From great wheezing imperial dinosaurs, via the drearily sensible to pleasingly mad speedsters, a ragtag bag of utterly appealing British airliners failed to enter service. Here are 11 of them.

11. Saunders-Roe Duchess ‘Pass the duchy on the port-hand side’

The Isle of Wight in the English Channel was the last place in England to convert to Christianity. Against the menacing onslaught of Christian Anglo-Saxons, the isle’s 7th century King Arwald was defeated after a spirited fight. Despite his plucky attempts to resist the imposition of a new popular idea, he lost. In much the same way, Saunders-Roe Limited, a British aero- and marine-engineering company, also based on the Isle of Wight, failed to defend their strong belief that airliners (and fighters for that matter) should take off from water.

Each British aircraft manufacturer embraced the new jet engine in their own style: Gloster fitted it to an unadventurous airframe, de Havilland made a fast tiny jet fighter and a fast radical airliner, while SARO, stayed in the happy niche of flying boats (aeroplanes that land on the water on their hulls). The very large airliner SARO wished to build required a lot of power; one de Havilland Ghost jet engine can power a Vampire fighter – four a Comet airliner – but the impressively large Saunders-Roe Duchess would need six.

The extravagant Duchess was the ripped trouser crotch of a nation straddling the past and the future. While its performance and propulsion pointed to the future, its basic concept of operating from the sea (and its name) were paddling in the past. Inheriting much from the Princess (see below) the Duchess would have offered 74 passengers an exciting and glamorous experience on routes of up to 2,600 miles. If as if this wasn’t already wild enough, US companies Convair and Martin both designed and considered nuclear-powered Princess derivatives. However, the Duchess was (probably quite sensibly) cancelled.

Even the grand Duchess would have had to curtsy when the Queen appeared on the jetty.

10. Saunders-Roe Queen ‘Size Queen’

There must be something wrong with the thrust figure I’m about to tell you. In fact, please correct me so I can sleep again. The Queen was intended to have 24 Rolls-Royce Conway jet engines giving it a mind-bending total of 444,000Ib* of thrust. That cannot be right. That’s more than the most powerful aircraft ever flown, the An-225, with its relatively puny 309,600lb of thrust. I’m not a fan of exclamation marks, but they are utterly appropriate for the other mad facts about the proposed Queen. Such as the intended 1000 passengers carried in the luxurious comfort levels of an ocean liner(!) Or the 3000-mile range (!) or the 40,000 feet ceiling! This barnacle-encrusted behemoth was intended for intercontinental flights, especially for the Britain-Australia route.

The Princess was started after SARO was approached by one J. Dundas Heenan, consulting engineer from the firm Heenan in the 1940s. If that name is familiar to readers – this is because this is the rather bizarre Major J. N. D. Heenan behind the futiristically terrible Planet Satellite. Acting on behalf of the P & O shipping company Heenan was interested in a vast flying ocean liner. If this seems odd, then so does so much of Heenan’s life. I’d recommend clicking on the link on his name above where you can find out a bit more about this mysterious man.

SARO’s Queen was breathtaking in its ambition and vision, and quite possibly insane. Neither P&O nor the British Government could have hoped to have funded such a massive project, and the Queen quietly died.

* Figures vary for the Queen’s Conway’s quoted thrust but we have seen 18,500Ibs.

9. TRAMP! ‘Super Tramp’

The Gotha bombing raids of 1917 caused comparatively little material damage but a psychological response bordering on hysteria, not least due to these seemingly unstoppable attacks being launched in daylight. Knee jerk reactions included rioting in the East End of London, the changing of the British Royal Family’s surname from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor, and the Air Board issuing a requirement for an aircraft able to bomb Berlin. The Handley-Page V/1500 resulted from this requirement as well as the altogether more obscure Bristol Braemar and ultimately the Tramp, a vast steam-powered airliner.

As conceived by Bristol’s chief designer Frank Barnwell (unusual amongst aircraft designers in being a qualified military pilot and at this point riding high on the massive success of his superlative F.2b fighter) the Braemar was to be powered by four engines in an ‘engine room’ within the fuselage driving two propellers on the wings by means of clutches and shafts. However, a more conventional layout of two engines mounted back to back between each wing had (sensibly) been adopted by the start of 1918. Not quite as radical a feature but still an unusual choice was the use of the triplane layout, adopted to give a large wing area whilst avoiding an overly long wingspan. Completed in August, the Braemar was intended to be powered by four 360hp Rolls-Royce Eagle engines but shortage of these units saw 230hp Sunbeam Pumas substituted instead. Despite a shortfall of over a third in power, the Puma engined Braemar delivered surprisingly good performance, achieving a speed of 106mph but was prone to vibration and strut failures. A Mk II Braemar with four 400hp Liberty engines proved highly satisfactory and was remarkably fast. Despite the built-in headwind of three wings and the profusion of struts and bracing wires holding them together, it attained 125mph, slightly faster than the F.2b fighter and a full 23mph quicker than its direct competitor the V/1500. Unfortunately for Bristol, the new Braemar only flew during 1919 by which time any hope of a production order had evaporated with the end of the war.

But, already contracted to build three prototypes, it was suggested by the Air Board that the third aircraft be completed with a new fuselage as a 14 seat airliner. This duly emerged as the Bristol Pullman and caused a sensation when it was exhibited at the Olympia Airshow in 1920 due to both its huge size and luxurious passenger accommodation. Unusually for its era, the Pullman boasted luxurious accommodation for the pilots as well, in a fully enclosed and prodigiously glazed cockpit – a feature predictably detested by the rugged pilots of the day as it compromised their view somewhat and they feared being trapped in the event of a crash. As a result, the Pullman test crew always brought axes aboard to hack their way out in the event of a mishap. Sadly, no airline orders were forthcoming but Barnwell had been in discussions with the Royal Mail Steam Packet shipping line about the possibility of using flying boats to transport passengers to and from ships at sea. With no experience of aircraft but a huge knowledge of steam turbine operations, the shipping company asked if Bristol could develop a 50 seat airliner powered by two closed cycle 1500hp Ljungström steam turbines. A Pullman development was proposed for the prototypes to develop the system to be followed by the definitive Tramp boats. Once again the power units were to be in the fuselage, driving propellers by shafts. Ultimately, the difficulties of creating a reliable high-pressure closed-loop steam system featuring boilers and condensers of a small enough size to fit in the aircraft proved insurmountable. Despite this, the two prototype Tramps were actually built but with four conventional Siddeley-Deasy Puma internal combustion engines in the engine room. All came to naught however as persistent problems with the clutch and gearbox system meant that flight was never attempted. This is a shame as had this aircraft proved successful, the enormous power and eerie smoothness of the steam turbine promised a level of speed, silence, and comfort in the mid-1920s unattainable by any aircraft until the advent of the turbojet.

8. BAC Three-Eleven ‘The Fat Troublemaker’

When I tweeted “Forget the bloody TSR-2, the BAC 3-111 was the biggest missed opportunity” there was a rather spicy reply from aviation journalist Bill Sweetman: “Bull (and I cannot emphasise too much) shite. I don’t know why this Three-Eleven mythology is emerging now. It was a BAC/RR spoiler after Airbus downsized the A300 (as in to 300 seats) to 250 and went with GE’s engines and HSA still doing the wing. With the rear engine weight penalty and RB.211-22, it would have far less growth potential than the A300B and certainly would have not developed into the A330/A340. Sure, Laker wanted it, but like the A300 it would have been too big for the charter biz.“

Depending on who you ask it was either the greatest lost opportunity of British aviation, or a wrong-headed deep-stall-cursed moneypit with the engines in the wrong place.

In the UK there were concerns that the Airbus A300 would not succeed, and a British wide-body with roots in the  One-Eleven was seen as a viable alternative. It would however, have required large amounts of government money, and with British airliners’ unenviable reputation for profitability and a new Conservative Government unenthusiastic about state-sponsorship – this was a big ask. There were serious concerns about the design’s potential for deep-stall, and valid doubts that the rear-engine configuration was the right choice for a wide body. To make matters even worse for the 3-11, Britain was about to join the European Economic Community and the thought of creating a competitor to the A300, a flagship of European cooperation, was politically and diplomatically stinky. Maybe Bill Sweetman is right after all.

6. Fairey Rotodyne ‘The Screaming Megabus of the Sky’

In 1976 The Who seized the record for World’s Loudest Band from Deep Purple. Richie Blackmore’s group had enjoyed this prestigious accolade since 1972 when, at a gig in London’s Rainbow Theatre, three members of the audience were said to have been rendered unconscious by the volume.  Measured at 126 dB 35m from a stage built at Charlton Athletic’s football ground, The Who’s new record stood for another eight years until broken by heavy metal band Manowar, after which the Guinness Book of Records abandoned the listing. Too likely to lead to hearing damage, they thought, depriving future generations of rock musicians this unholy race of eardrum destruction.  Sadly, years earlier this kind of ‘namby pamby, ‘elf and safety gone mad‘ attitude also did for an innovative British airliner that had looked set to change the way the world flew.

            ‘The Fairey Rotodyne,’ said the narrator of a promotional film produced by the manufacturer, ‘is the aircraft for fast, economical travel offering the advantages of air transport to everyone, everywhere.’  Following the first flight in 1957, the future had looked bright.  In flight-testing, the distinctive looking Rotodyne, resplendent in a smart blue and white livery, had set a world speed record and attracted the interest of airlines in Europe, North American and Japan.  The RAF wanted a dozen and there were rumours that the US Army was up for as many as 200. 

      A unique hybrid, the Rotodyne cruised like an aeroplane, carried by stub wings and a freewheeling main rotor mounted on top of the fuselage, but could land and take off like a helicopter by bleeding air from the two turboprop engines through jets on the tips of the rotor blades.  The merits of a fast, vertical take-off and landing, ‘flying bus’ capable of flying up to fifty passengers from city-centre to city centre were clear as Fairey’s advertising had claimed, but the failed to mention the noise.  That, though, was what everyone else was talking about.

      From over 150 metres away, the banshee scream of those four tip jets as loud as Baba O’Reilly from the mixing desk. Or a pneumatic drill from 15 metres.  If the sound of breathing is 10 dB, the noise of a Rotodyne arrival was a whole lot closer to the 194 dB level at which a noise can get no louder without simply becoming a shockwave. To be fair, a Eurofighter Typhoon departing in full afterburner is louder than a Rotodyne. But only by the equivalent of the sound of rustling leaves. And Typhoons don’t routinely operate from in and out of densely populated city centres, but from airbases deliberately located far from them. The whole point of the Rotodyne was that it would.

    Despite assurances from the project team that they could reduce it to acceptable levels, the siren scream of the Rotodyne became its defining characteristic. John Farley, the test pilot most closely associated with a British vertical take off success story, the Harrier, summed it up the general view: ”From two miles away it would stop a conversation. I mean, the noise of those little jets on the tips of the rotor was just indescribable. So what have we got? The noisiest hovering vehicle the world has yet come up with and you’re going to stick it in the middle of a city?“

        Airline interest melted away and early in 1962 the government pulled the plug.  By the end of the year the single prototype had been broken up for scrap.  As the Rotodyne was unceremoniously torn up in Hampshire, in West London Pete Townsend, Roger Daltrey and John Entwistle played together for the first time.

