast by the most-advanced bomber the world has when the second YB-49 crashed during stall ever seen, the Northrop B-2 Spirit.
Above: Strangely, the XB-35 was not as futuristic as it looked. The design had been drawn up in the early 1940s and it was caught at a transition point in aeronautics between the era of the propeller and the jet.
Left: Northrop attempted to update the XB-35 by re-engining it with Allison J35-A-15 turbojets in a variant designated as the YB-49. Four ixed vertical ins were mounted on the trailing edges for stability and four shallow ‘fences’ or air dams ran from front to back to help channel the airlow. Northrop disliked the intruding ins but they added, in their way, to the sleek appearance of the aircraft.
Right: The YB-49 was inspirational in light but could not fulil the promise given to it by jet propulsion. Its aerodynamic planform remained that of a solidly subsonic 350mph propeller- driven machine.
Below: Initially the XB-35 was driven by contra-rotating propellers (as illustrated), but after on-going issues, they were replaced by four- blade single rotation propellers. NORTHROP FLYING WINGS 49 50 FIGHTER
McDonnell XF-85 Goblin
eauty is in the eye of the beholder, retractable trapeze under the parent ship. For Above: As a production series B-36 was but even the most ardent supporter emergencies, the Goblin had a steel skid under unavailable, all XF-85 ight tests were carried of the diminutive XF-85 Goblin would the fuselage and small runners on its wingtips. out using a converted EB-29B Superfortress B named Monstro that had a modi ed ‘cutaway’ struggle to say anything positive about its The name suited it well, but that was more bomb bay complete with trapeze, front air ow looks. But it was not designed to be pretty, by coincidence than design. Company founder de ector and an array of camera equipment it was designed to be a parasite ghter that James McDonnell had previously decided and instrumentation. could protect its mothership from attack by to name the company’s jet ghters after enemy aircraft. supernatural creatures. The Goblin followed hit the trapeze with such force that the canopy The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, the smallest the Phantom and the Banshee. The diminutive was smashed and ripped free. Schoch’s helmet jet-propelled ghter ever built, was a ‘parasite’ aircraft measured just 14ft 10in (4.52m) long, and mask were torn o , but he managed to designed to be carried by a B-36 bomber. If with a wingspan of 21ft (6.4m). Only a limited make a belly landing using the Goblin’s skid at the host ship was attacked, the Goblin would fuel supply of fuel was deemed necessary for the dry lakebed at Muroc. be launched from the bomb bay to protect the speci ed 30min combat endurance. A Ultimately, only three of the seven ights of it. The Goblin was egg shaped and its wing – hook was installed along the aircraft’s centre the Goblin resulted in successful connections swept back 37 degrees – could fold upward of gravity; in ight it retracted to lie at in the with the arresting trapeze. The test programme for storage. It had no landing gear and was upper part of the nose. Despite the cramped was cancelled in 1949, and the Goblin never designed to be recovered using a hook and a quarters, a pilot was provided with a cordite ew from a B-36. But by that time, the Goblin ejection seat, bail-out oxygen bottle and high- was no longer needed. In 1949, the Boeing McDonnell XF-85 Goblin speed ribbon parachute. Four 0.5in (12.7mm) KB-29P, with its ying boom aerial refuelling machine guns in the nose made up the system, had solved the problem of long-range Type: Parasite ghter aircraft’s armament. ghter escort for bombers. Crew: 1 Somewhat surprisingly, the tiny ghter was Wingspan: 21ft 1in (6.4m) stable, easy to y and recovered well from Top right: There were plans to acquire 30 Length: 14ft 10in (4.5m) spins. However, hooking the Goblin in ight production P-85s, but the USAAF took the cautious approach – if test results from the two Height: 8ft 3in (2.5m) to its bomber’s trapeze was di cult. Its rst prototypes were positive, production orders for Max T/O weight: 5,600lb (2,500kg) fully released ight was on 23 August 1948 at more than 100 Goblins would be nalised later. Powerplant: 1 × Westinghouse Muroc (now Edwards AFB). Lowered by the In hindsight this was a wise decision. XJ34-WE-22 turbojet trapeze from the mother ship – a Boeing EB-29 Max Speed: 650mph (1,046km/h) – McDonnell test pilot Ed Schoch released the Right: Top view of the XF-85, with the hook estimated Goblin and made three unsuccessful attempts extended over the top of the canopy. It was planned that up to 10 per cent of the B-36s on Armament: 4 × 0.5in (12.7mm) to reconnect the X-85 to the trapeze. The small M3 Browning order would be converted to ghter carriers, with jet was bu eted wildly by the larger aircraft’s machine guns the ability to carry three or four F-85s instead of turbulence and on the last attempt, the Goblin a bomb load.
52 EXPERIMENTAL Douglas X-3 Stiletto
Douglas X-3 Stiletto
Type: Experimental Crew: 1 Wingspan: 22ft 8in (6.4m) Length: 66ft 9in (20.35m) Height: 12ft 6in (3.82m) Max T/O weight: 22,400lb (10,160kg) Powerplant: 2 × Westinghouse XJ34-WE-17 turbojets of 3,370lb each Max Speed: 706mph (1,136km/h) estimated
f ever there was a competition for the world’s pointiest aircraft, there would only Ibe one winner. The perfectly named X-3 Stiletto was so sharp that it was designed to slice through the air at Mach 2. Sadly, appearances can be deceptive and in real life it was not as fast as it looked. The Douglas X-3 Stiletto was the sleekest of the early experimental jets and, not surprisingly, was built to investigate the design of an aircraft suitable for sustained supersonic speeds at Mach 2 and above. The goal of the aircraft was ambitious – it was to take o from the ground under its own power, climb to high altitude, maintain a sustained cruise speed of Mach 2, then land under its own power. To achieve this, the X-3 had perhaps the most highly-re ned supersonic airframe of its day, as well as other important advances including the rst use of titanium in major airframe components. Its long fuselage gave the Stiletto a high- neness ratio and a low-aspect ratio (the ratio of the wing’s span to its chord; in other words, a long fuselage with short and stubby wings). Construction of a pair of X-3s was approved on 30 June 1949. During development, the X-3’s planned engines failed to meet the thrust, size and weight requirements, so lower-thrust Westinghouse J34 turbojets were substituted. The rst aircraft was completed and delivered to Edwards AFB, CA, on 11 September 1952. The rst X-3 ‘hop’ was made on 15 October 1952, by Douglas test pilot Bill Bridgeman. During a high-speed taxi test, Bridgeman lifted the X-3
Left: There is no doubt that the X-3 was one of the most striking aircraft ever built. The aim was to create the thinnest and most slender shape possible in order to achieve low drag at supersonic speeds. DOUGLAS X-3 STILETTO 53
Above: Only one Douglas X-3 ever took to the of the ground and lew it about a mile before tests. The mass of its engines, fuel and structure air, completing 51 lights before it was retired. settling back onto the lakebed. The ‘oicial’ irst was concentrated in its long, narrow fuselage, The partially completed second prototype was light was made by Bridgeman on 20 October. while its wings were short and stubby. As a dismantled when the programme began to encounter problems, and its components used By the end of the Douglas tests in December result, the X-3 was ‘loaded’ along its fuselage, for spare parts. 1953, it was shown that the X-3 was severely rather than its wings. This was typical of underpowered and diicult to control. Its take the ighter aircraft then in development or Below: When viewed from this angle, it is not of speed was an astonishing 260kts! More testing. These tests would lead to the X-3’s surprising to discover that Lockheed used data seriously, the X-3 did not approach its planned most signiicant light, and the near-loss of the from the X-3 tests when designing the similar performance. Its irst supersonic light required aircraft. On 27 October 1954, Walker made an trapezoidal wing of the F-104 Starighter. it to enter a dive to reach Mach 1.1. The X-3’s abrupt left roll at Mach 0.92 at an altitude of fastest light, made on 28 July 1953, reached 30,000ft. The X-3 rolled as expected, but also Mach 1.208 in a 30 degree dive. pitched up 20 degrees and yawed 16 degrees. With the completion of the contractor test The aircraft gyrated for ive seconds before programme, the X-3 was delivered to the US Air Walker was able to get it back under control. Force in December 1953. The poor performance Walker and the X-3 had experienced ‘roll of the X-3 meant only an abbreviated coupling’, in which a manoeuvre in one axis will programme would be made to gain experience cause an uncommanded manoeuvre in one or with low-aspect ratio wings. Lt Col Frank Everest two others. The aircraft was grounded for nearly and Maj Chuck Yeager each made three lights a year after the light, and never again explored before it was handed over to the NACA High its roll stability and control boundaries. Speed Flight Station in August 1954. Although the X-3 never met its intention of NACA pilot Joseph A. Walker conducted providing aerodynamic data in Mach 2 cruise, its eight research lights including lateral and short service of 51 lights was of value. It showed directional stability tests. In these tests, the X-3 the dangers of ‘roll coupling’, and provided early was abruptly rolled at transonic and supersonic light test data on the phenomena. Its wing speeds, with the rudder kept centred. Despite platform was used in the F-104, and it was one its shortcomings, the X-3 was ideal for these of the irst aircraft to use titanium. 54 EXPERIMENTAL
