ANATOMY OF THE SHIP Hiryū

Anatomy of the Ship – Hiryū

The home-build aircraft carrier enthusiast is relatively poorly served by most publishers however Osprey’s latest in the Anatomy of the Ship series shows that at least someone is listening to this demographic. For those with the requisite hot riveting skills and supply of mild and armoured steel the Hiryū [1] is a noteworthy subject. The fastest carrier in the world at the time she entered service, and one of only two ever completed with the superstructure on the port side of the flight deck, she saw service with the Kido Butai at Pearl Harbour, Ceylon, and Midway with a mix of 64 Zero, Val, and Kate aircraft.

Stefan Draminski has done an incredible job of creating a coherent set of ship’s plans, drawing on original documents from the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal, as well as providing a potted history of Japanese carrier development and the career of Hiryū herself. A recent addition to the series are 3D-renderings of both the whole ship and cross-sections through it, which will assist the novice builder in translating the plans into a full-size vessel. These renderings include recreations of the aircraft allowing the completist to accurately place their air group, either in preparation for a surprise raid on a nearby island chain or in the hangars for maintenance. The author has also provided three-view drawings of the types embarked and a number of colour plates explaining the aircraft identification markings as used by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) at the time. For those going the extra mile in their build there are detail drawings of flight deck equipment. Covering everything from the design of the tie-down points, to the chakkanshidōtō, ‘landing guidance lights’ system the IJN used in lieu of the rather Amish ‘man with flags’ system employed by the British and American navies.

The 10 Worst Carrier Aircraft here

The only minor blemish in an otherwise excellent book is the scarcity of photographs of the Hiryū herself, however, blame for this should be placed squarely on the US Navy rather than the author.

The Aircraft Carrier Hiryū (Anatomy of the Ship) is recommended for any level of home build aircraft carrier enthusiast and anyone with an interest in Japanese carrier aviation.

[1] Japanese for ‘Flying Dragon’, which is certainly a better name for an aircraft carrier than Vindex or Campania, looking at you Royal Navy.

Order a copy here

Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer. He has a BEng in Marine Technology, an MA in Naval History, and is on Level 3 of Duolingo’s Japanese course. Making him the target market for this book. Bing’s writing appears in The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes.

Air Marshal G A ‘Black’ Robertson flew the most beautiful jet fighter even flown (outside of the Sea Hawk that is). We met him to find out more about flying the gorgeous Hawker Hunter.

“…a remark I heard a number of times: the engine ate eagles. Not strictly true, of course, but a tribute to the Avon’s strength and reliability.“

What were your first impressions of the Hunter? At last, I thought, here’s a proper aircraft: a camouflaged single-seater with an almost bewildering array of instrumentation – weapons switches too. It’s hard to describe the sense of excitement I felt, strapping into an F6 (XF 526) for my first solo on 8 Nov 67. To put these remarks in context, I was fresh out of training – well, almost. I’d spent the previous five months holding at St Athan, and was privileged to fly five different types, four as captain. But my first operational aircraft was a step beyond all this – a very considerable step too.

Describe the Hunter in 3 words. A pilot’s aircraft.

What was the best thing about the Hunter? Its aesthetic beauty is the obvious answer – a beauty one felt privileged to share.

….and the worst? I’d never say a bad word about the aircraft – even if I could think of one, which I can’t.

What was your unit’s role and how effective was the Hunter at this role? My first and only front-line squadron was 8, a DF/GA unit. For its time – before the advent of precision weapons – the Hunter was more effective than any other aircraft in this dual role. That said, the more powerful Lightning could outperform it in some air combat scenarios, and aircraft like the Canberra and Vulcan  could deliver a heavier weapon load. It could be argued that the Hunter was the first multi-role fighter.

Many people love the aircraft’s looks, do you? Its beauty is ageless and its design, for a relatively modern aircraft, is matchless. I’d put only two other aircraft in its class: the SE5A and the Spitfire – arguably the world’s most beautiful and iconic aircraft. But I never felt the same about the two-seat T7. The widening of the fuselage to accommodate side-by-side seating seemed to me to destroy, certainly in part, the cleanliness of the single-seat design.

Is there a popular myth about the Hunter? The only thing close to this is a remark I heard a number of times: the engine ate eagles. Not strictly true, of course, but a tribute to the Avon’s strength and reliability.

How would you rate it in the following categories

A. Sustained turn
B. Instantaneous turn
C. Acceleration
D. Climb
E. Ergonomics
F. Cockpit comfort

It’s impossible to rate the majority of these categories in absolute terms. To avoid subjectivity one needs a comparator. All I have is the Phantom, and a fading memory. So, other than to say I have no complaints about any of them, I’ll pass on the first four items.