    Townsend now suffers from tinnitus and severe hearing loss. Similarly scarred by high volume, the UK’s aviation industry next attempt to build an airliner designed to fly in and out of urban airfields, prioritised reducing the noise footprint. 

So successful were they in doing so that they attracted glowing headlines and promoted the little BAe 146 as the ‘Whisperjet’.  Forty years on it remains in service with operators around the world, while all that remains of the spectacular, but unfortunate Rotodyne are a few sad bits and pieces in a museum in Weston-super-Mare.

• Rowland White, Author of this fabulous Mosquito book

5. MAYO! ‘Little & Large’

Potentially an exceptionally lucrative market, it was known that the Atlantic could be crossed by aeroplane since 1919 but remained tantalising just out of reach, in a practical sense at least, until the very last weeks of peace during 1939. The amount of fuel required to get an aircraft from London to New York (or vice versa) was simply so great that the aircraft could carry no passengers or cargo. To solve this seemingly insurmountable problem, Robert Mayo, Imperial Airways’ Technical General Manager proposed a system wherein a small, long-range seaplane on top of a larger carrier aircraft, used the combined power of both to bring the smaller aircraft to operational height, at which time the two aircraft would separate, the carrier aircraft returning to base while the other flew on to its destination. The upper component aircraft carried only mail so ultimately the description of the Mayo as an airliner is, frankly, pushing it a bit. Ah well.

The undeniably spectacular Mayo, consisted of a fairly heavily modified Short C-Class ‘Empire’ flying boat named ‘Maia’, and a totally new design, ‘Mercury’, the messenger of the Gods – though its not clear that the Romans had the delivery of air mail in mind for him originally. The connecting mechanism allowed for limited movement of both components relative to each other. When release was imminent, the flying trim of Mercury could be checked before the pilots released one lock each. The final lock holding the craft together was automatic, releasing Mercury when it achieved 3000 pounds-force (13 Kn). This meant that Mercury was effectively straining upwards and the effect was that on release Maia would tend to drop away whilst Mercury climbed sharply, minimising any chance of collision. The first separation was achieved in February 1938, followed by the first transatlantic flight on July 21st. After the Composite took off from Southampton, Mercury was released over Shannon in Ireland and continued alone to Boucherville, near Montreal in Canada, carrying half a ton of mail and newspapers. This represented the first commercial crossing of the Atlantic by a heavier-than-air aircraft. This was followed up by a record-breaking flight of 6,045 miles (9,728 km) from Dundee in Scotland to Alexander Bay in South Africa, between 6 and 8 October 1938. This remains the longest flight ever achieved by a seaplane. Ultimately aircraft development caught up with the Mayo composite. Although it achieved its design goal with considerable panache, it was an excessively complicated way to carry 1000 lbs of mail to America, not to mention colossally expensive. Economic calculations, hilariously carried out only after the construction of the Mayo composite showed that in order to turn even a minimal profit, it was necessary to prohibitively inflate postage costs. Thus, from the point of view of the Post Office the introduction of the Mayo made sense solely as a means to maintain the prestige of Great Britain as a credible aviation power: commercial success for the Mayo Composite was totally impossible.

• Ed Ward

4. Bristol Brabazon (1949) ‘The Village Slayer’

There was a lot going on in 1949, the Berlin Airlift ended, Churchill voiced his support for a European Union including Britain – and the results of a mass survey into the sexual behaviour of British people was deemed too spicy for publication. According to a BBC article on the survey, “One in four men admitted to having had sex with prostitutes, one in five women owned up to an extra-marital affair, while the same proportion of both sexes said they had had a homosexual experience.” When British people weren’t fucking they were designing lots of aeroplanes. Britain seemingly had more aircraft manufacturers than even extra-marital affairs.

Having recently studied a 100-ton bomber design in detail, in the mid 1940s the Bristol Aeroplane Company were in the best possible position to produce a massive transatlantic airliner. This was extremely ambitious for the time and Bristol would require the most powerful engines they could get their hands on, the seriously powerful Centaurus. Bristol had spent World War II making tough but relatively conservative or derivative designs, so this new venture was an extremely radical departure.

But technical problems, the high seat cost per mile from the luxurious low density configuration and the vast cost of the project all conspired to doom it to failure.

Plans to build a Mark II, with Proteus turboprops were scuppered by delays in the Proteus programme. The equivalent of £375 million was lost in the project – as was a village. But half of that figure paid for building work to the Filton plant that would aid many later aircraft projects.

Background

The history of post-war civil aircraft development in Britain is inextricably bound up with the deliberations of the Brabazon Committee. This was formed in December 1942, following a request from Winston Churchill, and was tasked with considering the development of civil air transport, in the context of British aircraft manufacture having been exclusively directed at the production of military aircraft. Any new aircraft would need to compete with American transport aircraft and their developments, with obvious examples including the Douglas DC-3, DC-4 and Lockheed Constellation, as well as subsequent US aircraft developments.

Although widely criticised, the Brabazon Committee proposed a series of specifications, from which successful and innovative aircraft designs were developed, funded through the UK Ministry of Supply. These included the ground-breaking de Havilland Comet and Vickers Viscount, the impressive Bristol Britannia, and the de Havilland Dove. Less successful designs included the Airspeed Ambassador and Miles Marathon, while the Bristol Brabazon, Armstrong-Whitworth Apollo, and (tangentially) the Saunders-Roe Princess can only be considered as failures.

3. Saunders-Roe Princess ‘The Salty Princess’

BOAC considered (in 1945) that there was still a market for long-range and luxurious flying boats, and the Princess was proposed by Saunders-Roe, and succeeded in attracting funding from the Ministry of Supply to meet a requirement to transport 100 passengers from London to New York, and on broader routes around the Empire to destinations that did not have large airports.

One aircraft only was flown, the largest all-metal flying boat ever to have been constructed. Powered by no less than 10 Proteus turboprops, with a ’double-bubble’ pressurised fuselage, it made only 46 flights, commencing in August 1952. Sadly, by this time, BOAC had ceased flying boat operations, having observed the widespread availability of airfields worldwide capable of operating the de Havilland Comet. As a result, the Princess project, which BOAC had itself initiated, was cancelled.

With no market for large civil flying boats, the three aircraft built were cocooned, and slowly corroded away until being scrapped in 1967. A fabulously impressive-looking aircraft, but a martyr to a failure to realise that the world had changed since the days of the Empire flying boat.

– Jim Smith

2. Armstrong Whitworth AW55 Apollo ‘Mamba Number 55’

From the majestically batshit, we turn to the elegantly sensible Apollo. The Brabazon IIB requirement was for a turboprop regional airliner of relatively short-range and modest capacity. Two aircraft were developed in response to this, the Vickers Viscount, powered by Rolls-Royce Dart engines, and the Apollo, powered by the Armstrong-Siddeley Mamba. British European Airways, the intended customer, was initially wary of the risks involved with these new turbo-prop engine designs, and ordered the Airspeed Ambassador instead, leaving the Ministry of Supply as the initial customer for both the Viscount and the Apollo.

Development of the Dart proceeded rapidly, with initial flight trials in 1947, and first flight of the Viscount prototype in July 1948. Further development led to series production of 445 Viscounts, with worldwide sales and a long service life.

Development of the Mamba, however proved more problematic. Flight tests of the engine began in October 1947, but the Apollo was not ready for flight until April 1949, and proved to have number of problems with both engine and airframe. Initial flights showed poor longitudinal and directional stability, and modifications were introduced to increase tailplane span and increase fin area. The second prototype, with more powerful engines, flew in December 1952, by which time further development of the Apollo had been cancelled, and BEA had ordered the stretched and more powerful Viscount 700.  

So, the Apollo missed the boat, and never benefitted from the increase in power and increase in fuselage length which turned the Viscount into a commercial success. However, the Apollo was a very attractive looking aircraft, and, but for the delays experienced in maturing the engine and airframe, might have been a worthy competitor to the Viscount.

Aircraft combining new airframes with new engines are always a risky proposition, and perhaps the Brabazon Committee over-reached itself in an attempt to differentiate future UK civil aircraft from war surplus US transports. In the event, the Brabazon, Princess, Apollo, Britannia and Comet all paid the price, encountering development delays and unanticipated problems which provided an opportunity for the US to outmatch and surpass all the Brabazon aircraft except the Viscount. Though the rather daft Princess thoroughly deserved its fate, in contrast, the attractive Apollo was unlucky and should have enjoyed a happier fate.

• Jim Smith

3. Avro 722 Atlantic (1952) ‘Vulcan-do’

Flying from London to New York in an airliner based on the Avro Vulcan in less than seven hours would have been a truly remarkable way to travel. Intended for up to 113 passengers, who presumably didn’t mind a bit of noise, the 200,000Ib 600mph Atlantic was not pursued. A bonkers idea from the perspective of economy of operation – but absolutely appealing in terms of delivering noise-loving aesthetes a lovely silver monster. We asked aircraft noise expert Michael Carley his view of the Atlantic and he noted, “If you’re comparing to conventional subsonic airliners, it would certainly be louder than any modern airliner. It would probably have been much louder than any contemporary as well. FAA data taken at Dulles for Concorde and wide- and narrow-body airliners in the seventies have Concorde 10-15dB louder than the other airliners.” Though without reheat, the Atlantic is probably most comparable to Concorde in noise terms.