Above: The Douglas X-3 Stiletto was almost a caricature of what every supersonic aircraft should be. It looked the part, but all was not well under its titanium skin. Its twin jet engines were underpowered and although it was built to explore supersonic cruise at Mach 2 and above, it could barely reach half of that. DOUGLAS X-3 STILETTO 55 56 VTOL FIGHTER
Lockheed XFV-1
f ever an aircraft looked like it had been ones which could be developed into a ship- Above: Initial ight testing was carried out pulled straight out of the pages of a based convoy escort ghter. The aircraft would conventionally with the aircraft tted with science ction comic, the remarkable have to be relatively small and light, given the a makeshift non-retractable undercarriage. I The XFV-1 was powered by a 5,332hp Allison Lockheed XFV-1 was it. Sitting on its tail limited power of the current US turboprop YT40-A-6 turboprop engine driving three- with its nose pointed to the heavens, its engines. The powerplant chosen was the Allison bladed contra-rotating propellers. vertical ambitions were clear for all to T40, driving three-bladed contra-rotating see. The fact that only one ever ew is not propellers, the arrangement promising a 1.2:1 Right: Pointing skywards and ready to launch entirely surprising. power:weight ratio with a fully-loaded aircraft. at a moment’s notice. The Lockheed XFV-1 certainly looked the very essence of a VTOL Following the end of World War 2, the Fuel was carried both in the fuselage and in ghter, but it was never tted with a powerful US Navy initiated Project Hummingbird to wing tanks, while the forward part of the tanks enough engine to allow it to prove its ability to investigate the possibilities of protecting its was intended for either four 20mm cannon or take-o vertically. eet with a new breed of Vertical Take-o and 48 folding- n rockets, although no armament Landing (VTOL) ghters. It invited proposals was ever tted. a fast run on 23 December 1953 that ‘Fish’ from US industry and in 1951 selected The rst prototype 138657 was taken by road accidentally lifted o and ew a mile before Lockheed and Convair to produce prototype to Edwards AFB in October 1953 for initial ight making an uneventful landing. The rst designs for a turboprop-powered VTOL ghter. tests. Project pilot was Herman ‘Fish’ Salmon, ‘o cial’ ight was not made until 16 June Both were intended as research aircraft, albeit whose name was sometimes uno cially 1954. Flight testing progressed to the point applied to the aircraft as the XFV-1 Salmon. The where transitions from conventional ight to Lockheed XFV-1 aircraft required an unusual array of ground the vertical for landing were practised – but equipment including a transporter/erector only at an altitude of several thousand feet. Type: Experimental to position the aircraft vertically for take-o , The XFV-1 proved di cult to handle; vertical VTOL ghter servicing platforms and a very long crew entry descent involved the very careful use of Crew: 1 ladder. On the ground, the aircraft sat on four power, and the aircraft was prone to topple. Wingspan: 27ft 5in (8.4m) castoring wheels positioned at the extremities The promised uprated T40 engine that might (without tip tanks) of the cruciform ns, while the pilot’s seat have made possible full transitions was never Length: 37ft 6in (11.4m) swivelled such that he would not be totally on delivered and the aircraft was destined never Max T/O weight: 16,200lb (7,350kg) his back for take-o . to make either a vertical take-o or a vertical Powerplant: Allison T-40 (5,850hp) Lockheed elected to start ight trials in the landing. The prototype completed 32 ights conventional mode, for which a temporary before the whole programme was cancelled Max Speed: 580mph (930km/h) undercarriage was constructed. It was during on 16 June 1955. LOCKHEED XFV-1 57
60 VTOL AIRLINER
Fairey Rotodyne Fairey Rotodyne Type: VTOL airliner Crew: 2 Capacity: 40 passengers ot only was the Fairey Rotodyne powered by two Napier Eland turboprops and Wingspan: 46ft 6in (14.2m) one of the strangest contraptions to with a four-bladed, 90ft rotor. It only had partial Length: 58ft 8in (17.9m) ever take to the air, it was also one seating in the cabin, but there was space for N Rotor diameter: 90ft (27.4m) of the loudest. Not able to make up its mind 40 passengers in a ‘2+2’ seating arrangement, Height: 22ft 2ft (6.8m) whether it was a helicopter or airliner, it while the rear of the fuselage sported clamshell Max T/O weight: 33,000lb (14,970kg) decided to be both. Actually, the logic of the doors to permit the ‘straight in’ loading of Powerplant: 2 x Napier Eland design made sense, but it was just too ‘out freight or cars. First ight was on 6 November turboprops (2,800hp) there’ to be a success. 1957, although this was in pure helicopter Max Speed: 190mph (305km/h) Fairey wanted the best of both worlds for mode and it was not until 10 April 1958 that its hybrid helicopter/ xed-wing Rotodyne, the rst transition was made. As con dence Right: The Rotodyne’s tip-jet drive and unloaded combining the vertical ability of a helicopter built up, the ight envelope was extended. In rotor made its performance far better when with the cruise economics of a turboprop January 1959, the Rotodyne set a world speed compared to pure helicopters and other forms airliner. Perhaps the most accurate way to record over a 100km closed course at 191mph of ‘convertiplanes’. However, the noise that it describe it would be a compound gyroplane, (307km/h) – a speed way above that achieved generated when in the hover was a cause of as the rotor was driven for vertical take-o s, by any helicopter. The prototype, carrying the great concern considering it was designed as a city-to-city transport. landings and hovering, as well as low-speed military serial XE521 and later RAF roundels on translational ight, and autorotated during the basis that ‘the Ministry of Aviation paid for cruise ight with all engine power applied to it’, had a ready customer in British European its statement in the Commons left the two propellers. It was ingenious and ahead of Airways (BEA), which foresaw the Rotodyne as company the option to continue the project its time. the transport of the future, o ering city-centre- on its own if it wished. BEA, it announced, had The prototype, built at the factory at Hayes to-city-centre ights. The RAF also made noises concluded ‘with reluctance’ that it was not and then moved to White Waltham for nal that suggested it was interested in the type for prepared to take the risk of being the lead assembly in early 1957, was a 33,000lb aircraft operation into unprepared strips. customer for the type. Things were going well for the Rotodyne, As has happened too often with other with a lot of airlines around the world advanced projects in the UK, the Rotodyne Below: Fairey had high hopes for its Rotodyne, su ered from being too far ahead of the eld, but although it was promising in concept and expressing interest. And then, suddenly, the successful in trials, it never got beyond a single project was cancelled. On 26 February 1962, and its government backers started to worry ying prototype. the government withdrew its support, although that they were taking too much risk. SNECMA COLÉOPTÈRE 61 SNECMA Coléoptère