            On ergonomics, it’s often said that the switches in later marks of the aircraft were all over the place – an exaggeration, but it makes the point that cockpit ergonomics could have been better. By way of example, aids such as the radio compass weren’t easy to interpret, tucked away down on the lower right-hand side of the cockpit. But any criticism in this respect must be seen in the light of a design that was progressively improved and updated, not least by the addition of additional equipment, year by year and mark by mark.

            Cockpit comfort was such that one felt very much part of the aeroplane. One could perhaps argue that reaching down to the flap lever during air combat sorties was a bit of a stretch and an exercise in dexterity, but it would be stretching a point to complain about imperfect ergonomics. The HOTAS concept was some years away, of course.

What was your most memorable flight in the Hunter?

It was 7 Feb 1969. Two of us were ferrying refurbished FGA Mk 9s back from the UK to Bahrain. The second leg of the first day was from Hal Far, Malta, to Akrotiri, Cyprus. The last forty minutes of a three-hour trip were completed at night, in and out of massive thunderstorms accompanied by lightning flashes that lit up the entire sky. By the time I was handed over to the final controller for the mandatory radar approach I was more than a little tense. However, my nerves were quickly calmed by the crystal clear tones of a woman’s voice; the very model of professionalism, she guided me down to a safe landing. Rarely had ‘On centre-line, on glidepath,’ sounded so sweet, and rarely had I been so relieved to see runway lights emerge from the gloom. I was eventually reunited with my leader, who’d earlier exercised his prerogative to descend first, ‘to see what it was like’ – a questionable decision given that I was much lower on fuel. What if he’d found conditions difficult? There was little he could do to help. In the end though, a valuable lesson was learned: check sunset time at the destination airfield before departure! Night flying, let alone night formation, hadn’t been part of the plan.

Was the absence of missiles or a serious radar an issue? Not in the DF/GA role in my time. While both might have been nice to have, they would probably have brought penalties (performance?) too. The aircraft had arguably reached the end of its stretch potential when it was retired from operational service.

What other equipment did Hunter pilots long for? While nothing comes to mind, given that even experienced pilots managed to land wheels up, some scraping along on the 230-gallon underwing tanks before lurching airborne again, a (radio altimeter-type) indication that the wheels weren’t down as the aircraft reached a critical height might have proved useful.

Tell me something I don’t know about the Hunter. Sydney Camm was reputedly less than enamoured with the addition of the under-fuselage air brake – it ruined the aesthetics of his elegant design. While he wanted it removed, it was deemed a necessary addition.

What should I have asked you?  Where does the Hunter rank amongst all the aircraft you’ve flown? Apart from a single, memorable hour in a Sea Fury, it’s the aircraft I love best

Where/when and in which service did you fly the Hunter?

No 130 DFGA (Day Fighter/Ground Attack) Course, No 229 OCU, RAF Chivenor; Oct 67-Feb 68.

8 Sqn, RAF Muharraq, Bahrain; Mar 68-Apr 69.

No 101 Short TWU Course, 79 Sqn, RAF Brawdy; Mar-Jul 82.

Former RAF Tornado pilot Michael Napier has written a book about some of the most exciting and intrigueing military air campaigns of the Cold War, we met up with him to find out more.

HK: I know some historians are uncomfortable with the term ‘Cold War’- how do you feel about it? Also, the term ‘crisis*’ relating to post or late colonial warfare? 

I am very comfortable with the term Cold War – I think that it is an apt description of the world order in the ’50s, 60s, 70s and 80s when there was definite hostility between the USSR and Warsaw Pact on one side and the USA and NATO on the other, but the balance of force – both nuclear and conventional – ensured that open conflict never broke out. ‘Crisis’ too is a good description of various relatively short-term events where conflict either nearly or actually occurred.

*Hush-Kit note: Some see ‘crisis’ as a Government approved term to play down military actions, akin to the Russia state using ‘special military operation’ to describe the current attempted invasion of Ukraine. For example, ‘Suez Crisis’ is the British term for what others describe as the Tripartite Aggression

What was the Suez Crisis and which aircraft types were used – and for what roles?

The Suez Crisis was an attempt by the UK and France (colluding with Israel) to use force to seize back the Suez Canal which had been nationalised by the Egyptian government. A short bombing campaign was followed by amphibious landings and parachute assaults on the Canal Zone. Although the Anglo-French forces achieved the military aim, the venture was a politico-strategic failure. The RAF bombing force – Valiants and Canberras – were used to neutralise Egyptian air bases and military targets, supported by British and French carrier-borne aircraft – Wyverns, Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, TBM Avengers and Corsairs. The carrier aircraft and land-based fighter-bombers – Venoms, Thunderstreaks and Mystères – also bombed and strafed tactical targets in the Canal Zone and provided air support to the amphibious and parachute troops. The Israeli air force operated over Sinai with Mustangs, B-17s, Meteors, Mosquitoes and Ouragans, while the Egyptian air force had Vampires, MiG-15s, Meteors and Il-28s. The Egyptian air force realised early on that it could not win, so it very sensible withdrew its aircraft out of range of the Anglo-French forces to preserve it to be able to fight another day.