2. Vickers VC.7 (Vickers V.1000) ‘

“I wish this evening to raise the question of what is to me one of the most disgraceful, most disheartening and most unfortunate decisions that has been taken in relation to the British aircraft industry in recent years. I refer, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply will know, to the question of the cancellation of the contract for the Vickers V-1000 aircraft. My first point is that it is vital to Britain in every sense, in aviation—in the field of industrial work and in the earning capacity of our industry—that we should be able to produce in our home industry a long-range pure jet aircraft which will be capable of coping with the first-class Trans-Atlantic passenger demand. It is, therefore, opportune to ask what are the likely developments in aviation over the next ten or fifteen years in the various aircraft groupings of which we know—the long-range turbo-prop, the long-range pure jet, the medium-range jet and the medium range turbo-prop aircraft? I would have thought that it was almost inevitable that the long-range turbo-prop, which, even today, everyone admits will be able to cope in a few years’ time only with the second-class traffic, will be swallowed up in the relatively near future by the pure jet aircraft. Therefore, the medium-range jet, because of its specialised type of construction and because of the very decided limits of its range, will be superseded in its turn by the long-range pure jet. Meanwhile, the medium-range turbo-prop aircraft which is at present produced and marketed solely in this country will survive, but against inevitably increasing United States competition. The conclusion I draw from these facts is that there is an urgent need for the British industry to be able to produce a long-range pure jet first-class trans-Atlantic aircraft. That can be produced by the British industry and, in fact, there is one potential aircraft available today. If my conclusion is right, that we shall see within the next ten to fifteen years developments to the point where the long-range pure jet aircraft scoops the pool, I would ask my hon. Friend what British aircraft is there which will be available in that period, other than the Vickers V-1000? The Minister of Supply, outside this House, has stated recently that the Vickers V-1000 exists only on paper. Can my hon. Friend tell me where else the D.C.8, for example, exists today except on paper? One reads in the newspapers that there are orders in the region of 200 plus for this aircraft, which exists only on paper. Perhaps, in parenthesis, it is worth saying that of the £2,300,000 that has thus far been invested in the Vickers V-1000 aircraft not one penny has been spent on the civil version except by the firm itself. For a few moments I want to deal with the criticisms which have been bandied about both in public and in private. The most obvious one, of which my hon. Friend will have heard so often, is the weight growth. I understand that the company concerned in making this aircraft originally estimated that the basic weight would be about 96,000 lb. That has subsequently grown to about 112,000 lb. That sounds a rather surprising increase, but in heavy aircraft construction this growth, of about 20 per cent. is nothing unusual. It is in the normal form of aircraft development. There are, however, two points which are highly relevant upon this question. The first is that the weight growth has been completely matched, through the years, by an equal growth in the engine power needed to get this aircraft into the air”

• Paul Williams (Sunderland, South) (Hansard) debated on Thursday 8 December 1955

Britain got extremely close to producing the first big transatlantic jet airliner in the world with the VC7. This would have been a civil spin-off of an RAF transport loosely based on the Valiant V-bomber. The military transport, the V.1000, would have supported the global deployment of V-bomber force, to fly in spare parts and crew at the same great speed and with convenient parts commonality with the Valiant. It would have incorporated the latest propulsion technology, the turbofan (a turbojet featuring a ducted fan) offering less noise than the turbojet, and greater efficiency at subsonic airspeeds. Turbofans have since become de rigueur for airliners – so Vickers were clearly backing a winner. Many have agreed that the cancellation of the V.1000 and so VC7 was a killer blow to large British airliners, but the later VC10 would show that the national predilection for unnecessary short field performance and Boeing-loving airlines were equally powerful forces acting against the success of a British ‘Jumbo’. British aircraft of this time often prioritised aerodynamic efficiency of maintainability and the VC7 with its sleekly buried engines, would likely have been another example, not to mention how difficult it would have made the retrofitting of later larger engines.

1. Hawker Siddeley Aviation Type 1011 ‘The Supersonic Sex Tiger’

An orgasm of sleek aerodynamics, the 1011 was one of the few aeroplanes so attractive that it could have gone to a bar with Concorde and not be overlooked as the plain plane friend. Designed to be barely supersonic (M1.15 at full tilt) to avoid the overland route limitations of sonic booms, it nevertheless employed an extremely bold form calling to mind the fictive Carreidas 160 from the Belgian comic book Tintin’s Flight 614.

A seductive blend of a delta t-tail, sumptuous curves, sword-like variable geometry wings and four high bypass ratio Rolls-Royce RB 178/1B turbofan engines pumping out a combined 100,000-Ibs of thrust would have created an utterly charismatic aeroplane. But it would have also have been extremely maintenance heavy while offering a marginal, rather than transformative, reduction in journey times. Still, one can dream.

“Geoff Richards worked on the aircraft and commented to Hush-Kit, “Brings back a few memories. I joined HSA’s Advanced Projects Group straight from college in 1966. At the time the 1011 was on the back burner and the main interest was the military 1034. It was around 1971, I think, that there was a bit of renewed interest in the 1011 and I was tasked with seeing if the wing design could be improved with Robin Lock’s new aerofoils, as indeed it could. That was the last hurrah for the project, as shortly afterwards APG lost the projects part of its remit and was reassigned to manage HSA’s research work. The basic idea of avoiding sonic boom was certainly OK, but the complexity associated with an area-ruled passenger cabin and the relatively small speed advantage were against it. The fact that no-one else has tried the idea speaks for itself.”

Further excellent reading on the 1101

You can boast/complain/rant about knowing types not on this list in the comments section though I may take some time to approve these as I’m working through a large backlog of comments.

We counted the number of kills per Spitfire mark so you don’t have to. Here are the top 10.

10. Spitfire Mark VII – 24 victories
Victories per air-frame: 0.16

The pointy seven as high as heaven

Spitfire VII – ‘phenomenal with pointy wing tips and a phenomenal rate of climb.’

Gareth Nowell, Jack Cleland, A.D.Yeardley 2

The Mark VII was designed to counter what turned out to be the over-hyped threat of high-altitude Luftwaffe bombers (in the shape of the Junkers Ju 86P). This would help drive the crucial development of the two-stage supercharger, leading to a transformation of Spitfire performance starting in 1942. The first of the high altitude models had been the Mark VI, which saw some action and managed a handful of victories, which was basically a Mark V with a semi-pressurised cockpit (which rather worryingly came with a non-slidable canopy) and longer pointy wings. This was adapted into the much better Mark VII, which replaced the Mark VI and would equip three squadrons, flying operationally from Spring 1943 to late summer 1944.

While the VII superb plane that matched the Mark IX in almost every way, the problem for the IX was that the it was the same the other way around; the Mark IX matched the Mark VII in every way, higher altitude performance, and was introduced sooner with great effect. As a result, just 146 Mark VIIs were built. Though few, they would be used effectively in Channel sweeps and ramrod raids, racking up 24 victories. 602 Squadron’s Ian Blair flew a Mark VII in the Orkneys and loved it, succinctly summarising the aircraft as ‘phenomenal with pointy wing tips and a phenomenal rate of climb’.

9. Seafire IIC / III – 37 victories
0.03 victories per airframe (10^th)
Richard Reynolds 3.83

‘Like a Duck to Weightlifting‘

It’s a bit of a cheat to aggregate the main two Seafire marks which saw action in World War 2, but otherwise only one mark would fit this review. The Seafire was an attempt to make the Spitfire something it wasn’t – a carrier-borne fighter. It had very significant problems – the small narrow undercarriage, fragile fuselage, forward view over the long Merlin engine, and a very limited range and loiter time. Yet its biggest problem was timing – it missed its great opportunity to impact the war by just a couple of months. Seafire squadrons weren’t ready for the one vital mission where its short-range interception qualities would have been perfect: the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta, where Sea Hurricanes, Fulmars and Wildcats battled a concerted Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica assault. Thereafter, with the war turning decisively towards the allies, and despite performing intensive patrol duties and racking up an impressive record of landing accidents during the North African, Italian and French landings, it got very little opportunity to show off its real fighting virtues once in the air. In 1945 it would get an opportunity in the Pacific as the Royal Navy joined the US Navy in the final battles over Okinawa and Japan. They proved notably adept at intercepting kamikazes, and were probably would have been more able to combat powerful new Japanese shore-based models like the Shiden and Ki-100 than the hitherto superb Hellcat, but the Seafire ran out of war, with its highest daily total of seven victories on the very last day of the war, August 15 1945.

8. Spitfire Mark XVI – 40 victories
0.04 victories per air frame (9^th)

The best sixteen ain’t a Viper

Stephen Butte (Can) 3

While its number matched its chronological order of its arrival in late 1944, the Mark XVI confusingly arrived in service a full year after the Mark VIII and Mark XIV, which were both superior in performance. This stemmed from the fact that the Mark XVI was basically a Mark IX but used US Packard-built Merlin 266 engines instead of the home-grown RR Merlins. A big plus clearly was to take advantage of the US production line of Merlins. But the opportunity to take advantage of mass production at the cost of cutting-edge excellence is just so-unSpitfire. Not that it was a bad fighter – it was on a par with the still-excellent Mark IX and quite a few XVIs sported the bubble canopy, giving a step up in visibility, and clipped wings, being used in a fighter-bomber role. It started equipping squadrons in late December 1944, as attrition from the European campaign started to bite, but for most squadrons it arrived too late for the war. With much of its focus on ground attack missions, including attacks on V2 launch sites, the Mark XVI was not one of the highest scoring models, with just forty victories altogether, including three in a single mission by Canadian Stephen Butte.

Many Mark XVIs were built with the all-round view bubble canopy and cutback rear fuselage, more associated with Griffon-engined Spits. By the way, you can already pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here, it looks to be amazing.

7. Spitfire Mark XII – 53 victories

The lucky 7
0.53 victories per airframe
Raymond Harries (Wal) 10.5; Grey Stenborg (NZl) 4.33

The Mark XII was the first Griffon-engined Spitfire to reach production – a hastily lashed together hybrid, borrowing Spitfire V and later Spitfire VIII airframes, with the Griffon requiring a disproportionately stretched nose and propellor spinner, topped off with sawn-off wings.  It proved an excellent low-level fighter using a single-stage supercharger, yet just 100 were built as effort quickly switched when the twin-stage version, the Mark XIV, arrived soon after. As a result, the XII equipped just two squadrons at its peak – 41 and 91, between April 1943 to September 1944. It proved an ideal candidate to tackle nuisance Focke-Wulf Jabo raiders. As the 91 Squadron diary related, ‘We got the Huns tonight, five of them, all in the drink…’ 

The Mark XII also flew fighter escort for early B-17 raids and ‘rhubarb’ missions, with B-26 Marauders – with notable success. Indeed, 91 Squadron with its XIIs would be the top-scoring squadron of September 1943 with 18 victories, led by their inspirational leader, Welshman Raymond Harries. Despite this, the Mark XII would have a short career, being phased out of the front line in September 1944 as both its squadrons re-equipped with Mark XIVs.

Raymond Harries – top Welsh ace of WW2, and also top scorer in Griffon-engined Spitfires,
all scored in the Mark XII (10.5 of his 16.5 victories).

6. Spitfire Mark XIV – 154 victories

A 14 with more one more kill than the F-14 Tomcat

0.17 victories per air frame
Aces: Harold Walmesley (Rho) 9.25, Ian Ponsford (Eng) 7

The Mark XIV was the classic Griffon-engined mark, and makes a compelling bid to be the best fighter of the war, with an astonishing climb rate of nearly 5,000 feet per minute and speed just shy of 450 mph. With its bubble canopy, stretched, cut-back fuselage and enlarged tail fin, the Spit XIV was very different beast to the puppy-like Mark I. It was the first Griffon Spit with the new two-stage supercharger, and the first Spitfire to break 2,000 horsepower. And like the Spitfire IX, the Mark XIV was actually intended as a stopgap until the more thoroughly revised Mark XVIII arrived. The not quite perfect, yet sensational, Mark XIV thus arrived with squadrons in time to make a real impact on the air war.