he Coléoptère is about as far away an annular wing of 14ft span, hailing back to the aircraft suspended from a gantry, Morel from a conventional aircraft as you can the days of the Stipa-Caproni ‘Flying Barrel’. succeeded in taking of, and made eight Tget, so it is a credit to its designers that The Coléoptère was an example of the successful vertical ascents and landings. No it got of the ground. It is even more a credit purest form of VTOL aircraft – one that sat on transitions were attempted and a maximum to the pilot that he lew the machine and its undercarriage (in this case, four legs with height of 2,600ft (800m) was achieved. That lived to tell the tale. The Coléoptère itself castoring wheels) in a vertical position, pointing these lights were achieved safely is very was not so fortunate. skyward. Since the take-of had, by deinition, much to the credit of the pilot, as cockpit The Coléoptère was developed and built to be vertical, this would only be possible if instrumentation was very basic and the aircraft collaboratively by Nord Aviation (airframe) and the installed jet thrust comfortably exceeded diicult to control. SNECMA (engine) in the mid-1950s. Its radical the gross weight of the aircraft. Post-war On the ninth light, on 25 July 1959, Morel design had, at its core, a single jet engine developments in jet engine technology made lost control during his vertical landing. The (SNECMA ATAR 101E of 8,200lb). The fuselage possible the Coléoptère, which was built for aircraft oscillated wildly and Morel ejected, featured large air intakes on either side of the research but with the long-term aim of building horizontally, at just 500ft. His parachute opened cockpit, which housed the pilot, who sat on a a ighter of similar layout. only partially, his impact with the ground swivelling ejector seat. Around the fuselage was Testing of the sole prototype Coléoptère caused injuries serious enough to end his test commenced at Melun Villaroche in December lying career, and the Coléoptère was destroyed Below: The Coléoptère being raised into position 1958, with SNECMA test pilot Auguste Morel in a ireball. This crash also signalled the end of in preparation for another test light. in the cockpit. After a number of tests with the programme.
64 TEST VEHICLE Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar
FO sightings were at their height in side-mounted control stick. Pitch and roll ground. Tilting the ring resulted in asymmetric the late 1950s, so when a sleek silver were applied through conventional fore-aft thrust for directional control. Udisc was captured on ilm slowly and side-to-side motions, while yaw could be The Canadian government provided initial descending from the hover to touch down controlled by twisting the stick. No mechanical funding in 1952, but dropped the project on earth, it caused a sensation. However, the linkages were used, the stick instead controlled when it became too expensive. Avro ofered occupant that emerged was not of extra- the low of high-pressure air around the craft. the concept to the US government and the US terrestrial origin, it was ‘Spud’ Potocki, a The attitude/thrust control system consisted Army and US Air Force took it over in 1958. Each Canadian test pilot… of a large ring situated outside of the main service had diferent requirements: the Army It is not altogether surprising that the disk, shaped roughly like a rounded triangle. wanted to use it as a subsonic, all-terrain troop futuristic Avrocar was developed as part of a The ring moved in relation to the rest of the transport and reconnaissance craft, but the Air secret US military project carried out in the craft, afecting the airlow moving outward Force wanted a VTOL aircraft that could hover early years of the Cold War. Designed in the from the centre. Vertical lift could be increased below enemy radar then zoom up to supersonic 1950s as a research aircraft in the quest to by moving the entire ring down, which would speed. Research data originally indicated that a build a ‘lying jeep’, it was powered by three produce more airlow over its upper surface, circular wing might satisfy both requirements, Continental J69-T-9 turbojets driving a central which would then bend down toward the and Avro built two small test vehicles to prove fan to provide initial lift for take-of, following the concept. It was designated the VZ-9AV Below: The US Army and US Air Force provided which the craft’s aerofoil shape would generate funding to the Avrocar lying saucer in the hope Avrocar (‘VZ’ standing for ‘experimental vertical normal aerodynamic lift for forward light. that the technology might pave the way for an light’, ‘9’ for the ninth concept proposal, and ‘AV’ Pilot control was entirely through a single eventual supersonic disk-shaped VTOL ighter. for Avro). AVRO AVROCAR 65
This strange vehicle (serial 58-7055) was agreed that the Avrocar was unstable, under Above: The Avrocar used exhaust from turbojet rolled out at Malton, Ontario in May 1959 powered and di cult to y, one comparing engines to drive a circular ‘turborotor’ which and made its rst free hovering ight on the experience to ‘balancing on a beach produced thrust. By directing this thrust downward, the turborotor would create a 12 November of that year. Its test pilots all ball’. Many e orts at improving stability and cushion of air upon which the aircraft would oat thrust followed over the coming months, but at low altitude. When the thrust was directed Below: If the Avrocar ew more than three feet the Avrocar never got more than a few feet toward the rear, the aircraft would accelerate above the ground during ight trials, it displayed o the ground and remained stubbornly in and gain altitude. uncontrollable pitch and roll motions, which the ground e ect. Even a heavily modi ed second Avro engineers called ‘hubcapping’. The Avrocar logged about 75 ight hours at the end of the could only reach a maximum speed of 35mph, prototype still displayed uncontrollable pitch and all attempts to end the hubcapping failed. and roll motions, which the Avro engineers ight testing. Judged by its performance, the The project was cancelled in December 1961. called ‘hubcapping’. The second Avrocar had Avrocar was an abject failure: it couldn’t lift itself safely more than a few feet o the ground, and its bulbous design limited high-speed performance. Accompanied by unbearable heat and screaming exhaust noise, it was impractical for the military. In the end, its American backers realised that the project was a technical dead end, and funding ran out in March 1961.
Avro VZ-9AV Avrocar
Type: Test vehicle Crew: 2 Diameter: 18ft (5.5m) Height: 4ft 10in (1.25m) Max T/O weight: 5,560lb (2,522kg) Powerplant: 3 x Continental J69-T9 turbojets of 927lb thrust each Max Speed: 300mph (483km/h) estimated, 35mph (56km/h) actual 66 TRANSPORT
ATL-98 Carvair
he clue is in the name. Carvair, or car 170 Freighter, the mainstay of car ferry airlines prototype conversion rst ew on 21 June 1961 via air, tells you all you need to know in the late 1940s. His idea was to purchase and a further 20 followed with a basic price of Tabout this ungainly bulbous-nosed surplus Douglas DC-4s (and its military £150,000 each at 1960 prices. machine. And if you think there is something counterpart the C-54 Skymaster) at knock- Operators making use of the aircraft’s combi vaguely familiar about the ATL-98 Carvair, down prices and then convert them into car/ abilities included Aer Lingus, British United Air you are right. passenger carriers o ering greater payload at Ferries/British Air Ferries and Nationwide Air. British entrepreneur Freddie Laker was never economical prices. The aircraft was designed British Air Ferries (BAF), for example, operated slow in spotting a commercial opportunity. to accommodate ve average-sized British cars its Carvairs in a exible con guration, either He is best-known for launching ‘low budget’ plus 25 passengers as a result of the DC-4’s accommodating ve cars and 22 passengers or Laker Airways in 1966, but before that he longer and wider fuselage. To achieve this, the two-three cars and 55 passengers, permitting founded Aviation Traders, a company that forward fuselage was lengthened by some 8ft it to change over from one con guration to the specialised in converting war-surplus bombers 8in (2.64m) and the cockpit was raised into a other in about 40 minutes. and transports into freighters. His business ‘hump’ to allow for a sideways-hinged nose Over its career, eight Carvairs were destroyed acumen spotted that there was a niche market door. Other changes included a new revised in crashes, but testament to its versatility, the for an aircraft to replace the ageing Bristol tail n and more powerful wheel brakes. The nal example was not retired until 2007. ATL-98 CARVAIR 67
ATL-98 Carvair
Type: Transport Crew: 2 Capacity: Maximum seating 85 passengers or ve cars and 22 passengers Wingspan: 117ft 6in (35.82m) Length: 102ft 7in (31.27m) Height: 29ft 10in (9.09m) Max T/O weight: 73,800lb (33,475kg) Powerplant: 4 x Pratt & Whitney R-2000-7M2 Twin Wasps of 1,450hp each Max Speed: 250mph (400km/h)
Left: Nobody said it was pretty, but it worked. British United Air Ferries Carvair displaying its DC-4 heritage with a ‘hump’.