Which aircraft performed well and which performed badly in the Suez attacks?

The most surprising thing for me was to learn that the RAF Valiant and Canberra force were still using WW2 bomber tactics, with ‘pathfinders’ dropping Target Indicator flares n the targets and the bomber dropping on the flares. While it had worked to some extent for Lancasters bombing city-sized targets it did not really work against targets like airfields. So I would say that the bombing campaign was a failure. The most successful work was done by the French air force F-84F Thunderstreaks operating from Lod which destroyed 10 Egyptian Il-28s at Luxor. The most interesting aircraft from my perspective was the Wyvern which carried out attacks on coastal targets; unfortunately, it was restricted to operating over coastal areas because of concerns that propeller-driven aircraft would be vulnerable to Egyptian jet fighters. Wyverns from 830 NAS successfully destroyed an Egyptian coast guard barracks which was holding up the advance of paratroops near Port Said, but one aircraft was shot down by groundfire.

What air power lessons could be learned from the Suez campaign?

I think that the main lesson is that for anti-airfield attacks to be successful they must be delivered extremely accurately onto the operating surfaces and that medium-level bombing by heavy bombers and low-level attacks by fighter-bombers without specific-to-role weapons are unlikely to succeed. This lesson had not been learnt during the Falklands conflict. Another lesson was that reconnaissance interpretation equipment needs to be co-located with the aircraft operators if the intelligence is to be used in a timely manner; this was why the French recce effort was more successful than the RAF effort.

What was the Congo Crisis and which aircraft types were used – and for what roles?

The Congo Crisis was precipitated by the province of Katanga attempting to break away from Congo and the efforts of the United Nations to drive a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The Katangese air force (Avikat) comprised DH Doves and Dakotas converted into bombers as well as Fouga Magisters and later Harvards. The UN force included Indian Canberras, Ethiopian, Iranian and Philippine F-86 Sabres and Swedish Saab J-29s.

Which aircraft performed well and which performed badly in the Congo attacks?

The UN J-29s were very successful, as was the single Avikat Magister which ran a short “reign of terror” before the arrival in the country of UN fighters. Perhaps the most disappointing were the F-86s which did not appear to achieve vey much!

What air power lessons could be learned from the Congo Crisis?

The Congo Crisis is fascinating from an air power perspective because it shows firstly how effective airpower is if it is unopposed and secondly how limited it is once it is opposed. Avikat had the run of the country before the UN fighter force arrived, but once the UN fighters were established in Congo, Avikat was completely sidelined from the ground campaign.

What were the Arab-Israeli Wars and which aircraft types were used – and for what roles?

The Arab-Israeli wars were fought in 1967 (the Six-Day War) and 1973 (The October War) as Israel tried to secure its borders and the Egyptians and Syrians attempted to invade and destroy the state of Israel. In 1967, the Israeli air force was mainly equipped with French aircraft such as Mirages, Ouragans, Mystères and Vautors, all of which were employed as fighter-bombers, while in 1973 it had reequipped with American aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom and A-4 Skyhawk. The Egyptian and Syrian air forces flew Soviet aircraft such as MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21 and Su-7, while the Iraqi and Jordanian air forces flew the Hunter.

Which aircraft performed well and which performed badly in the Arab-Israeli Wars attacks?

The star of the ’67 War was undoubtedly the Mirage and of the ’73 War the F-4; however, the MiG-21 also performed very well in ’73. The older MiG variants were generally outclassed in the combat arena.

What air power lessons could be learned from the Arab-Israeli Wars?

The pre-emptive counter-air strikes by the Israeli air force in the ’67 War was a masterclass in how to neutralise enemy airfields and prevent the opposition from using its own air power effectively. In ’73 probably the greatest lesson was the effectiveness of modern SAMs against aircraft and the necessity of electronic countermeasures and dedicated Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) missions. In addition, the lack of effectiveness of the Egyptian air force showed how the appointment of political, rather than professionally competent, officers to high ranks will inevitably render the entire force unfit for purpose.

What were the Indo-Pakistan Wars and which aircraft types were used – and for what roles?