The first Mark XIV squadrons arrived with 610 Squadron in early 1944, and while opportunities for conventional air combat over Britain were minimal, these high performance fighters were ideal to counter a sinister new threat, the V1 pilotless bomb. Spit Mark XIVs would shoot down 249 V1s – with 185 claimed by 91 squadron alone (exceeded only by two Tempest squadrons). The first deployment on the continent would be in late 1944, and the Mark XIV’s first victories came late – on 23^rd January 1945, when Pilot Officers Benham and Hegerty despatched three Fw190 Doras. After this, the Mark XIV started to take an increasingly important role in enforcing air superiority.  The five weeks from the start of April 1945 to the war’s end saw the Mark XIV achieve total dominance wherever it flew. They amassed 90 victories and produced some of the war’s last aces, such as 130 Squadron’s Harold Walmsley and Ian Ponsford, who considered the Mark XIV as ‘the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything’. 91 Squadron reported 33 victories in this period without a scratch to a single plane in aerial combat. Not withstanding the presence of jets, the war ended with the Spitfire as dominant as at any time in the previous six years of war.

5. Spitfire Mark VIII – 202 victories
0.14 kills per air frame

Top aces: Albert Houle 7, Neville Duke 6, Robert Day 5.5

The gorgeous Mark VIII was what the Mark IX would have been without the need to rush it into service. It was in essence the ultimate Merlin Spitfire. It took a number of design refinements from the two excellent high altitude Spitfire Marks VI and VII, such as the pointed tail fin, retractable tail wheel (but not the pressurised cockpit). It was also fully tropicalised, and its combat career would be restricted to warmer climes – the Mediterranean and India/Burma campaigns.

Though exquisite in performance and in looks, the Mark VIII didn’t accumulate a lot of victories – the Mark V and Mark IX had already done a great job of decimating the Luftwaffe before the Mark VIIIs arrival in Italy in late 1943. However, they did provide excellent service, and an interesting aspect of the VIII’s arrival was it came to the RAF (and SAAF) and USAAF at the same time, and served alongside comparable numbers of Mark IXs (and also Mark Vs), so a friendly comparison can be made in terms of its performance (see table). This suggests the VIII had a distinct edge in air combat over the Mark IX, recording a stellar air-to-air kill ratio just shy of 10.

Table showing Spitfire victories and losses over Anzio and Cassino, January to March 1944. Note heavy losses to AA and mechanical failure as Spitfires were increasingly employed in ground attack operations – particularly the old Mark Vs.

	RAF			USAAF
	Kills	Losses (air)	Losses (AA/mech)	Kills	Losses (air)	Losses (AA/mech)	Air-to-air kill ratio
Mk V	2	1	19	37	7	12	4.88
Mk VIII	51	7	15	28	1	2	9.88
Mk IX	42	11	19	33	4	5	5.00

In Burma, the Mark VIIIs timely deployment in January 1944 was transformative. At the Admin Box, General Slim had trained his forces to stand fast after being surrounded, the key being that the cut-off forces were to be supplied by air – this despite Japanese air superiority. In just three days, just two squadrons of Mark VIIIs mauled the Japanese fighter and bomber formations, registering over fifty claims of destroyed or damaged. Not a single Dakota flying into the Box was lost, with the result that it held firm, and the first major victory against the Japanese Army was achieved. Victory after victory followed for Slim and the 14^th Army, and Mark VIIIs would be unchallenged by an increasingly scarce Japanese Army Air Force thereafter.

.

4. Spitfire Mark II – 334 victories
0.36 per airframe

Top aces: Douglas Bader 10.5; Harbourne Stephen 7.5

Fated to be one of the most overlooked marks, the Mark II arrived towards the end of the Battle of Britain, with Sailor Malan’s 74 Squadron the first to receive it on 24^th September. Such was the pace of fighter development, it was being replaced by the Mark V in the spring of 1941.

There was plenty to fix on the Mark I so the Mk II included some sensible developments. It featured an uprated Merlin XII engine with 140 more horse-power, while experimentation with cannon armament continued. Spitfire IIs would also all be fitted with ‘Miss Shilling’s orifice,’ in early 1941, which prevented the engine cutting out when inverted or rolling. Yet perhaps the main significance of the Mark II is that it was the first to be churned out by the controversial state-financed Castle Bromwich plant, once Lord Beaverbrook had fired Lord Nuffield for its chaotic failure to deliver earlier Spitfires, a failure which might even have cost the war.

In combat, it provided a modest step forward on the Mark I, and it would see some action in the late stages of the Battle of Britain, but it would mainly be a victim of poor tactical deployment: Douglas and Leigh Mallory’s ‘lean towards France’, when this short-range interceptor was despatched on an interminable and wasteful cross-Channel Circus and Rhubarb operations. In July 1941, the month of peak folly when 116 Spits were lost, nearly half (54) were Mark IIs. This was also the period of ops when RAF overclaiming reached 6 to 1, so it seems very likely the Mark II had both the highest overall overclaim rate of any Spitfire mark, and even worse (and uniquely), suffered more air-to-air losses than actual victories. Unlike the Mark V, it didn’t get a second chance overseas.

3. Spitfire Mark I – 1353 victories
Victories per airframe:  0.86 (1^st)
Top aces: Eric Lock 21; Colin Gray 16.2; Brian Carbury 15.75

Obviously the Spitfire Mark I played the starring role in the most significant air battle of all time. Not only that, but as a warm-up, the Spitfire was thrown into the equally desperate struggle of Dunkirk to make its proper debut in battle. The only argument is the degree to which the Spit I deserves the plaudits, given the work by its more numerous partner, the less photogenic Hurricane. What isn’t in doubt is that no fighter marked its arrival with a bigger victory.

Spitfire Is scored 19 victories in the Phoney War, beginning with the destruction of a Heinkel He111 over the Firth of Forth on October 16^th 1939. Unlike the Hurricane, they were kept out of the disasters in Norway and France, but the Dunkirk emergency saw 16 Spitfire squadrons rotated in and out of the air battle, a tough baptism with so much at stake. It was a challenging debut – poor RAF tactics like the close vic formation contributed to unnecessary losses, as did an attempt to introduce big wing tactics. On the plus side, pilots who would become indelibly associated with the Spitfire, namely Al Deere, Bob Stanford Tuck and Sailor Malan, emerged as aces, and they inflicted serious losses were inflicted on the Luftwaffe, with 161 victories (not counting a significant overclaim).

Dunkirk was followed swiftly by the Battle of Britain, the most intensive few months of fighter combat in RAF history. Opinion is split on just how much credit the Spitfire deserves in the battle, but the fact that the Spitfire was at least a match for the Me109 was an absolute keystone to battle tactics and to victory. As the table below bears out, Spitfires shot mainly fighters down, while Hurricanes, a (marginally) better gun platform, recorded a higher proportion of bombers. Spitfire squadrons also tended to be higher scoring. They both played a huge part in a magnificent victory.

	Total est. victories	Victories/ squadron	Me109	Me110	Stukas	Bombers
Spitfire	1156	60.8	56%	12%	3%	24%
Hurricane	1480	46.25	36%	20%	10%	33%

Yet despite this monumental contribution to one of the most consequential air battles of all time, the Mark I would disappear in the blinking of the eye. The Merlin II /III engines were competitive for 1940, despite one or two quirks (like the that the carburettor flooding the engine in an inverted dive), but the Mark II was already being phased in by the Autumn. This was perhaps fortunate for the Mark I’s impeccable combat record, as it was almost entirely replaced by Mark IIs by March 1941, and just four Mk 1s would be lost in Leigh Mallory’s ill-conceived Circus and Rhubarb operations.

Top-scoring Mark I pilot and leading ace of the Battle of Britain, Shropshire’s Eric ‘Sawn off’ Lock, who scored 21 victories in the Mark I.

• Spitfire Mark IX – 1520 victories
  Victories per air frame: 0.25 (5^th)

Top aces: Johnny Johnson (Eng) 29.08; Donald Laubman (Can), Wilfred Crawford-Compton (NZl) 15

The arrival of the Mark IX in June 1942 was the moment that put the world back on its axis and restored the Spitfire to its rightful place as the best fighter in the world, coinciding directly with the tide of the war turning irrevocably. Jeffrey Quill described the Spitfire IX as a ‘quantum leap’, and the mark would serve in the majority of RAF squadrons for the remaining three years of war with distinction.

In design terms, it wasn’t actually a quantum leap. It was the Mark V air frame modified to accommodate the new, larger and more powerful Merlin 61, equipped with Stanley Hooker’s two-stage supercharger. It provided the boost that meant the Spitfire IX matched the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in key measures like speed and climb rate, provided better manoeuvrability and best of all, provided stunning high-altitude performance. The IX marked the end of the Focke-Wulf supremacy, with its first operations being to pick up the wretched Circus and Rhubarb fighter sweeps, with some IXs involved in the Dieppe fiasco. They also provided escort for US 8^th Air Force formations for their first year of operations, and although their range seriously limited their use here, they proved excellent at minimising US bomber losses. They gave way to the much longer range P-47s and P-51s at end of 1943.

The Mark IX also joined the final stages of the Tunisian campaign, dealing handily with considerable Luftwaffe reinforcements. The arrival of the Spit IX, would help ensure another arrival, the Focke-Wulf Fw190, would have quite limited impact in the theatre, and in Sicilly and Italy, they attained dominance over Luftwaffe fighters in a way not seen before in the war. However, the Spitfire IX’s greatest achievements were over Normandy and Western Europe following D-Day, where they helped ensure air superiority despite ever more Luftwaffe fighters being thrown into the fray. The Spitfire IX was involved in some huge air battles, with the Canadian Fighter Wing racking up some impressive scores under the leadership of the top Spitfire ace of all time, Johnny Johnson. Spit IXs amassed 393 victories over Normandy in the weeks following D-Day. Spit IXs also scored heavily in the fighting over Belgium and the Netherlands, and a Mark IX from the Canadian 401 Squadron would be the first to shoot down the new Me262 jet on 5^th October 1944. On December 29^th, Norwegian and Canadian Spit squadrons massacred the elite III / JG54 ‘Green heart’ gruppe, destroying 17 of the new Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Doras and killing the commander and 122-victory ace, Robert Weiss.

Like the Mark V, the IX was also heavily used by customers – it started to replace the V with the US 31^st and 52^nd Fighter Groups in Tunisia, Sicilly and Italy, while the Soviets also took 1200 Mark IXs, and although they were employed in a prestigious city defence role, they scarcely saw any action. Mark IXs were also at the heart of the bizarre three-way Spitfire battle during the Palestinian crisis of 1948. In the end, this superlative model amassed over 1,500 victories, remaining fully competitive and playing a great role in securing battlefield air supremacy right up to the final day of the war in Europe.

The greatest of Spitfire aces, Johnny Johnson, leader of the Canadian fighter wing of Mark IXs over a Luftwaffe airbase. Johnson shot down 21 Fw190s – more than any other allied pilot.