Below: The swivelling nose door of the Carvair allowing for the loading of cars. The DC-4’s lack of pressurisation made it ideal for low-altitude cross-Channel ights that did not go high enough to require a pressurised cabin. This made the structural conversion straightforward. 68 OUTSIZE FREIGHTER Aero Spacelines Super Guppy
hey do things bigger in the US. Take Super Guppy Turbine retained the nose, tail and In 1982 and 1983, two additional Super Guppy the huge ‘Guppy’ super-transports, wings of the Stratocruiser, but the nosewheel Turbines were built by Union de Transports Tsome of the most unique aircraft ever assembly was taken from a Boeing 707 jet. Aériens Industries in France after Airbus bought to take to the skies. Designed to carry very The turboprop engines and their cowlings the right to produce the aircraft. After sterling large, but relatively light cargos, the Guppies came directly from Lockheed’s P-3 Orion, and service, the four Super Guppies have since were genetically-modi ed from retired US the propellers were sourced from Lockheed’s been replaced by the Airbus Beluga. However, Air Force C-97 Stratofreighters and airline C-130 Hercules. Combined with pressurisation that was not the end of the Super Guppy story. Boeing 377 Stratocruisers. and its more powerful engines, the SGT could The last example built was acquired by the Before the Super Guppies there was the carry bigger loads more economically, and was European Space Agency, and then by NASA in Pregnant Guppy. America’s own Freddie widely used during the Apollo programme. late 1997 for transport of large structures for the Laker was John M. Conroy, an ex-US Air Force In the early 1970s, the two Super Guppy International Space Station to the launch site. pilot, who realised the potential of stockpiled Turbines were acquired by Airbus to transport Even though the ISS is now ‘complete’, NASA Stratocruisers as transports for large but aeroplane parts from decentralised production still uses the Super Guppy to haul large cargo. A relatively light rocket components. He founded facilities to the nal assembly plant in Toulouse. remarkable feat for a remarkable aircraft. Aero Spacelines International in order to build and operate a highly modi ed aircraft, that was immediately dubbed ‘pregnant guppy’ because of its bloated appearance. As the space programme grew through the late 1960s, it became clear that this one aircraft could not handle the whole transport load, and so more Stratocruisers and ex-USAF C-97s were purchased and cannibalised for three more aircraft in two variants, which were even longer and larger than the original. These were colloquially known as Super Guppies. The rst example was based on a C-97J Turbo Stratocruiser and had a fuselage lengthened to 141ft (43m) and ballooned out to a maximum inside diameter of 25ft (7.6m), the length of the cargo compartment being 94ft 6in (28.8m), perfect for carrying rocket components. Two more were built as the Super Guppy Turbine (SGT) which had a fuselage built from scratch, allowing the cargo compartment to be lengthened further and have a wider oor. The
Right: It might not be a particularly attractive aircraft, but there is something very charismatic about the Super Guppy.
Super Guppy Turbine
Type: Outsize freighter Crew: 4 Wingspan: 156ft 3in (47.625m) Length: 143ft 10in (43.84m) Height: 48ft 6in (14.78m) Max T/O weight: 170,000lb (77,110kg) Powerplant: 4 x Allison 501-D22C turboprops of 4,680hp thrust each Max Speed: 288mph (463km/h) AERO SPACELINES SUPER GUPPY 69
Right: The Super Guppy is still busy swallowing up aircraft. NASA’s example, the fourth and last of the inal version, irst lew in its outsized form in 1980. Registered N941NA, it is based at Ellington Field near the Johnson Space Center.
Below: The Guppies were modiied from 1940’s and 50’s-vintage Boeing Model 377 and C-97 Stratocruiser airframes by Aero Spacelines Inc. This is the irst of the breed, the Pregnant Guppy. 70 V/STOL PROTOTYPE Bell X-22A
y their very nature, tilt-wing aircraft Airport on 17 March 1966. This was a successful 11 months, the aircraft had logged its 100th are an exotic breed of machine, so but low-key afair, with test pilots Stanley Kakol light, and by end-1967 all corners of the light Bwhile any of them could have graced and Paul Miller making several vertical take-ofs envelope had been explored. There followed the pages of this issue, we have opted for the and landings, while staying at all times below an initial military evaluation in January 1968, most exotic of them all, the Bell X-22A. 30ft. A irst STOL light was achieved on 30 June during which all three services lew the The world of V/STOL has thrown up many (ducts at 30 degrees) and a zero degree aircraft. It is said that the pilots and engineers unorthodox designs, but perhaps none more (ie conventional) light on 22 July. It was on its involved liked what they saw and reported so than Bell’s X-22. The X-plane featured four 15th light on 8 August 1966 that the aircraft back favourably. The aircraft continued to ly ducted fans powered by four cross-coupled sufered a double hydraulic failure resulting on contractor testing for several years, but this General Electric YT-58 turboshaft engines. Bell in a very hard emergency landing. The crew unlikely coniguration continued no further. Aerospace received a contract in November escaped unhurt, but the aircraft was beyond 1962 to construct two prototypes for economic repair. Below: Yet another ‘take’ in the quest to conquer evaluation; these were assigned US Navy BuNos Second prototype 151521 made its initial VTOL light was Bell’s X-22 equipped with four tilting ducted fans. It had a relatively successful 151520 and 151521. Roll-out of the irst aircraft light on 26 January 1967, later to make the test-light career and was considered to be the was on 25 May 1965, but several months of type’s public debut with a lying demonstration best aircraft of its type at the time. However, ground testing were to follow before the irst in front of Bell employees and invited guests even this was not enough to save the programme light took place at Niagara Falls International at Niagara Falls on 9 May. Within less than from cancellation. DORNIER Do 31 71 Dornier Do 31
hen hovering was all the rage, engines, derated to 15,500lb, providing the 1967. Meanwhile, E3 with the full 10-engine Dornier produced the Do 31, the main thrust, while eight RB162 dedicated it followed along behind, making its irst Wworld’s only jet-powered V/STOL lift engines were mounted in wingtip pods. (conventional) light on 14 July 1967. The transport. The ten-engined beast truly was a Various ground rigs were employed to test the irst vertical take-ofs and landing were made sight and sound to behold. autostabilisation system, while a ‘Big Hover on 22 November, while full transitions were During the height of the Cold War in the Rig’, generally representative of the Do 31 but completed in December. 1960s, Germany was concerned that many with only six lift engines, was used to give The Do 31’s pilots made it all look easy, of its main air bases were vulnerable to air pilots familiarity with the aircraft’s hovering demonstrating transitions at the le Bourget Salon attack from Eastern Bloc forces, so it actively characteristics. Prototype E1 was intended for in 1969 and at the Hannover ILA the following researched the possibility of dispersed conventional lying only and thus lacked the year. The aircraft wasn’t pretty, and it was operations. These included lying from wingtip pods and lift engines. It made its irst iendishly noisy in the hover, but it all worked. autobahns, but required aircraft with STOVL light at Oberpfafenhofen on 10 February If there was a law in Dornier’s plans, it was that capabilities. Thus the Dornier Do 31 was the equipment required to achieve V/STOL light Below: The impressive sight of a large jet transport conceived to transport a four-ton payload right increased the aircraft’s complexity and cost and in the hover. It was planned to replace the outer into the front line. nacelles and their engines with RB153 turbofans reduced its payload. The Do 31’s inal light was The ambitious design featured two when they became available, but the programme by E3 at Hannover in May 1970, by which time Bristol Siddeley Pegasus 5/2 vectored thrust was cancelled before this could be achieved. the programme had been abandoned. 72 AMPHIBIOUS ASW Bartini Beriev VVA-14
Left: Looking like it was inspired by the children’s puppet series ‘Thunderbirds’, the Bartini Beriev VVA-14 was developed in the Soviet Union during the 1970s. Designer Robert Bartini was actually born in Fiume, Italy (now Croatia), and after the fascist revolution was sent to work in the Soviet Union to help advance aeronautics.