The ’65 Indo-Pak War started with an attempt by Pakistan to cut Indian land access to Kashmir and was met by an Indian counter-offensive further to the south, resulting in a stalemate. In ’71, India intervened in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in support of the separatist movement, and Pakistan responded by attacking northwest India. East Pakistan succeeded in breaking away from West Pakistan, and in the west the ground campaign was much like a re-run of the ’65 campaign, once again ending in a stalemate. The Pakistan air force was all-American in ’65, comprising F-86 Sabres (both air-to-ground and air-to-air), F-104 Starfighters (air defence) and B-57 Canberras (bombers); in ’71 these aircraft had been supplemented by the Shenyang F-6 (Chinese version of the MiG-19 used for both air defence and offensive support)). The Indian air force was equipped with Hunters, Gnats, Canberras, Mystères, Ouragans and MiG-21s (the latter in the air-to-air role) in ’65 and in ’73 the line-up included more MiG-21s, the Su-7 and the HAL Marut (both of these types used for offensive support).

Which aircraft performed well and which performed badly in the Indo-Pakistan Wars?

The Pakistan air force F-86 Sabres performed very well in both conflicts, reflecting the excellent training and leadership of the Pakistan air force. On the Indian side, the Gnat was impressive in ’65 and in ’71 the Su-7 and Marut both performed very well in the ground-attack role. The Indian MiG-21s did not do well in ’65 largely due to poor Soviet missile technology.

What air power lessons could be learned from the Indo-Pakistan Wars?

The quality of leadership and training of the Pakistan air force showed just how important these factors are in the overall effectiveness of an air force. As Gen George Patton observed “you fight like to train” so high-quality relevant training is vital for any air force. In ’73, the Indian air force ran a highly successful counter-air campaign against airfields in East Pakistan and grounded the Pakistan air force, by using excellent weapon-to-target matching and employing an overwhelming force.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here.

What was the Iran-Iraq War and which aircraft types were used – and for what roles?

Taking advantage of the post-revolution chaos in Iran, Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 in order to take control, of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Expecting a swift and successful campaign, Iraq was surprised by the robust and ferocious response from Iran and by a war which dragged on for eight years. With the ground forces bogged down in a WW1-style war of attrition, the air forces switched to attacking each other’s oil production and export infrastructure, including the “tanker war” in which oil tankers were attacked in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian air force fielded F-4 Phantoms, F-5 Tigers for ground attack and F-14 Tomcats for air defence, while the Iraqis operated MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-7, Su-22 as well as Mirage F1s and MiG-25s.

Which aircraft performed well and which performed badly in the Iran-Iraq War?

Despite limited spares support, the Iranian F-4s and F-14s were very effective in role; the Iraqi Mirage F-1s also achieved some spectacular successes with long-range strikes against Iranian oil terminals. Perhaps the least successful was the Iraqi MiG-23 thanks to its less than ideal handling characteristics.

What air power lessons could be learned from the Iran-Iraq War?

Much like the Egyptians in 1967, the big lesson here is that political or quasi-religious interference in air forces will render them ineffective. Both the Iraqi and Iranian air forces suffered badly because of interference and mismanagement by political (Iraq) and religious (Iran) figures who knew nothing about air power.

What is going on in with the UK programme and ‘Loyal Wingmen’ in general?

The UK has walked away from Project Mosquito, an effort to create a technology demonstrator of a ‘Loyal Wingman’ technology (an unmanned fast aircraft that could support manned aircraft in high-threat environments). Jim Smith looks at what this means – and considers the current state of autonomous buddy aircraft and what the UK wants and needs.

In a fairly recent article for @Hush_Kit, examining the future of air operations:

Re-read this article in forty years time: We predict the future of aviation

I observed that “… the US, China, and Russia, all appear to be converging on a system-of-systems approach to both air combat and strike missions” and also noted that “the ‘system-of-systems’ approach I am considering is also intended to allow unfettered operation over hostile territory, is ‘offensive’ rather than ‘defensive’ in nature, and appears to be the direction being taken by the US, Russia, and China.”

In this context, it was extremely interesting to read, from defbrief.com that the UK has decided not to proceed with its unmanned loyal wingman demonstrator being examined under Project Mosquito.

Unpacking this a little, we can observe the following key points:

• The LANCA programme will not proceed beyond the design phase
• The capability can be achieved more cost-effectively with smaller (and by implication) more specialised off-board assets
• The intent is to introduce such capabilities in the near-term
• Examination of loyal wingman concepts will continue as part of the Future Combat Air Systems Enterprise

So, what might lie behind this change in direction?

At the simplest level, it seems the work done towards LANCA has given an indication of the likely cost, size, complexity, and hence timescale, of developing the MoD’s concept of a loyal wingman system, and the result is not in line with the near-term needs of the RAF.

By implication, cost-effectiveness and timeliness appear to be the main issues, and short-term alternatives are suggested, while keeping the option open of broader and longer-term studies and options under the FCASE program.

What is the ‘capability need’?