1. Spitfire Mark V – 2560 victories (1st)
   0.39 victories per airframe (3^rd)

Top aces: George Buerling (Can) 29.33; Jamie Rankin (Eng) 18.75; Adrian Goldsmith (Aus) 16.25

The Mark V is never anyone’s favourite Spitfire. It was clearly outclassed by the Focke-Wulf Fw190, whose arrival caused a major panic in RAF circles, and even led to a loss of faith in the Spit itself. It formed the majority of Spits during Douglas and Leigh Mallory’s ineffective and wasteful Circus and Rhubarb operations of 1941, so became inextricably associated with that failure. The numbers simply embarrassed it. The period of June to December 1941 saw big claims – but 713 claims translated into just 103 Me109s lost to enemy action with 413 Spits lost in the same period.  And this was before the Mark V was comprehensively outclassed by the arrival of the Focke-Wulf Fw190, with the humiliation of the Channel Dash and the massive losses in the air battle over Dieppe.

Mark Vs were also the first to model Vokes and Aboukir filters, clipped wings and other such abominations which undoubtedly thwarted the original Spit’s sleek beauty. As the first Spitfire to be exported, it was despised by the Soviets, who briefly used and abused 200 Spitfire Vs during the Kuban campaign, and ultimately rejected it for the Airacobra. Even in Australia, it disappointed in the raids over Darwin where it failed to dish out the expected trouncing of Japanese raiders (although it still saw them off with minimal damage to the towns and bases in northern Australia).

And yet, in early 1942, the Spitfire V would re-invent itself by going international. It turned out this apparently mediocre fighter was exactly the plane to drop into a strategically hopeless situation facing Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica dominance. The Air Ministry finally prised a handful of squadrons of Spitfires from Douglas and Leigh Mallory and sent them to the besieged island of Malta, followed by further aircraft to the Libyan/ Egyptian front, where things were taking a truly dark turn in early 1942. The effect was really quite dramatic – particularly in Malta.

After the heroic mission to fly Spitfires off the decks of carriers to Malta, just five squadrons of Mark Vs turned a desperate situation around. The Canadian George Buerling led a pack of aces, running up 27 victories in just four months of fighting. Spitfire claims in Malta eventually reached over 680 victories. In North Africa, just three squadrons of Spitfires would provide top cover, holding the legendary JG27 desert wing at bay while Coningham’s Desert Air Force fighter bombers wrought havoc below among the Afrika Korps. In both cases, the Spitfire V, under the superb fighter generalship of Park, Coningham and others, played a hugely significant tactical role in consequential strategic victories. Further success followed in Algeria – once again, Spitfires were flown into a hot spot miles beyond allied territory, the very recently Vichy French Bone and Maison Blanche airfields, to face a furious Luftwaffe response. In one of the last periods where RAF fighters faced huge odds, the Spit Vs performed superbly, scoring 144 victories in just a month’s fighting – victories which matched closely recorded Luftwaffe losses. Even the arrival of its successor, the Mark IX, gave the Mark V a new lease of life – suddenly even Focke-Wulf pilots had to be more careful when dealing with Spits in case they attacked the new super-charged version. Over Sicilly, Spitfire Vs and IXs together achieved a kill ratio of 5:1, achieving an aerial dominance for the allies which was never lost; on one occasion, a Luftwaffe transport formation and its Me109 escort was mauled with Spitfires claiming 26 victories for no losses – 24 were credited to Mark Vs.

The upshot of all this was that the Spitfire V, despite its technical inferiority, mustered a heroic list of RAF battle honours, achieving crucial aerial victories which turned the tide of the war – and when all is added up, scored more victories than any other Spitfire mark. In looking at the final score sheet, we need to acknowledge that Spit Vs were the most heavily involved mark in the misguided ‘Non-stop offensive’ of 1941 where there was a startling level of overclaiming – at one stage passing six confirmed claims per Luftwaffe loss. This fell to about 2 to 1 in the Malta and North African air battles – and was below 1.5 to 1 in Tunisia and Sicilly. So even factoring an overall overclaim of a little over 2, there is little doubt that the Mark V was the top-scoring Spitfire.

Top Spitfire Mark V pilot was the maverick Canadian George Buerling, who outscored several great Luftwaffe aces, such as Joachim Muncheberg, Gerhard Michalski and Siegfried Freytag to be the top-scoring ace on either side during the Battle of Malta, scoring 27.33 victories (of his 31.33 total).

Notes

As always with aerial combat statistics, it comes with major caveats. Firstly, the numbers given are estimated confirmed claims, gleaned painstakingly from a number of authoritative but occasionally conflicting sources, but with no single complete data set. Where there are gaps I’ve made best estimates, so error might have crept in, and I’m happy to recalibrate if there is new or conflicting information. Secondly, the numbers are for victories confirmed by the RAF or allied authorities, which famously can vary considerably from actual losses suffered by Axis forces.

We’ve had issues with YouTubers plagiarising our articles , if you see this happening please let us know.

-Numbers compiled by Eddie Rippeth

You can make The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 happen here

• FUNDING IS VERY LOW FOR THIS SITE
• Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Hush-Kit depends on your donations to keep going, and funding is currently very low. If you love this madness then do support us, we may need to pause service if we can’t increase funding levels.
• If you like books, and you do, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is now on general release and is bloody lovely. A big glossy feast of irreverent humour, delectable facts, thrilling combat pilot interviews, VERY obscure aircraft types, and MUCH more. You can order it here..

I’d like to create a series of crowd-funded Hush-Kit books about aviation. I want them to be different from any other aviation books. I wish these to be produced relatively swiftly. I am looking for unconventional thinkers to work on this project. An interest in aviation history and/or an arts background is useful but not essential.

The following skillsets will be useful

• Book designers with experience of art books, extremely beautiful books or style magazines
• A person with with experience of book project management
• A person with experience of book production and/or distribution
• Someone with experience of book promotion

These are not regular job positions but roles on projects, we would likely agree on a fixed one-off fee per project but this is up for discussion.

If this interests you (and you have one or more of the aforementioned skillsets) contact me at hushkiteditorial@gmail.com with subject line Project Baboon

Former- RAF Tornado F3 pilot interview

The prospect of facing the most potent Russian fighters in a sluggish converted bomber was a sobering prospect, but as former Tornado F3 pilot Jon Dunn explains, there were reasons to be confident.

Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

Did Tornado F3 crews think it was likely they would have faced Soviet/Russian escort fighters in the event of war? And if so, how do they feel about the possibility?

Quite likely. Not too worried about it really, our situational awareness and weapons were generally better. So long as the rules of engagement were there to allow a Beyond Visual Range engagement – which in a shooting war there would be.  The tactics, doctrine and surveillance assets along with our C3I (Command, Control, Communications and Information) would give us the ability to effectively engage a threat at range and negate the superior manoeuvrability of the modern fighter threat. But, as Uncle Joe says ‘Quantity has a quality all of its own’.

Is this in AMRAAM days? As I understand in Sky Flash times you would have likely be outraged by enhanced range R-27s

Well to a certain extent both, but you are right. The trick was the Situational Awareness – and with the radar coverage and Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), even Skyflash could make you pretty potent. But you would have had to be careful.  The AA-10 series had a few fairly potent models which made engaging them a non trivial task.

 Were you more wary of MiG-31s or Su-27s?

Su-27s, has they had more fuel. Longer range. More endurance. It is the whole weapons system that you have to consider and that includes sensors, weapons, airframes, aircrew and support.  Often the AA-10 (R-27)was the longest range weapon there if coupled to an AA-12 (R-77) threat it made for a concerning potential.  However, if that is coupled to an aircraft with a poor radar or operated by aircrew who were unaware of the Radar Warner or a radar Warner that wasn’t accurate enough then the whole system is less potent.

What are your thoughts on the air war in Ukraine from the perspective of someone who trained against the Russian threat?

The air war in Ukraine is far more complex than old style Soviet aircraft coming across the North Sea.  There is the combined element with artillery operations and a potent surface to air missile threat.  

Does part of you wish to be there? 

Yes.  As an Air Defender who served while Iraq and Afghanistan were absorbing the bulk of the UK Military focus it was dispiriting to be sitting at home or in the Falklands on QRA because there was no air threat.

If you had to choose the ten best fighter (or fighter interceptors) currently in service how would you rank them and why?

10? Chuffing hell!

1. F-22 has to be the top of the tree, the bench mark for what everyone wants to beat.  The SA provided by the sensor suite and the weapons systems are unparalleled 

2. F-15 because of its longevity and it actually has a proven track record.

3. Su-27 because of its payload, you can’t beat being able to take a lot of rockets places

4. F-16 because of the ubiquity and flexibility 

5. Typhoon is pretty old-school now, but when armed with Meteor and ASRAAM it is pretty potent.

6. F-35, because for a bomber it is still pretty potent

7. F-18.. well who wouldn’t want all that alpha?

8. Gripen because the Swedes always made lovely aircraft 

9. Rafale because the French have always made good aircraft and coupled them with potent weapons

10. J-20 because the Chinese are missing and I don’t know much about it

What was your relationship like with your pilot/Nav in the F3? Were aircrew paired or did they fly with different people? Did any not get on with each other? We tended to be paired for big exercises or Ops but generally you just flew with anyone.  Mostly people got on, though there were a few who were difficult to work with and typically everyone found the same people hard to work with. 

Complete this phrase…two-seat aircraft are better than single-seat aircraft because… there is somebody to talk to.

Does an aircraft in a museum seem ‘alive’ to you? How do you feel seeing an F3 in a museum? 

I get a bit choked up seeing them in museums.  I loved flying it and will always be proud of having done so.  Was it a good aircraft for the job it was supposed to be doing? No, but it was what it was.  I took my children to East Fortune and was opening panels showing them the gun and other bits and pieces, I am fairly certain the museum were less than happy with me.

Tell me something I don’t know about the F3

Mostly we taxied with the wings swept. That meant there was better clearance.  At Leeming, there was a very narrow exit to the 25 Sqn Hardened Air Shelter site and you had to swing the wings forward quite close to the runway.  My friend taxied out for a night sortie and they decided that they would skip the first two of the pre take-off checks and complete the rest while waiting inside the HAS site (wings 25 degrees sweep, flaps take off). They then got a bit of a rushed take-off clearance and tried to take off with the wings swept. At 169 knots Bill pulled the stick back and not much happened.  Rapidly running out of runway and too fast to stop he looked around and slammed the wings forward and popped the flap. He said it didn’t half leap airborne at over 200 knots as the flaps bit, and the piano keys at the far end slipped under the nose.

Which do you find more attractive, the F3 or the Typhoon, and why? 

Typhoon, does the job it was designed to do. Not a bomber turned into a fighter.

Follow me on Twitter.

What was the most challenging opponent you faced in exercises, why?  

Swiss F-18s because we turned up thinking they were still flying Hunters and F-5s so got quite a shock when they were F-18-equipped and bloody good

What did the F3 force think of F-15s and vice versa?