Bottom: Development of the remarkable VVA-14 was gradually slowed down after Bartini’s death in 1974. In the event, the aircraft never proved its ability to take-of and land vertically.
blast into the cavity under the wing to give lift and later with a battery of lift engines to give VTOL capability. The inal VVA-14M3 would see the VTOL vehicle fully equipped with armament and with the Burevestnik computerised anti-submarine warfare (ASW) system, Bor-1 ne can almost imagine the brief ASW aircraft. Designed to be able to take-of magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) and other given to designer Robert Bartini from the water and ly at high speed over operational equipment. Oby his Soviet paymasters. ‘We want long distances, it was to make true lights at The irst Bartini Beriev VVA-14 prototype was you to build a jet-powered, wing-in ground- high altitude, but also have the capability of completed in 1972 and its irst ‘conventional’ efect, amphibious aircraft to destroy US ‘lying’ eiciently just above the sea surface, light was on 4 September 1972. In 1974 the Navy Polaris submarines. Oh, by the way we using ground efect. Bartini, in collaboration inlatable pontoons were installed, though their also want it to take of and land vertically’. with the Beriev Design Bureau, intended to operation caused many problems. Flotation and Valiantly he responded with one of the most develop the prototype VVA-14 in three phases. water taxi tests followed, culminating in the bizarre lying machines ever built. The VVA-14M1 was to be an aerodynamic start of light testing of the amphibious aircraft During the height of the Cold War in the and technology testbed, initially with rigid on 11 June 1975. 1970s, the Soviet Union sought a number of pontoons on the ends of the central wing However, after Bartini’s death in 1974, solutions to counter the threat of US Navy section, and later with these replaced by enthusiasm for the project began to wane and nuclear-armed submarines. One of them was inlatable pontoons. The VVA-14M2 was to be eventually it drew to a complete stop after 107 the outlandish Bartini Beriev VVA-14 amphibious more advanced, with two starting engines to lights and a total light time of 103 hours. EDGLEY OPTICA 73 Edgley Optica
he insect-like Optica is one of those three-abreast seating, while positions for Although the programme appeared to be slightly eccentric British aircraft that mounting specialised observation equipment gathering momentum, behind the scenes Tcould have become a great success were also provided. inancial problems were delaying production. had fates been kinder to it. It has now been Construction of a prototype began in 1976 Conidence in the Optica was further hit by a some 40 years since its irst light, but its and inal assembly was carried out at the highly-publicised fatal crash (pilot error) and designer still has not given up hope on it. College of Aeronautics, Cranield. The irst light a reported arson attack at the factory. The Combining the visibility of a helicopter was made on 14 December 1979 powered by Optica went through several owner changes, with outstanding slow-lying capabilities, the a 160hp Avco Lycoming O-320, but this was but remarkably is now back with its designer original concept for the Edgley EA7 Optica later changed to a 200hp IO-360. This drives who is still hopeful that this charismatic little was as a three-seat touring aircraft. Designer a ive-bladed ixed-pitch ducted fan, giving aircraft might be the success his foresight and John Edgley, produced a radical and innovative the Optica a claim to be the world’s quietest perseverance deserves. design that mounted the whole cockpit powered aircraft. Below: assembly ahead of the fan and engine, giving As a low-cost alternative to a helicopter, The Bug-eyed Optica ofers its pilot and passengers helicopter-like visibility, but without the pilot and passengers 270° panoramic roles range from the obvious aerial the associated costs. Its designer still believes views, plus almost vertical downward vision. photography and surveillance patrols, to that there is a niche market for this totally Its internal cabin width of 1.68m permitted traic reporting, powerline inspection etc. unique aircraft. 74 EXPERIMENTAL NASA AD-1
NASA AD-1
Type: Experimental Crew: 1 Wingspan: 32ft 4in (9.85m) erodynamicist Robert Jones was The small research aircraft was constructed unswept a man with a ‘twisted’ mind. He by the Ames Industrial Co, under a $240,000 Length: 38ft 10in (11.83m) Aconceived the Ames-Dryden AD-1, xed-price contract, with NASA specifying the Height: 6ft 9in (2.06m) an uncomfortable-looking aircraft that design based on a geometric con guration Max T/O weight: 2,145lb (973kg) surprisingly was based on sound logic. provided by Boeing. The Rutan Aircraft Factory Powerplant: 2 x Mircroturbo TRS18 However, it did not prove to be the pivotal provided the detailed design and loads analysis turbojets of 220lb each moment in aviation he was hoping for. for the vehicle. Max Speed: 200mph (322km/h) NASA Ames Research Center aeronautical The compact aircraft was constructed engineer Robert T. Jones was not the rst to of plastic reinforced with breglass. It was degrees. The breglass structure limited the propose the idea of an oblique wing, but he powered by two Microturbo TRS18-046 engines, wing sti ness that would have improved the was the rst to turn it into reality. Analytical each producing 220lb of thrust at sea level. Due handling qualities. Thus, after completion of and wind tunnel studies that he conducted to safety concerns, the aircraft was limited to the AD-1 project, there was still a need for a indicated that a transport-sized oblique-wing speeds of 170mph. transonic oblique-wing research aircraft to aircraft ying at speeds of up to Mach 1.4 The aircraft was delivered to the Dryden assess the e ects of compressibility, evaluate would have substantially better aerodynamic Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, in March a more representative structure, and analyze performance and might achieve twice the 1979 and its rst ight was on 21 December ight performance at transonic speeds (those fuel economy than aircraft with conventional 1979 in the hands of NASA research pilot, on either side of the speed of sound). wings. Thus, the Ames-Dryden-1 (AD-1) was Thomas C. McMurtry. The AD-1 ew a total of 79 times during designed to investigate the concept. The The AD-1 allowed the project to complete all the research programme, making its last wing could be rotated on its centre pivot, of its technical objectives. As expected of a low- ight on 7 August 1982. Despite Jones’ faith remaining perpendicular to it during slow ight speed, low-cost vehicle, it exhibited aeroelastic in the con guration, no further funding was and rotating to angles of up to 60 degrees as and pitch-roll-coupling e ects that contributed forthcoming, and a more sophisticated test airspeed increased. to poor handling at sweep angles above 45 platform never materialised. NASA AD-1 75
Left: The unique AD-1 in light with its wing swept at 60 degrees, the maximum sweep angle. The aircraft was designed to investigate the concept of an oblique (pivoting) wing that could be set at its most eicient angle for the speed at which the aircraft was lying.