All well and good, and perhaps a sensible compromise, in order to contain costs while continuing FCASE studies and keeping an eye on the Australian and US unmanned combat aircraft adjunct programs, perhaps with an eye to a future Off-The-Shelf purchase. However, there remain some fundamental question about what the UK might actually be looking for in the Future Combat Air Systems Enterprise.

Of course, the critical aspects will be to determine what future capability is likely to be needed, in what timescale, against what threats, and in what operational context. By the latter, I mean whether the capability is primarily perceived to be driven by the UK acting in coalition, or in a stand-alone capacity.

The details of all that would be secret, but some guesses can be made. Firstly, if the UK is involved in direct conflict with a 1^st tier opponent such as Russia or China, this is only credible in a coalition, as the capability and force structure to do so in a stand-alone sense would be unaffordable.

A second consideration would be how long a conflict might need to be sustained. All recent experience suggests that the idea of a ‘short, sharp conflict’ against capable opposition are long gone. Recent UK coalition operations have lasted years, not months.

A third consideration is whether the UK would be involved in primarily defensive, or primarily offensive operations. Since the second world war, this has been a changing picture. As a post-war colonial power, the UK was involved in all sorts of operations. This shrank when activities were constrained to no longer be ‘East of Suez’, and changed again with the Gulf War and successor activities including engagement in Afghanistan. So, Air Defence of the UK and its Colonies focussed down to Air Defence of the UK, and then expanded to Support to the US in Coalition.

From all this, I conclude that the main actual driver for the UK Force structure is now supporting the US in coalition operations, essentially worldwide and of long duration, but leavened by an expectation that the US would do the heavy lifting against the most difficult targets.

Short-term and Longer-term needs

The Project Mosquito announcement essentially defers introduction of a loyal wingman capability to consideration under the FCASE project. Instead, the focus is to shift “to aggressively pursue the RAF’s unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value”.

Hence, given the near-term force mix essentially being JSF and Typhoon, off-board, unmanned assets to support those assets. From which one might expect off-board defensive aids, including deployable EW capabilities, possibly Datalink and communications relays, perhaps some ISR and damage assessment capabilities, and perhaps deception drones to aid in defence suppression. Are numerous, separate, unmanned and deployable capabilities a cheaper option than a loyal wingman?

Almost certainly, provided they are managed intelligently, for example using a simple unmanned bus concept, which would be loaded with the appropriate mission systems to deliver the different capabilities. Developed as separate capabilities – much less certainly, especially if integration with the platform or other unmanned systems were to be required.

Longer-term

If we assume the longer-term objective is to support FCASE, then the timescale should allow mature consideration of what loyal wingman capabilities are required. It would also allow possible alternative options to appear, with UA and AUS systems as possible alternatives to a UK programme.

The capability arguments suggest a sustainable rather than throw-away capability would be required. While there is a certain attraction in using unmanned QF-16 aircraft as a thrust to erode defence capabilities ahead of a ‘Shock and Awe’ first strike mission, this is a destabilising, overtly offensive, one-shot capability that, however attractive, could not really be a credible approach for the UK. Or, indeed, anyone, except perhaps the US or Israel.

A loyal wingman which was, itself, survivable (aka stealthy), but which might be used to deploy decoys, jammers, harassment drones, anti-radar and, perhaps, offensive cyber capabilities might well be a good adjunct to whatever manned system comes out of FCASE (Tempest?).

Such a system would, inevitably, be nearly as expensive as a low signature manned system, but, through its ability to forward-deploy defence suppression aids, could make survivable manned strike and air superiority missions much easier to deliver. The wingman platform might also be adaptable for other capabilities such as Air-to-air refuelling, electronic surveillance, target acquisition and designation.

What Next?

The UK appears to have had a look at a near-term Loyal Wingman capability and realised that any Lightweight and Affordable system is unlikely to be available in the short-term, and perhaps unable to deliver the capability it requires. A short-term shift to multiple, separate, deployable systems appears likely to be the outcome. To deliver this in a cost-effective way will require early attention to detail in integrating the various systems with their platforms, and perhaps with each other.

Continuation of the loyal wingman studies under the FCASE project also appears to be a sensible option, and to have the benefit of allowing UK thinking on capability requirements to mature, while keeping a watchful eye on relevant International programmes. Critical questions to be resolved will be the balance between survivable and attritable systems; identification of the missions which can be delivered by unmanned systems; and designing a cost-effective integrated system to deliver the capability outcomes required.

With its Bayraktar TB2 unmanned combat aircraft proving itself as a formidable weapon in Ukraine, a fifth-generation fighter in development, and a wealth of other aerospace projects, Turkey is growing in importance as an aircraft-producing nation. We get the Turkish perspective on the latest Turkish aerospace developments.