Most F3 guys simply wanted to have an F-15, be that a C model or an E model, as both were just superb.  I don’t think the F-15 guys thought about us but if they did they probably wondered why we were trying to do an Air Defence job with a bomber.

Describe your most memorable flight/mission? 

Flying to Red Flag, Azores to Bermuda.  Diverted to Halifax in January.  We landed on a snow covered runway and very nearly ejected because when we used thrust reverse we disappeared in our own little ‘white out’.  

Which aircraft would you most like to fly, and why? F-35.  The sensor fusions, the power, hovering, stealth, weapons – all sorts of reasons.  Just a really sweet ride.

Follow Hush-Kit on Twitter for aviation news, history and satire.

NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914 – the present.

If you have enjoyed The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes there is 2 things you can do to share your love:

NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914-the present.

1. Leave a nice Amazon review (this is EXTREMELY helpful)
2. Support The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 here

Many thanks,

Hush-Kit

• FUNDING IS VERY LOW FOR THIS SITE
• Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Hush-Kit depends on your donations to keep going, and funding is currently very low. If you love this madness then do support us, we may need to pause service if we can’t increase funding levels.
• If you like books, and you do, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is now on general release and is bloody lovely. A big glossy feast of irreverent humour, delectable facts, thrilling combat pilot interviews, VERY obscure aircraft types, and MUCH more. You can order it here.
• You can make The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 happen here.

Mitsubishi A6M Zero 788,000 results

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk – 875,000 results 

Consolidated B-24 Liberator –  1,070,000 results

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 1,850,000 results

Messerchmitt Me 262 –  2,070,000 results 

 Avro Lancaster – 2,380,000 results

 Lockheed P-38 Lightning – 2,610,000 results

 Republic P-47 Thunderbolt – 2,980,000 results

Boeing B-29 Superfortress – 2,910,000 results

Hawker Hurricane – 3,910,000 results 

Messerschmitt Bf 109 – 4,280,000 results

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress – About 4,370,000 results 

Supermarine Spitfire – About 4,420,000 results 

North American P-51 Mustang –  28,400,000 results 

The Swedish Saab 21 was without a shadow of doubt the greatest fighter of World War II. It endured zero combat losses, was armed to the teeth, and boasted a raft of future technologies that put it in a league of its own. Unlike any other single-engined fighter, it protected its family legacy to this day and was morally impeccable in export use. By the end of this article you will agree with me.

The Saab 21 took its first flight on the 30 July 1943, the same day as the world’s first jet bomber, the Arado Ar 234. Not only was the 234 strategically (and indeed tactically) irrelevant to the War, it was build by a company dirtied by the evils of slavery. Arado, beneficiary of the labour of Jewish slaves, would crumble in less than two years time. Meanwhile Saab, with its free well-treated workers would go from strength to strength, growing to become the desirable partner every ambitious nation of the 2020s is trying to get into bed. Meanwhile, today the last vestige of Arado is a bus company in Serbia while Saab is riding high. The same fall from grace can be seen with all the great single-engine fighter aircraft builders of World War II. While some of the wartime fighter houses could claim their products helped saved their nations, none could save their manufacturer. Other than Mitsubishi (trotting out over-priced F-16 derivatives and looking to burn money with the British on the Tempest moneypit) – all the great fighter producers of World War II are gone. The greatest fighters were unable to defend their own manufacturer. One-hit-wonders Supermarine created a series of terrible jets until 1957, and flirted with hovercraft before disappearing into BAC in 1960. Hawker, creator of the Hurricane, managed to last three years longer, but hadn’t created a world beating fighter since the Tempest II of World War II. Focke-Wulf went in 1964, but the name came back as a Swiss creator of watches (arguably offering a ‘dog whistle’ as a built-in feature) distastefully celebrating the aircraft type that greatly helped Hitler’s forces. Messerschmitt was slowly diluted by various mergers by 1968, until finally bowing out in 1989 after working as MBB on helicopters, an unflown stealth fighter, and bits and bobs for Airbus and Panavia.

Its last true fixed-wing aircraft was the exceptionally cool Hansa jet, but it hadn’t created a new operational fighter type by itself since 1943. Fiat had a promising start in the jet age, before being attacked by the holy trinity that destroyed most fighter houses: obsession with VTOL fighters; getting sidelined into licence-producing US aircraft; and becoming a producer of components for larger enterprises (including the Harrier). Grumman went out of the fighter game with a bang, with the phenomenal F-14 Tomcat, before being led down a blind alley by forward swept wings. Republic, creator of the brilliantly survivable P-47 Thunderbolt created a whole ‘Thunder’ series of fighters, culminating in the F-105 and an unlikely attempt to make a variable geometry STOVL fighter with Fokker, which the US forces wisely avoided. In 1965 Republic suffered the indignity of becoming a division of Fairchild Hiller.

Despite its usage, the F-105 was their last true fighter-bomber, with the Thunder series name living on with the A-10 ground attack aircraft. North American Aviation, creator of the astonishing P-51 Mustang, had the best post-war career of a top tier fighter producer. After creating the abysmal FJ-1 Fury, they had the good sense to kick it into the shadows and quickly analyse what had gone wrong. Lessons learnt, they created the fabulous F-86 Sabre, followed by the brilliant F-100. Their last fighter, the F-107A lost a procurement competition to great wartime rivals Republic with their Thunderchief. The F-107A was the end of the fighter line for the company that had created the incredible P-51. Attempts to create the next generation fighter never went further than mock-ups.

What of the Soviets? There were two great Soviet fighter manufacturers of World War II, Lavochkin and Yakovlev. The former created the La-15 jet fighter, which was sensational in many ways but harder to manufacture than the rival MiG-15. It served in what was for the late 1940s limited numbers (around 230). akovlev leapt into the jet age a bit too quickly with the Yak-15, essentially a jet-powered Yak-3. A series of mediocre fighters followed, though the Yak-23 had great promise: test pilots praised it as highly maneuverable, with good acceleration and take-off and climb capabilities thanks to a high thrust-to-weight ratio. Lavochkin diversified into spacecraft, missiles and UAVs, and lost a series of fighter requirements to rival bureaus. Its last ambitious fighter, the dreadful Lavochkin La-250 heavy interceptor of 1956, was cancelled in 1959.  Yak’s last attempt to produce a world-class conventional fighter was the fast agile Yak-45. The Yak-45 was a Bristol 188 that decided to drop out of uni and join a New York punk band.

But as good as it could have been it could not compete with the brilliance of the rival MiG-29 design. Yakovlev were seduced by STOVL, and created the first naval jump-jet, the Yak-38 as a stepping stone to the remarkable Yak-141. A 1,100 mph agile STOVL fighter that influenced the F-35B, the death of the Yak-141 saw Yakovlev leave the fighter game in style, though the 141 was binned soon after the USSR disintegrated. Mad plans to make a stealthy derivative, the Yak-201, were clearly not going to happen in 90s Russia. Which leads us back to the true surviver, SAAB (upper or lower case as you wish). Saab kept making utterly brilliant fighters, the match of anything in their class flying. Particularly exceptional for its time was the Draken. But there is much more to boast about.

Not used in any invasions or shady colonial actions

To judge a fighter merely on combat effectiveness is to rob much of its meaningful context, this is acknowledged in canonical thinking, and the Spitfire’s morale-boosting is well known. There are also technological, political-industrial, and even moral, dimensions that it would irresponsible to ignore. The Spitfire’s legacy as a defender of freedom was repeatedly dirtied in a series of repulsive acts by Britain and various export operators in the late 1940s and ’50s. Not so the squeaky clean Saab 21.

*Lockheed are not included as I am talking about single-engined fighters and the P-80 was irrelavent to World War II.

Tricycle undercarriage

“I do have the slightest doubt that the number of Spitfires, Bf 109s, Typhoons, Beaufighters, Mosquitoes, and many other types that were written off because of swinging and ground-looping was greater than the number written off as the result of air combat.” – Bill Gunston, Plane Speaking

The conventional ‘taildragger’ undercarriage arrangement was a bad idea for high power fighters, with shocking numbers of swinging and ground-looping incidences. Bad undercarriages were the Achilles’ heel of most of the fighter types, most notoriously affecting the 109 and Spitfire. The fighters were designed to win in air combat but were often defeated by a bumpy field. The Bell Aircraft P-39 proved the tricycle solution in the harsh conditions of the Soviet Union, and the Do 335, one of the few types that could rival even the 21 for innovation, also adopted the tricycle. The fixation with performance and armament was only part of keeping your pilot alive. The 21 was one of the first fighters to holistically approach the concept of survival, and the prioritising of keeping an air force’s most precious asset, its pilots, alive.

Ejection seat

In 1941, Saab of Sweden applied for their first ejection seat patent, and in 1942 their first airborne ejection tests using compressed air took place aboard a Saab B 17 aircraft (not to be confused with the American Flying Fortress) using a test mannequin. The 21’s ejection seat was partly a response to the need of clearing the pusher propeller. The Saab 21 was designed with a pusher propeller, a unique feature that placed the engine at the rear of the aircraft instead of the front. This design allowed for a more streamlined fuselage, better cannon installation, improved pilot visibility, and reduced drag. It is likely that the J21 was the first operational series fighter to feature an ejection seat, a technology that soon become an absolute necessity.

The Saab 21 enjoyed zero combat losses.

Laminar flow wing

Much is made of the P-51’s smooth laminar-flow wing, but the 21 achieved this and didn’t even bother boasting.

Successful indigenous production

There’s a good reason not many nations do this: it is very expensive to make a combat aircraft and they are made in small numbers, so buying them off-the-shelf or sharing the effort with a friendly nation makes sense. Of course, no aircraft are completely indigenous in terms of design, production and all components – but some do come pretty close. Sweden’s policy of expressed neutrality across the Cold War has driven their indigenous combat aircraft projects. Sweden has been making its own warplanes for a long time, and they’ve generally been excellent. Whereas France’s industry has been fortified by a nationalist socialism forged in a traumatising military defeat, Sweden’s has been built on social democracy, tactical neutrality and the presence of a worrying superpower neighbour. And tradition.

Future proof

The 21 was astonishingly future proof. Along with the Yak-15, it was the only jet fighter to have been successfully converted from a piston-powered aircraft (no we don’t include the abysmal Attacker). This allowed Sweden to leap into the jet fighter age with alacrity: the SAAB 21R first flew in 1947, six months before the US’ F-86 Sabre. This was impressive – it was even one year ahead of the first French jet fighter, the Ouragan. Soon afterwards, in May 1954, a SAAB J 29B Tunnan broke the world record for the 310 mile (500 km) closed course. The record had been held by the F-86 Sabre at 590 mph (950 km/h) but the Tunnan raised it to 607 mph (977 km/h).* The Lansen was next, followed by the Draken which achieved a great deal on half the installed thrust of the British Lightning, then the Viggen – which was probably more survivable than mere top trumps stats might suggest. The contemporary Swedish fighter, the tiny but hard-hitting, Gripen, entered service in 1996, 5 years ahead of its French peer, the Rafale, and a whole eight years ahead of the European Eurofighter Typhoon.