Above: The AD-1 with its wing swept. Visible are the twin jet engines that powered the aircraft and the ixed landing gear.
Right: The cockpit and instrument panel of the AD-1. Due to the small size of the aircraft, instrumentation was simple and limited and the cockpit was cramped.
Below: Research pilot Richard E. Gray standing in front of the AD-1, illustrating just how small the aircraft is. 76 STEALTH FIGHTER LOCKHEED F-117 NIGHTHAWK 77 Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk
here have been many adjectives used to try and describe the Lockheed TF-117, but none of them really prepare you for seeing this small black jet for the irst time. Everything about it contradicts the normal rules of aviation. Even its ‘stealth ighter’ designation was a misnomer. Perhaps it is just simpler to say that nothing like it has ever taken to the skies, before or since. In a world of ‘black’ projects, the F-117 was one of the blackest. Forged from the depths of Lockheed’s infamous Skunk Works and irst lown from Groom Lake (aka Area 51), the F-117 was in service for eight years before its very existence was acknowledged in the form of a grainy photograph. When it was fully unveiled in 1990, the aviation world was both stunned and puzzled. The aircraft’s multi-faceted appearance was unlike anything seen before, and its aerodynamics looked impossible. But there was purpose behind its oddness... stealth. The Nighthawk’s angular design gave it a radar cross-section so small that it was efectively
Left: Without a highly complex ly-by-wire system, F-117 pilots would not be able to control such an aerodynamically unstable design. The F-117A’s faceted shape (made from 2-dimensional lat surfaces) resulted from the limitations of the 1970’s-era computer technology used to calculate its radar cross-section. Later supercomputers made it possible for subsequent aircraft like the B-2 bomber to use curved surfaces while maintaining stealth.
Below: The subscale ‘Have Blue’ stealth technology demonstrators incorporated jet engines of the Northrop T-38A, ly-by-wire systems of the F-16, landing gear of the A-10, and environmental systems of the C-130.
80 STEALTH FIGHTER invisible to its foes. Little surprise, therefore, that such an aura of mystery should surround the aircraft. The F-117 Nighthawk was the rst aircraft to be designed around stealth technology rather than aerodynamics, so when Lockheed’s Skunk Works began the project it was working in the dark. In the days before super computers, predicting ‘stealth’ was a di cult business. Lockheed’s legendary Kelly Johnson favoured a rounded design, but his assistant, Ben Rich, proposed a faceted-angle surface that would scatter over 99 per cent of a radar’s signal energy ‘painting’ the aircraft. The downside of this design was inherent aerodynamic instability, but this would be countered by the aircraft with no dog ghting abilities. Powered Above: An F-117 Nighthawk engages its target latest y-by-wire technology. Under a heavy by two non-afterburning General Electric F404 and drops a GBU-28 guided bomb. Although shroud of secrecy, the US Defense Advanced turbofan engines, the F-117 was limited to it had an ‘F’ designation and was commonly referred to as the ‘Stealth Fighter’, it was strictly a Research Projects Agency (DARPA) issued subsonic speeds, but it was not designed for ground-attack aircraft. Lockheed Skunk Works a contract in 1976 to speed, it was designed to deliver ordnance build and test two Stealth Strike Fighters, under on highly-defended targets without being The F-117 made its combat debut in secret the code name ‘Have Blue’. The maiden ight detected. Targets were acquired by a thermal over Panama in 1989, but its performance was of the demonstrators occurred on 1 December imaging infra-red system, slaved to a laser reportedly disappointing. However, it was a 1977 and although both aircraft were lost range nder/laser designator that provided the di erent story during the rst Gulf War over Iraq during the demonstration programme, test target details for the laser-guided bombs. The in 1991, where the F-117 proved instrumental data proved positive and Lockheed was given F-117A’s split internal bay could carry 5,000lb in the early days. It also served in several the go-ahead to develop the aircraft, now (2,300kg) of ordnance, typical weapons being a subsequent con icts including the second designated the F-117A Nighthawk, resulting pair of GBU-10, GBU-12, or GBU-27 laser-guided Gulf War during Operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ in in a production run of 64 aircraft, including bombs, two BLU-109 penetration bombs, two 2003. During its service life, one F-117, own ve prototypes. In keeping with the aircraft’s Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) or B61 by Lt Col Dale Zelko, was lost over Yugoslavia mystique, the ‘F’ for ghter designation was nuclear bomb. in March 1999 during Operation ‘Allied Force’. misleading as it was primarily an attack (ie ‘A’) The rst YF-117A (79-0780) made its maiden This con rmed that the stealth ghter was ight from Groom Lake, Nevada, on 18 June not invincible nor was it invisible to modern Below: Gang of ‘Bandits’. Nighthawk pilots called 1981. During the programme’s early years, from radar. With its 1970’s technologies, the F-117 themselves ‘Bandits’. Each of the 558 US Air Force pilots who have own the F-117 has a Bandit 1984 to mid-1992, the F-117A eet was based was no longer relevant in the modern ‘ultra number that indicates the sequential order of at Tonopah Test Range Airport, Nevada, where high-end’ ght. After 25 years’ service, the US their rst ight in the F-117. it served under the 4,450th Tactical Group. Air Force retired the F-117 on 22 April 2008. But the incredible story does not end there. Far from being scrapped, the F-117s were put into ‘ yable storage’. To this day, reports of the shadowy Nighthawk appearing in the skies above Tonopah abound. The enigma of the F-117 continues…
Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk
Type: Stealth attack Crew: 1 Wingspan: 43ft 4in (13.21m) Length: 65ft 11in (20.09m) Height: 12ft 9in (3.9m) Max T/O weight: 52,500lb (23,800kg) Powerplant: 2 x General Electric F404 turbofans of 10,600lb thrust each Max Speed: Mach 0.92 (617mph, 993km/h) Armament: Up to 5,000lb payload GRUMMAN X-29 81 Grumman X-29 Grumman X-29 Type: Experimental Crew: 1 Wingspan: 27ft 2in (8.29m) ooking like it had come straight o Projects Agency (DARPA), the US Air Force, Length: 48ft 1in (14.7m) the set of ‘Star Wars’, the Grumman the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Height: 14ft 9in (4.26m) LX-29 featured one of the most unusual the US Air Force Flight Test Center, and the Max T/O weight: 17,800lb (8,070kg) designs in aviation history. The idea of Grumman Corporation. Designed as technology Powerplant: 1 x General Electric swept-forward wings was not new, but the demonstrators, the Grumman X-29s were built F404 tu rbofan of Grumman X-29 was the rst aircraft that had to explore: the use of advanced composite 16,000lb thrust the technology to take it supersonic. materials; a forward-swept wing with a thin Max Speed: Mach 1.8 The front fuselage of the Grumman X-29 was supercritical airfoil; a variable-incidence canard; (1,100mph, 1,770km/h) conventional enough, betraying its Northrop a computerised y-by-wire ight control system F-5A Freedom Fighter origins. But behind the to overcome the aircraft’s inherent instability; ailerons from stalling at high angles of attack cockpit, there was nothing conventional going behaviour at high angles of attack; and a vortex (direction of the fuselage relative to the air on at all. The aircraft’s forward-swept wings ow-control system. ow). State-of-the-art composites also were mounted well back on the fuselage, while Powered by a General Electric F404-GE-400, provided aeroelastic tailoring which, in turn, its canards (horizontal stabilizers to control the rst X-29 made its maiden ight on 14 allowed the wing some bending but limited pitch) were in front of the wings instead of on December 1984 from Edwards AFB piloted twisting and eliminated structural divergence the tail. It was unlike anything that had ever by Grumman’s chief test pilot Chuck Sewell. It within the ight envelope. taken to the air before. became the third forward-swept wing jet- During testing, project pilots reported that The two-aircraft X-29 programme was a joint powered aircraft design to y; the other two the X-29 aircraft had excellent control response e ort of the US Defense Advanced Research being the Junkers Ju 287 (1944 and post-war to an angle of attack of 45 degrees and still by the USSR) and the HFB-320 Hansa Jet (1964). had limited controllability at an impressive Left: This look-down view of the rst X-29 On 13 December 1985, an X-29 became the rst 67-degree angle of attack. research aircraft in ight over California’s forward-swept wing aircraft to y at supersonic The two X-29 aircraft ew a total of 242 Mojave Desert, shows its striking and unique speed in level ight. times from 1984 to 1991. Although it did not forward swept wing and canard design. The complex geometries of the wings and lead to a generation of forward-swept-wing Below: The No 2 X-29 technology demonstrator canards combined to provide exceptional ghters, the X-29 programme did demonstrate during a 1990 test ight. Unlike its older sibling, manoeuvrability, supersonic performance and several new technologies as well as validating the second X-29 was equipped with a spin a light structure. Air moving over the forward- control of an aircraft with extreme instability. recovery parachute as it was involved in high swept wings tended to ow inward toward the The ight research also added to engineers’ angle-of-attack testing. It was manoeuvrable up to an angle of attack of about 25 degrees with root of the wing instead of outward toward the understanding of advanced composites, used a maximum angle of 67 degrees reached in a wing tip as occurs on an aft-swept wing. This increasingly in aircraft construction, and of momentary pitch-up. reverse air ow kept the wing tips and their digital ight-control systems.