By Arda Mevlutoglu

What is going on with Kale & Rolls-Royce? Kale Group and Rolls Royce formed up a joint venture named Turkish Air Engine Company (TAEC) in 2017, primarily for the development of the engine of the MMU (Milli Muharip Ucak; National Combat Aircraft). Back then, negotiations were underway with the Kale – Rolls Royce partnership and Turkey’s Savunma Sanayii Baskanligi (SSB; Presidency for Defence Industries) who oversees the whole MMU programme.

The negotiations, which continued until around 2019 did not produce a result and SSB looked for other alternatives. According to local media, one of the main reasons for this was Turkish side insisting on the involvement of the TRMotor company, a joint venture which was then formed up by Turkish Aerospace (TA), SSB and BMC Power, a Turkish – Qatari joint venture for powerplant technologies. Reportedly, the British side did not welcome the inclusion of the TRMotor, mainly due to the presence of another country (Qatar) through shares, because of intellectual property (IP) and export end-use issues.

In the meantime, several F110 turbofan engines were ordered from General Electric for the prototypes. Also, TA has purchased all other shares in the TRMotor, making it its subsidiary, thereby addressing British concerns of the Qatari involvement. Very recently, the head of SSB, Prof. Ismail Demir announced negotiations with TAEC to be resumed. As of today, negotiations are underway and if everything goes well, a collaboration agreement will be signed with the TAEC. The role of the TRMotor and other Turkish engine companies, such as TEI is unclear, at least for the public for now.

• What new Turkish aircraft projects are in development and how are the programme’s going?

The main aircraft development project is the MMU. TA has started manufacturing of structural parts of the prototype, and the roll-out is planned to take place on March 18, next year. First flight is expected to be sometime between 2025-26.

Another project is the Hurjet, advanced jet trainer development programme. Hurjet is being developd as a replacement for the T-38M trainers and the F-5 2000 of the Turkish Stars aerobatics team. The aircraft will be powered by a single General Electric F404 turbofan and will be capable of achieving Mach 1.4 speed at around 45,000ft altitude. It will be equipped with advanced avionics and communication systems, suited for training of 5th generation combat aircraft pilots. The first flight of the Hurjet is planned for 2023.

• Why does a Turkish Typhoon deal seem a possibility again?

Turkey was expelled from the F-35 project as a result of the acquisition of S-400 air defence system from the Russian Federation. Until then, Turkey had been a Level III industrial partner to the project from the very start and planned to acquire 100 F-35As for the Air Force and between 12 and 20 F-35Bs for the Navy, for use with the Anadolu LHD, which is under construction.

The TurAF planned to equip the first squadron, the 171 Filo with the F-35As by early 2020s. The 100 F-35As were to be delivered to 171, 172, 111 and 112 Filos, replacing the F-4E 2020 Terminator. In the meantime, the MMU, which is planned to be delivered from late 2020’s would gradually replace the F-16 fleet, starting from the oldest Block 30 models.

Turkey’s ejection from the F-35 programme therefore dealt a severe blow to the TurAF’s modernization roadmap. The time required for the MMU to achieve a full operational capability and in significant number of aircraft will most likely see the first half of the next decade, and neighbouring countries’ significant investments in air power create major risk of losing qualitative superiority. As a result, Turkey requested from the United States the sale of 40 new F-16Vs and kits for 80 existing aircraft to upgrade them to F-16V standard. The Turkish – American relations, however, have significantly deteriorated in the past years and the mood in the Congress towards Turkey is especially negative. That’s why, as an alternative, acquisition of Typhoons from United Kingdom, either as second hand or new production -or maybe both- have been brought to agenda. There are not much details on this issue, but given the deepening bilateral relations and increased defence cooperation, Typhoon is most likely being discussed upon.

What is Erdogan’s relationship with Putin, and his position on the Russian invasion attempt in Ukraine? Does Russia have good relations with Turkey?

Turkey’s relationship with Russia has so far maintained on the razor’s edge. Russia is Turkey’s neighbour and the two nations have fought, made peace, made business and interacted culturally for many centuries. Even during certain periods in the Cold War, the Soviet Union and Turkey had good economic relations. But at the end of the day it is geopolitics that have the last word. The two states are geopolitical competitors, though remarkably successful in maintaining compartmentalizing issues and challenges.

From the very first day, Turkey has officially condemned Russia’s unprovoked and unjust attack on Ukraine. Ankara has also been refusing to recognize the annexation of Crimea. Turkey has been providing Ukraine with Bayraktar TB2 armed drones, and in early February the two countries signed an agreement to establish a factory in Ukraine to manufacture a localized version of the TB2, through transfer of technology. Turkey is also constructing a derivative of the MilGem class corvette for the Ukrainian navy and ASELSAN has provided advanced communication systems. Ukraine, on the other hand has become one of the important suppliers for the Turkish defence industry: Ukrainian turboprop engines are being used on the Bayraktar Akıncı strike drone, the T929 ATAK II next-generation attack helicopter and the upcoming Bayraktar Kızıl Elma jet-powered UCAV.