Survivable, innovative, future-proof and brilliant, the J 21 was indeed the best fighter of World War II.

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. You can pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 here.

In the explosive tragedy of the Vietnam War, the USAF’s Republic F-105 Thunderchief was a sleek supersonic hooligan raining down destruction. Fast, and extremely tough, the F-105 was a worthy descendent of the P-47. We spoke to Vietnam veterans Vic Vizcarra and Paul Metz to find out more about the experience of flying the ‘Thud’ into war.

(answers are by Vic unless otherwise marked)

Describe the F-105 in three words..

VV: Stable weapon platform

PM: Big, Rugged, Fast

What was the best thing about the F-105? 

VV: Its speed

PM:  Low attitude, high speed was unlike any airplane I have flown.  Above 600 knots it was a thoroughbred racehorse. At 800 knots even better.  

..and the worst? 

VV: Turning ability

PM:  It had a high wing loading and was not an air-to-air dogfighter.

What is the biggest myth about the aircraft? That it couldn’t hold its own in a dog fight and how it got the nickname “Thud” which I cover in the answer to your question #11.

What was your first combat mission like? Relatively easy since the target was not heavily defended.

What was your most memorable experience flying the F-105?  First flight since it was before the two-seat “F” Model. Only time in my Air Force career where I took off by myself in a plane I had never flown before. The Check Out process consisted of doing an engine start and all after start checks with an Instructor pilot standing on a stand next to the cockpit and observing the student the day before the first flight. Then The Powers At Be wanted students to go home and think about it overnight.

What was the role of the F-105 in Vietnam? It was the primary fighter-bomber conducting 75% of all Air Force Strikes in North Vietnam the first five years of the war.

How would you rate it in the following categories

A. Instantaneous turn rates Comparable to the majority of US Air Force Fighters. 
B. Sustained turn Slightly below the majority of US Air Force fighters.
C. Climb rate Good. Best Climb Was At Mach 0.9 until Intercepting and Maintaining 400 Kts.
D. General agility Good stable flight characteristics throughout its flight envelope.
E. High angle of attack performance? Excellent, Sufficient stall warning aircraft is about to depart
F. As a bomber Superior. Could carry largest weapons load further and faster than any other single engine Fighter-Bomber.
G. As a fighter Adequate. Maintained a positive air-to-air exchange record in Vietnam Even though That was not its mission.
H. As a SEAD platform Excellent. Duel seat F-105 “F” and Follow-On “G” Models were the primary Wild Weasel Platforms In Vietnam Era.

What was the mission of the F-105G and why was it so dangerous? 

PM: The F-105G Wild Weasel was a role created in the turmoil of battle.  It was a concept to counter the SA-2 radar guided surface to air missile (SAM).  The concept was that the 2-seat F-105G would enter the target area ahead of the larger strike force and entice the SAM operators to shoot at the F-105G, the Wild Weasel.  Then while the Weasels are dodging the SAMs, the strike force would attack and bomb the target and then quickly exit the target zone.  Then, when the strike force was safe, you, the Wild Weasel, could exit the target area.  This became an acronym which is stil used by the Weasels of today, “FILO” (“First In, Last Out“).  The Weasel mission was obviously dangerous and many Weasels were shot down by SAMs and enemy anti-aircraft artillery (Triple A).

I. In terms of combat effectiveness and survivability? Excellent. The aircraft was known for its toughness and ability to return to base with extensive battle damage, especially after a third hydraulic line was added along the top of the aircraft spine away from the redundant duel flight control lines that ran together along the top of the bomb bay. A hit on one line usually meant both lines would be cut. Original layout provided redundancy in peacetime operations but not in combat.

J. Cockpit layout and comfort? Best ergonomic designed cockpit, way ahead of its time. Allowed the aircraft to be designed as a single crew platform.

What is the biggest myth about the type? 

PM: I don’t know if there were any myths that stuck. Early in its life there were several accidents and there were suggestions of it being a “widow maker”. Meant originally as derogatory comment the nickname Thud was supposedly the sound it made when hitting the ground — “Thud”.  In the end it became a dive bomber, a far cry from the role of low level nuclear bomber it was designed for.  “Thud driver” is a mark of honour to those who flew her.

What should I have asked you? You didn’t miss a thing! Excellent list of questions.

Did the aircraft have a nickname? Yes, “Thud”. There are a couple of myths about the origin of the nickname “Thud”. The most popular myth was that it came from a character named Thunderchief In a kids TV Show. But here is the real origin, you can take this to the bank. When the F-105 came into the inventory it was way ahead of its time and initially encountered a lot of maturation problems, Especially with maintenance. The aircraft experienced many aborts, ground and air. This and designed with a bomb bay, Gave the Non-F-105 fighter community ammunition to razz the new F-105 community with the rhetorical question, “What sound does an F-105 make when it hits the ground?…….Thud!   

Which weapons did you deploy and which was the most spectacular from the cockpit? The most common weapons load was the Mk 117 750-lb bomb with six loaded on the Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) carried On the centerline station on the belly, plus one on each outboard station. The outboard station bombs were replaced With AIM-9 Sidewinder Missile For self defense when MiG-17s started appearing. When SAMs started appearing, the ‘Winders were replaced with QRC-160 Electronic Jamming pods. The most spectacular from the cockpit was the CBU-58 which was a bomb that would split in half and release 650 Bomblets that had small vanes causing the bomblet to spin and arm. The bomblets would spread over a large area causing destruction of soft targets and personnel. Great Weapon Against Flack Sites. Beauty of the weapon was you didn’t have to be precise or that accurate upon release. Another spectacular weapon was the M-118 3,000 Lb bomb because of its size. We carried two, one at each inboard wing station. 

What was hardest about your combat deployment? Leaving the Family. This was pre-internet days so communicating with the family took close to two weeks to establish continuity between discussions.

Do you love the aircraft? Definitely. I feel honoured to have flown it with fellow pilots during an era In which this aircraft joined the annals of history.

Both pilots have books and I recommend them.      

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

Which new techniques of air warfare were pioneered by the Soviets in Afghanistan?
The Soviets perfected the use of the attack helicopter to support their counter-insurgency operations and for convoy protection. They also developed the tactics for Heli-borne assaults.

Which Soviet aircraft types proved capable?

The most successful soviet type must be the Mi-8 (Hip), which was also used throughout the Coalition operations both by civilian contractors and coalition military forces – even the Canadian armed forces operated one!

…And which disappointed?

The Yak-38 Forger was deployed for a few months but proved to be completely unsuitable – difficult to fly, performance limited and with a puny war load.

Which new techniques of air warfare were pioneered by US or NATO in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan (and the contemporaneous Iraqi insurgency) brought a sea change in the way that offensive support air power operated: where previously aircraft would get airborne to follow a pre-planned mission profile, often in isolation to the ground forces, in Afghanistan pilots got airborne not knowing where they were going or what they would face when they got there, and they were completely integrated into ground force operations.

Which US or NATO in aircraft types proved capable?
Pretty much all the types used by the US/ Coalition air forces proved very capable – especially the B-1B which was, rather surprisingly, extremely effective close air support platform. The Predator and Reaper RPAS also showed their value both as surveillance tools and also as strike assets.

Did US/NATO fail to note any lessons learnt by the Soviets in Afghan?
I think that the point about Afghanistan is that no-one at any stage appears to have looked at what could be learnt from previous conflicts in the country. The writing was on the wall in 1841!

What did anti invader Afghan forces learn in Soviet occupation that they could apply to the 21st century conflict?
The Soviet invasion gave the Afghans the opportunity to practise their basic infantry skills and to perfect insurgent/ guerrilla warfare and they became particularly accomplished in ambush techniques.

Were Stingers very important or significant in the time of the Soviet occupation?
Yes – they severely limited the use of Soviet tactical air power in the second half of the decade, which led to a drop-off in the effectiveness of Soviet air power.

How did any of the wars affect aircraft development?
They didn’t! Most aircraft types since the 1970s onwards have been very capable and incredibly flexible, so the change was actually in the way that they were used tactically (see point 4 above), rather than any need to change the design. I think that the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts did accelerate the employment of smaller precision guided munitions, in an effort to minimise collateral damage.

What is the current state of the Taliban’s air forces?
Unknown – much of the Afghan Air Force inventory was flown out of the country when the government fell in 2021. Some light aircraft, helicopters and possibly transport aircraft remain, but their serviceability state is unknown, as is the number of pilots to fly them.

What was your biggest surprise in researching the subject?
Really how little was learnt from prior conflicts! I was also surprised (because I had never really thought about it) to learn that because of the long range involved, the B-2 stealth mission on the second night took off before the first day of the war had even happened!

What is the biggest myth?
That there was ever a military solution, or indeed any ‘foreign’ solution, to Afghanistan.

What should I have asked you?
“What was the most important aspect of air power during the Soviet and Coalition occupations of Afghanistan?” – I would have answered air transport, since because of the geography of, and limited infrastructure in, Afghanistan, pretty much everything that the foreign forces needed (supplies, equipment, personnel) had to be transported into and around the country by air.

Do you talk to aircrew who fought about how they feel about the current state of Afghanistan and whether they feel the effort was advisable or worthwhile?
No, I have purposely not discussed that aspect – I think that it is emotionally difficult for them, since despite their best efforts over two decades and an incredible amount of bloodshed, nothing really changed in the long run.

Michael Napier is a former RAF Tornado pilot and author of Afghan Air Wars

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

Complete this sentence..the Mosquito was amazing because…
as if it had been found in the bear’s cottage by Goldilocks, it was ‘just right’

What was the role of the Mosquito in WW2 and in which was it most and least proficient?
As far as I can tell, the Mosquito is the only aircraft in history to have successfully performed all four roles required of an air force by air power doctrine: air defence, attack, intelligence and mobility. It was an successful night fighter, a hugely effective bomber, perhaps the outstanding reconnaissance aircraft of the war – that was certainly the view of FDR’s son Elliot, who commanded a USAAF reconnaissance wing – but, after dozen Mosquitos were pressed into service with BOAC to fly passengers, cargo and diplomatic mail between Sweden and RAF Leuchars in Scotland, it can also claim to have been useful transport asset. Given the different demands each of these roles requires of an airframe, performing all four gives the Mosquito what I think is a unique full house. It was not, despite its great range, an escort fighter. While it was fast and manoeverable, it couldn’t hope to match the the agility of much smaller single-engined fighters like the Me 109 or Fw 190.

How does a twin-engined fighter survive an attack from a more agile single-engined fighter? How did the Mosquito agility compare to likely fighter opposition?
Turn, dive or find cloud. The speed differences between the Mosquito and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 varied according to height, but the Focke-Wulf never had a sufficiently decisive advantage to be able to overhaul a Mosquito from behind in a straight and level race. Instead they needed to dive down on to the Mosquitos. If the latter could confound the initial attack by turning to throw the fighter’s aim, then pour on the coals, it was likely to be able to get away. But a Mosquito flying predictably straight and level on a bombing run or reconnaissance mission was always going to vulnerable to fighter attack – like any other aircraft.