84 EXPERIMENTAL
Above: Smoke generators in the nose of the X-29 were used to help researchers see the behaviour of the air owing over the aircraft.
Right: The cockpit and instrument panel of the X-29 technology demonstrator aircraft.
Top right: The X-29 returns to Edwards AFB after a 1989 test ight. The X-29 design made use of the forward fuselage and nose landing gear from the F-5A with the control surface actuators and main landing gear from the F-16.
Far right: This look-down view of NASA’s two X-29 research aircraft shows them lit by the golden rays of early morning on Rogers Dry Lake, adjacent to NASA’s Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA. GRUMMAN X-29 85 86 BIZ-PROP
Piaggio Avanti
t is entirely appropriate that the world’s concept o . The Piaggio Avanti is an incredibly Above: The design might be over 30 years old, fastest twin turboprop should be called compelling aircraft with a unique design but it has a timeless elegance born out of its Avanti. Quirky, but in a stylish way, it featuring a three-surface con guration, having Italian ancestry. This shot of ve Italian AF I Avantis in close formation might look like a breaks the mould of what an executive both a small forward canard and a conventional computer-generated composite image, but it is transport is supposed to look and sound tailplane. Its main wing is positioned behind the real thing. like. It gets the nod here over its nemesis, the the passenger cabin area and mounts twin Beechcraft Starship, on account that it has turboprop engines in pusher con guration that racked up over 230 sales. give it a cruising speed of just over 400mph, not at back in 1986 when the prototype made its From the beginning, Piaggio intended the far below that of competing executive jets, but maiden ight. It wasn’t the only fast turboprop Avanti to be a turboprop that played in the without the associated costs. Essentially, think twin with a forward wing – the Beech Starship same niche as executive jets but with better about the Avanti as a jet with props, which was a contemporary, though that company economy and a larger cabin. It pulled the is the niche market that Piaggio was aiming stopped production of the composite cabin- PIAGGIO AVANTI 87
class twin shortly after it started it, admitting by the Italian military and civil forces. The 100th later that the composite model was so aircraft was delivered in October 2005 and the P180 Avanti EVO time-intensive to build that it was simply 150th in May 2008. Type: Biz prop unpro table. For this very reason, metal alloys An improved Avanti II with updated cockpit Crew: 2 were chosen for the construction of the Avanti. and uprated engines was certi ed in 2005 Wingspan: 46ft 0in (14m) Initially Piaggio teamed with Gates Learjet on and this was further modernised with the Length: 47ft 4in (14.4m) the project and this is re ected in the steeply Avanti EVO, which is manufactured at the new Height: 13ft 0in (4m) raked windshield and the two large ventral $150 million factory at Albenga Airport with Max T/O weight: 12,100lb (5,216kg) delta ns under the tail. The Avanti proved deliveries beginning in 2016. However, all is Powerplant: 2 x Pratt & Whitney a success with charter companies and small not well with its parent company and on PT6A-66B turboprops feeder airlines and is also used as a business 22 November 2018, Piaggio Aerospace Max Speed: 460mph (741km/h) aircraft. Not surprisingly, it is also widely used requested to be placed into receivership. 88 MULTI-MISSION Scaled Composites Proteus
ny one of Burt Rutan’s exotic serving as a high-altitude, long-duration wingtips installed. It is an ‘optionally piloted’ creations could have merited telecommunications relay platform, aircraft ordinarily own by two pilots in a Ainclusion, but we have selected the reconnaissance/surveillance, commercial pressurised cabin. However, it also has the Proteus, surely the most enigmatic of his imaging, launching of small space satellites, capability to perform its missions semi- visions to take to the air. atmospheric sampling and Earth monitoring. autonomously or own remotely from a Burt Rutan is a man who revels in the This unique tandem-wing, twin-engine ground station. unconventional, but even by his standards aircraft was built as a privately funded venture Flight testing of the Proteus began in the Proteus is out of the ordinary. Proteus, at Scaled Composites’ development facility September 1998 at Mojave Airport and named after the old man of the sea who at Mojave, CA. Proteus has an all-composite continued through the end of 1999. Under was known to take on di erent shapes to airframe with graphite-epoxy sandwich NASA’s Environmental Research Aircraft and escape captors, has the ability to change construction. Its wingspan of 77ft 7in (23.65m) Sensor Technology (ERAST) programme, the its shape based on mission. These include is expandable to 92ft (28m) with removable Dryden Flight Research Center assisted Scaled SCALED COMPOSITES PROTEUS 89
Scaled Composites Proteus
Type: Multi-mission Crew: 2 Wingspan: 77ft 7in (23.65m) Length: 56ft 4in (17.17m) In October 2000, Proteus set three Above: Scaled Composites’ unique tandem-wing Height: 17ft 8in (5.38m) international aviation altitude records. The Proteus was the testbed for a series of UAV Max T/O weight: 12,500lb (5,670kg) craft reached a peak altitude of 62,786ft and collision-avoidance ight demonstrations. An Amphitech 35GHz radar unit installed below Powerplant: 2 x Williams FJ44-2 sustained horizontal ight of 61,919ft. On a turbofans Proteus’ nose was the primary sensor for the second ight, Proteus reached a peak altitude Detect, See, and Avoid tests. Max Speed: 313mph (504km/h) of 55,878ft while carrying a 12,200lb (1,000kg) payload. All three records were set for aircraft Additionally, Transformational Space Corp ight Composites in developing a sophisticated with gross weights of 12,500lb or less. tested its rocket release concept for a proposed station-keeping autopilot system and a satellite In more recent years, NASA Dryden has four-person crew capsule (called the CXV). communications (SATCOM)-based uplink- used the Proteus as a testbed for a variety of The Proteus recently completed its 1,000th downlink data system for Proteus’ performance technologies related to maturing unmanned ight, accumulating over 4,000 ight hours in and payload data. air vehicles (UAVs) for use in civil applications. the process. 90 OUTSIZE FREIGHTER
Airbus Beluga XL
he battle of the giants was a close- gradually replace the ve existing Beluga ST Above: Squint and the likeness of the aircraft run thing, but we have opted for the airlifters. Based on an A330-200 Freighter, the to the Beluga whale is uncanny, complete with appropriately named Beluga XL. Not Beluga XL is powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 700 ‘smile’ and eye. The Beluga XL made its maiden T ight on 19 July 2018 and is progressing towards only is it the latest ‘outsize carrier’ to y, but engines. The lowered cockpit, the immense entering service in 2019. it is also the most distinctive, which is quite cargo bay structure and the rear-end and tail some feat. were newly developed, giving the aircraft The Beluga XL programme was launched in its idiosyncratic look. It features a fuselage airlifter to accommodate a set of A350 XWB November 2014 to address Airbus’ transport that is seven metres longer and an enlarged wings, for example, speeding up their transport capacity requirements in view of A350 XWB upper fuselage that is one metre wider than from the Broughton, UK production site to the production. Five will be built by 2023, to its predecessor. Its greater size enables the programme’s nal assembly line in Toulouse. AIRBUS BELUGA XL 91