• Why is Erdogan critical of NATO entry for Sweden and Finland?

One of the main reasons for Turkey’s negative position regarding these countries, especially Sweden providing a safe haven and even support for the PKK terrorist organization [editor note: the group is not described as a terrorist organisation by some] and Gulenist movement, which organized the July 15^th coup attempt in 2016. Both countries have been more than reluctant in cooperating with Turkey in counter-terrorism operations.

• Is there any chance Turkey could provide air defence systems to Ukraine, if so which? If not, why?

Turkey has so far developed the Korkut self- propelled low altitude air defence gun system, the Hisar A+ low altitude and the Hisar O+ medium-altitude air defence missile systems. These platforms have completed development and are in serial production phase. It is theoretically possible for Turkey to provide some of these systems to Ukraine but I believe this decision would be subject to complex military and political considerations.

SUPPORT HUSH-KIT ON PATREON HERE

• Has Turkey provided military aid to Ukraine, if so, what?

I don’t have information on whether or not Turkey has supplied any type of military equipment to Ukraine after the start of the war. Baykar Technology has recently announced the donation of a Bayraktar TB2, after a fundraising campaign by Lithuania raised enough money for one system along with weapons.

• Is there a possibility of Turkey rejoining the F-35 effort?

I believe, Turkey rejoining the programme as an industrial partner is impossible. Getting the aircraft in the not-so-soon future might be a slim possibility and that would depend on a number of conditions, the S-400 issue being the number one.

• What should I have asked you?

What’s next for the Turkish Air Force? Well, the MMU and the drone programme have the utmost priorities. The MMU is the most complex and the most strategic project, albeit being an over-ambitious one in terms of budget, schedule, human capital, infrastructure and requirements. On the drone side, the Akıncı, Aksungur, and the Kızıl Elma will contribute to the transformation of the Turkish Air Force into something new, and something big. It is important to underline that a major part of this transformation is Turkey’s unprecedented leap in developing and fielding a wide range of precision-guided weapon systems such as guidance kits, multi-mode guided bombs, cruise missiles and miniature bombs.

Arda Mevlutoglu is an astronautical engineer. He is currently working as the VP of an international trading and consultancy company, focusing on defense and aerospace sector. He is currently working as the Vice President of Defense Programs at an international trading and consultancy company. His research focuses on defense industry technology, policies and geopolitical assessments, with a focus to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea region. His works have been published in various local and international journals such as Air Forces Monthly, Air International, Combat Aircraft, EurasiaCritic, ORSAM Middle East Analysis. He has been quoted by Financial Times, Reuters, BBC, Al Monitor, CNN Turk and TRT on issues covering Turkish defence industry and military developments.

Support the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes and pre-order here. 

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, MiG-25, English Electric Lighting, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

As tha D-O-double-G (double G) folks often ask me if I know the most poppin’ aerial target tugs. Say what? Fo’ shizzle, I do. Light that chronic, dig out tha mary-Jane’s All tha World’s Bitchin’ Aircraft and prepare for 10 planes that want your fire.

It’s the Tea You Double G!

10. Vultee A-31 Vengeance

Have to mention this West Coast hero, California dreamin’ and schemin’ with Vengence. Startin’ life as a dive-bomber for France, had got a body that girls would die for.

9. Westland Lysander

Just say the word and his undercarriage spat out all over the curb. Shoot ’em up bang bang, yeah it’s a cold thang, the Lysander gotta high high wing. Love this fat-ass spat-wearin’ baller.

8. Boulton Paul Defiant

I swear, I feel like I’m ballin’, yeah I’m ballin’, yeah I’m ball turreting – but I ball so hard the motherfuckin’ ball turret fall off. It’s so easy to see, painted and pimped up like some player bumblebee.

7. Hawker Henley

Bring out the Hennessy for the Hawker Henley, this Merlin-ass bitch’ll tug you and thug you and say thank you for the fire you brung too. Too much of a pussy to be a light bomber – as a tug it had the disgrace to be replaced by the mos def turrent-compliant Defiant. The Henley was bullshit.

6. Ilyushin Il-28 Beagle

Dog-to-dog love for the Finnish touch, the Il-28 was much too much. Fly so regal, fly like a Beagle.

5. Miles M.25 Martinet 

Dr Dre’s favourite target tug, gonna whip you with my martinet. A martinet is a disciplinarian, so get your money, whip your hair, the Martinet is gonna be there. It was based on the Master, staying on an S to the M to the S&M tip. Whip your booty girl!

4. Douglas Skyraider

Poppin’, stoppin’, hoppin’ like a rabbit – tha Swedish Shiznit don’t need no gat to tug a target. This be troll-hatin’ all the way to Trollhättan.