What was its survivability like compared to heavy bombers?
After entering service with 105 Squadron in its intended role as an unarmed day bomber, the Mosquito actually suffered heavier losses than the Blenheim it replaced. To the point where many were coming to the conclusion that that they’d been right all along about the folly of an unarmed bomber using speed alone for protection. That changed in the latter half of 1942 under the leadership of the squadron’s new CO, Australian Hughie Edwards VC. Instead of high level daylight attacks along the predictable flight paths that had made them vulnerable to detection and interception, Edwards would cross Europe at low level in the late afternoon, attack at dusk, then return to base under the cover of darkness. His initiative transformed the Mosquito’s fortunes. And during the Battle of Berlin over the winter of 1943 and 1944, Bomber Command’s heavies suffered losses at around ten times that Mosquitos the Light Night Striking Force.

How wooden was the Mosquito? Was it wood or laminate or what percentage of the weight or volume did it make up?

More wooden than Keanu Reeves (67%) less wooden than Steven Seagal (100%). With respect to the use of solid woods and laminates, see my next answer …

Where did the wood come from?
Sitka Spruce, from forests in British Columbia, was used to build the two spars that ran unbroken from wingtip to wingtip. Britain entered the war with stock of two hundred standards of Sitka Spruce. To cover the first year of fighting, Timber Control needed eight thousand. European Ash was used for the Mosquito’s primary structure. The stringers that completed the internal skeleton, help dissipate loads around airframe, were sawn from Douglas Fir sourced from forests in British Columbia and American’s Pacific North West. The all-important plywood skin of the aeroplane was actually part of a sandwich comprised of two layers of hard three-ply Birch filled with balsawood, which was so soft you could push your thumb into it. As far as was known at the time, Balsa grew only in Equador and, demand might outstrip supply, Timber Control, the organisation responsible all Britain’s wood requirements during the war, sent an explorer to Central America to find an alternative source. After travelling thriough seven counties he found none of sufficient quality, but in Panama’s remote Darién Gap, the expedition discovered the Quipo tree that, at the base of its trunk, contained wood that was sufficiently light to fall within narrow density range specifed for the Mosquito. Samples were sent back to Hatfield where de Havilland used them to build an experimental fuselage and by the end of 1942 a modern sawmill had been built in Panama to supply it.

Biggest myth about the Mosquito?
That it was wooden. I was very surprised to discover that this was just a rumour put around to puzzle and annoy the Germans – like carrots helping you see in the dark. You heard it here first …*

What is your book about?

Ah, I know this one. At its heart the book’s about the RAF Mosquito raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen in March 1945. But the more I got into in to it the more it became this remarkable weaving of aerial action with the story of spies, special forces and saboteurs on the ground. It’s like a real-life 633 Squadron. I’ve never written about the Second World War before and opening my account with the Mosquito was a gift. It’s such an extraordinarily capable and charismatic machine, and 2 Group’s low level pinpoint raids that were the focus of Mosquito are so inherently dramatic, that I was spoilt for material. There was simply so much good stuff. But in the end, as ever, it’s the people I’m writing about on which the book depends, from the man who led 2 Group, Air Vice Marshal Basil Embry, whose story was so remarkable that if you made it up, no one would believe you to the incredible Danish commando, Anders Lassen, the only member of the wartime SAS to win the VC, I was blessed with such a rich cast of characters that the worry was whether I could do them all justice. I hope I have. I’ve tried to weave together some amazing stories along the way, but ultimately all roads though lead to the wildly difficult and dangerous Mosquito mission to Copenhagen to prevent the destruction of the Danish resistance and need to forestall any possibility of Denmark becoming the scene of a catastrophic Nazi last stand. In the words of my publisher it’s ‘the story of that legendary aircraft told through that one impossible mission’.

How much did the DH.88 racer and other interwar type actually contribute to the Mosquito’s design?

It was a useful stepping stone. After spending twenty years building civilian machines for general aviation and commercial air transport, de Havilland was out of practice when it came to building high performance waplanes. A fast, long-ranged twin-engined racer with a crew of two, the Comet served as something of a proof of concept. There was even some discussion at de Havilland about developing a military version of the Comet. As significant a proof of concept, though, was de Havilland’s DH.91 Albatross. A four-engined airliner that first flew in 1937, this achingly beautiful design, was built of wood using exactly the same construction methods.

At We Have Ways Festival, you and I discussed the Whirlwind – what was similar and different about the aircraft?
They’re superficially similar, but in reality very different. They share a muscular twin-engined layout – Geoffrey de Havilland thought Mosquito prototype looked like it was ‘largely made up of engines and propellers’. But in many ways the DH.88 Comet was a much closer analogue. The low-winged Comet and Whirlwind were almost exactly the same size and layout. The Mosquito was about a third bigger and nearly twice the weight of the Whirlwind. Geoffrey de Havilland reckoned that the qualities required of a successful aircraft were ‘simplicity, right size, cleanness in design and, of course, a very reliable engine.’ The Whirlwind actually had three of these – even the much-maligned Peregrine engine was generally pretty reliable – but it’s small size and single-seat limited its development potential in comparison to the Mosquito The problem in the end was that the bigger Mosquito, with it’s two-man crew, bomb bay and long range, could do all sorts of things that a Spitfire could not. The smaller Whirlwind, even if it had enjoyed the sort of time, money, care and attention lavished on the Spit, would never have been able to offer a meaningfully different capability.

Could DH been more forthcoming telling Westland about the DH propeller issue on the Whirlwind -and in what ways (if any) did DH cockblock Westland?

There’s no doubt that Havilland, who designed and built the Whirlwind’s propellers, could have helped. But so too could Rolls-Royce, the RAF and Farnborough. The latter even conducted wind tunnel tests in 1940 that highlighted the compressibility drag caused by the Whirlwind’s thick propeller blades. The issue could easily have been solved but by that point the Whirlwind’s ship had sailed. The lack of high-altitude performance those propellers inflicted on the Whirlwind kept it benched up in Scotland during the Battle of Britain and its reputation never recovered. During the banking crisis we became familiar with the idea that some institutions were simply deemed to be too big to fail. In the end, the Whirlwind programme was too small to succeed. As more and more resource was focussed on a handful of aircraft – a policy to which even the Mosquito nearly fell victim – the Whirlwind, with its unloved, bespoke Peregrine engines, was a luxury and a distraction and so was allowed to fall behind the drag curve, a victim of neglect rather than any inherent fault in the design.

Was the Mosquito more precise at bombing than other fighter-bombers, if so, why?
I’m not sure that it was particularly. It’s only real advantage over single-seat fighter bombers like the Typhoon and Thunderbolt was that it had a two-man crew that brought with it better situational awareness – the life blood of successful tactical aviation. They had a better chance of actually finding the target than the single-seaters. With respect to accuracy, the starker comparison is with rival bombers. Compared to other medium bombers like the Boston and Mitchell the Mosquito required a far smaller tonnage of bombs to ensure the destruction of a target. On average, the Mosquito required less than forty tons of bombs to destroy a V1 launch site. The next lowest figure was 195 tons required by USAAF Flying Fortresses. The big difference was the altitude at which they attacked. Of the bombers, only the Mosquito had the fighter like performance to attack from low-level. And Air Vice Marshal Basil Embry made sure that his crews extremely well trained, building a full scale model of a V1 on the bombing range to ensure they were adept at identifying the correct aiming points for a bomb run flown at a height of just twenty feet.

What was the Mosquitos biggest failing or limitation?
Well, as I’ve mentioned, it wasn’t actually terribly successful in the role of high level day bomber that it was designed for, but that was largely a failure of tactics and imagination not the aeroplane. When the Mosquito was first deployed to Southeast Asia there the heat and humidity caused issues with the glue that occasionally led to what Space X would call ‘rapid disassembly’, but this was solved to the extent that the RAF was still using the Mosquito on operations in Malaya into the late fifties. If you’d asked Mosquito veteran Colin Bell the same question, he’d have said only that ‘it pulled a bit to the left on take-off’ …

How lucky was the Mosquito?
There were undoubtedly lucky breaks, but then I think you can probably argue that all successful aircraft are lucky, such are the odds against any putative design actually making it into full-scale production. De Havilland were certainly fortunate to have Air Vice Marshal Wilfred Freeman in the corner. Responsible for RAF procurement, he kept the programme alive despite a lack of interest from Bomber Command and an effort to cancel it by Churchill’s Minister for Aircraft Production, Lord Beaverbrook. At the same time, though, de Havilland made their own luck: they took a deliberate decision to develop the Mosquito as private enterprise without the backing of the Air Ministry, to build it out of wood to speed it into production and then design a flying machine which nailed it pretty much straight out of the box.

This article is here to plug your book but I want to plug mine too, what are you most looking forward to in The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2?
More of what made the first Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes such a brilliantly entertaining and informative read. There aren’t many aviation books I read for fun, but the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes was a notable exception. So I’m looking forward to curling up on the sofa and enjoying a bit of me time with THKBOW2. Also, I hear that it’s going to feature a surprisingly sweary piece about one of my favourite aeroplanes, the one-off, none-more-black Vickers Valiant B2 ‘Pathfinder’. The V-bomber the RAF should have bought …

Is it true that a vital meeting that led to The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes took place between yourself and I mere metres away from where the Royal Air Force was formed?
Fact! And I think they’ve even put a plaque on the wall to mark the significance of the location. There might be one about the RAF too …

What analogues of the Mosquito were there from other manufacturers?

Focke-Wulf actually tried to build a wood and glue nightfighter of their own in the shape of the Ta 154 They even called it the Moskito! But its performance was disappointing and it was cancelled. ‘Let’s build the Mosquito!’, ranted Herman Göring to the technical heads of the German aviation industry, ‘That’s the simplest thing to do.’ Interestingly, Argentina developed a couple of aircraft, the Calquin and the Ñancú that looked very similar to the Mosquito – the former proving beyond all doubt that radial engines would have turned the Mosquito into a bit of a minger. But perhaps the best analogue was the machine that amounted to the Mosquito’s replacement in the RAF, the Canberra. Designed, like the Mosquito as a high-performance twin-engined bomber, it was also extremely versatile and, after a first flight in the 1940s remained in service with the RAF until well into the 21st century.

What should I have asked you?
What responsibilities does an author have in writing about a subject that may provoke nationalist or ‘fun’ war feelings in the readership?

What responsibilities does an author have in writing about a subject that may provoke nationalist or ‘fun’ war feelings in the readership?
Oh …

Mosquito The RAF’s Legendary Wooden Wonder and its Most Extraordinary Mission is available here

—

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

• I lied about this. The Mosquito was of course wooden …

This article has moved to here.

To help fight the plagiarism we are currently suffering, we’re moving some of our material over to Substack.