Beluga XL
Type: Outsize freighter Crew: 2 ight crew plus loaders The aircraft also has the ability to carry the A350 between 900 and 1,000 ights per year, Wingspan: 197ft 10in (60.3m) XWB’s largest fuselage section with room to logging some 1,700 to 1,800 hours annually in Length: 207ft 0in (63.1m) spare. Additionally, the Beluga XL’s 30% extra servicing 11 line stations at locations across the Height: 62ft 0in (18.9m) capacity compared to the Beluga ST provides company’s European industrial network. Max T/O weight: 281,089lb (127,500kg) potential to meet ramp-up needs for Airbus The initial Beluga XL made its maiden ight Powerplant: 2 x Rolls-Royce Trent 700 turbofan of single-aisle and widebody jetliners. on 19 July 2018 and will enter operation 71,000lb each Once in service, the eet of ve Beluga XLs in 2019, followed by two more Beluga XLs Max Speed: 458mph (737km/h) will be operated by Airbus Transport during 2020, and one each in 2021 and 2022 – Capacity: 111,333lb (50,500kg) International, Airbus’ fully-owned oversize enabling the Beluga STs to be retired during the payload transport subsidiary. Each aircraft will perform 2021-2023 timeframe. 92 OUTSIZE FREIGHTER
Above: The cavernous hold of the Beluga XL threatens to swallow up the jubilant lightcrew after its irst light.
Right: Two whales for the price of one. Super-sized relections highlight the distinctive nature of the Beluga XL.
Below: Somewhere beneath the bloated fuselage and new tail section lies the A330 heritage of the outsize freighter. AIRBUS BELUGA XL 93 94 SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLE Stratolaunch
n an issue full of ‘weird and wonderful’ aircraft, it is appropriate that we should Iend with the incomparable Stratolaunch. Two fuselages… six engines… and the world’s largest wingspan. And if that is not stratospheric enough, the task for which it is designed is... We all knew it was going to be big and innovative, but when the world got its rst glimpse of the Stratolaunch at Mojave Airport in May 2017, the scale of the aircraft was still a shock. Unmistakably a product of the visionary designer Burt Rutan, it is the largest of transporting crew. As the launch vehicles Above: Aviation has witnessed twin fuselage all-composite aircraft ever built. Backed by rocket into orbit, Stratolaunch will y back to designs before, but never on this scale. Microsoft co-founder, the late-Paul Allen, the a runway landing for reloading, refuelling and Right: Graphic showing the potential launch Stratolaunch mothership is designed to carry reuse. The carrier is designed to have a range vehicles for the Stratolaunch. rockets and launch space vehicles between its of 1,350 miles (2,200km) and will be able to two fuselages. It will take o conventionally carry up to 550,000lb of payload. Not only will Below right: The Stratolaunch undergoing taxi from a runway and once at 30,000ft (9,100m) it be the rst air-launch platform of this scale, trials at Mojave Airport. will drop its payload, which will then re but it will also rank among the largest aircraft its boosters and head into space with its in history – its wingspan alone stretches the Stratolaunch satellite. Initially, the aircraft will carry a single length of a football eld. The Stratolaunch Pegasus XL rocket built by Orbital ATK, but is powered by six Pratt & Whitney PW4000 Type: Space Launch Vehicle the craft will eventually be able to carry up to jet engines, sourced from two used Boeing Wingspan: 385ft 0in (117m) three of those boosters simultaneously. The 747-400s that were cannibalised for engines, Length: 238ft 4in (73m) Stratolaunch is also planned to carry a Medium avionics, ight deck, landing gear and other Height: 50ft 0in (15m) Launch Vehicle (optimised for short satellite proven systems to reduce initial development Max T/O weight: 1,300,000lb (589,670kg) integration timelines, a ordable launch and costs. As for those double fuselages, the right Powerplant: 6 x Pratt & Whitney exible launch pro les), and a Medium Launch houses the ight crew while the left contains PW4056 Vehicle – Heavy (a three-core MLV variant with ight data systems. Stratolaunch is scheduled capability to deploy heavier payloads to orbit). to be operational by the end of the decade, by Even more exciting and at an early planning which time this amazing aircraft will be a world stage is a Space Plane, a fully reusable vehicle record breaker in its own right. that enables advanced in-orbit capabilities and cargo return, with a follow-on variant capable
Below: The unmistakable in uence of Burt Rutan, aircraft designer extraordianaire, is all over the Stratolaunch. Power is supplied by six engines that once hauled Boeing 747-400s through the skies. STRATOLAUNCH 95 96 SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLE
Above: The massive Stratolaunch Systems carrier for aerial rocket launches was rolled out of its Mojave Air and Space Port hangar in Mojave, California for the irst time on 31 May 2017. STRATOLAUNCH 97 • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • SUB SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE
Aeroplane traces its lineage back to the weekly The Aeroplane launched in June 1911, and is still continuing to provide the best aviation coverage around. Aeroplane magazine is dedicated to offering the most in-depth and entertaining read on all historical aircraft.
www.aeroplanemonthly.com VE • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE •
GREAT SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS FROM
FlyPast is internationally regarded as the As Britain’s longest established monthly magazine for aviation history and heritage. aviation journal, Aviation News is renowned Having pioneered coverage of this fascinating for providing the best coverage of every world of ‘living history’ since 1980, FlyPast still branch of aviation. Each issue has the latest leads the fi eld today. Subjects regularly profi led news and in-depth features, illustrated with include British and American aircraft type the very best photography. Now incorporating histories, as well as those of squadrons and units JETS magazine, Aviation News brings you the from World War One to the Cold War. best of both magazines.
www.fl ypast.com www.aviation-news.co.uk
ALSO AVAILABLE DIGITALLY:
PC, Mac & iTunes Windows 10
1165/18
Available on PC, Mac and Windows 10 from
FOR THE LATEST SUBSCRIPTION DEALS VISIT: PHONE: www.keypublishing.com/shop (UK) 01780 480404 (Overseas) +44 1780 480404 WHEN YOU TAKE OUT A SUBSCRIPTION TO
MAKE HUGE SAVINGS UK BI-ANNUALLY DIRECT DEBIT Just £19.99 bi-annually, visit the website or call for details
Number Subscription UK EU US ROW FREE GIFT CARD of Issues WITH EVERY ORDER 6 1 Year £42.93 £49.99 $64.99 £54.99
Please quote: AA0119 Close Date: 31 January 2019 1164/18 2 EASY WAYS TO PAY Order online at Call UK 01780 480404 www.keypublishing.com/shop Overseas +44 1780 480404 OR Lines open 9.00am - 5.30pm GMT
See website or call for Direct Debit details.