3. Hawker Fury

Marzipan ain’t tha only shit straight outta Lübeck, rollin’ down tha air-strasses keepin’ it gangsta was this grimy limey.

2. Short Sturgeon TT.2

This is some Optimus Prime Transformer Beef, folds up like g’s. ‘Cause Snoop Dogg is trump tight like a virgin, tha Sturgeon. Tupac knew Tug life, and I know mo’.

1. F+W C-3605

Fo shizzle, it got to be tha Alpine anteater itself at tha top slot. Effin’ W, tha F, tha F & W. Holy like Swiss cheese, this neautral-ass muthafucker is 3 to tha 6 to tha 05. Bitches be lovin’ its long long nose poking right up their alpine p’ass. Based on tha Bf 109 originally, and painted up like some funky-ass fluorescent bumble-bee. That long-dong snout holding tha Lycomings-and-Lygoings-of tha T-mother-fuckin-53.

I just went to see Top Gun Maverick. I went with high expectations as I have only seen and heard good things; I don’t know why…I almost fell asleep twice.

By Nick Astle

I don’t know what ideal the brave pilots of Maverick are defending, or why I should like them. Their world is one without humour, the characters have the kind of wit, emotional intelligence and sensitivity of a tired stag party staggering through a city centre dressed as Spice Girls. The credo Maverick teaches his aircrew: Don’t Think, Do. I lazily wondered if this made the film Trumpist, but it could only dream of having a relationship with reality as tangible as that (though it’s not not Trumpist). The lack of likeability is an issue, as though Cruise is fun to watch, he hasn’t got much to work with as the dialogue is just guff – though mercifully minimal.

Still Gay enough?

The 1986 Top Gun was famous for its beach volleyball scene, an unapologetically homoerotic celebration of the male form, youth and life in the sunshine. As a couple of tokenistic female fighter pilots are chucked into the new movie, I wondered if we would be perving over them in the same way during Maverick’s inevitable volleyball call-back scene – interestingly we were not. The girls wore more than the boys and remained in the shadows while the glistening semi-nude young men (and Cruise) sweated in the sunshine. While this could be viewed as progressive, the women in the film are literally and figuratively in the shadows throughout the film. Any viewers fearing the film would be overly woke can sleep easily, it reaches, in terms of representation, a film from around 2003. This is perhaps understandable when you remember the central theme of the first film seemed to be masculinity (along with militarism and an awkward attempt to reconcile the individualism of American capitalism with the collaborative conformist nature of military culture). How do you make a handsome brilliant test pilot and war hero an outsider? Not very convincingly is the answer in this case. The ‘man’, the voice of bureaucratic naysayers is played by Jon Hamm. Maverick’s renegade views are a bit Clarksonesque, the sleepy unimaginative mantra of men of a certain age complaining everything is ‘health and safety gone mad’. Quite how a carrier pilot who is so clearly slapdash has survived this long is anybody’s guess. Can’t imagine Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown in Maverick’s role (though a British Top Gun set in the 1950s would be amazing).

Darkstar

The Darkstar aircraft section is very revealing. Why did Lockheed Martin Skunkworks help with the design of this stealthy Mach 10 aircraft – and allow their logo to be used? Because the virtual absence of F-35s must have been embarrassing. The F-35 cannot be used for the main mission in the plot as the target is protected by GPS-jammers and requires the laser designation capabilities of the Super Hornet. I’m not sure this stands up to much scrutiny, and I guess the real reason is that it was easy to film using Super Hornets rather than precious and security restricted F-35s. Or maybe it’s just hard to film in a single-seater! Without Darkstar, Boeing with its Super Hornet would have all of the glory. Wanking over the hardware of the military-industrial complex is, like the first film, a major part of the film. In a comically shameless defence of the F-35 programme and eternally delayed Lockheed Martin projects, Darkstar is threatened by the usual pencil-pushers who believe that the aircraft project is behind schedule and are threatening to cancel it. The project can only demonstrate the required milestone of development by Maverick risking his life and the aircraft by flying irresponsibly fast – and then flying even faster for no reason other than his own inexplicable need for speed. Making multi-billion dollar warplane acquisition projects vulnerable underdogs is really weird.

The enemies – a chimera of Russia and Iran boringly enriching uranium – are faceless, an utterly childish and dangerously easy way to dehumanise them (Austin Powers had greater sympathy for the ‘bad guys’). They operate Su-57s (as Russia pretends to), F-14s (as Iran actually does) and pimped-up Mi-24s (as pretty much everyone does).

The real hero

The hero of the film is not Tom Cruise – or the Super Hornet – or the CGI F-14 for that matter – It is the Su-57 ‘Felon’ (or rather the CGI depiction of it) described vaguely as an invincible ‘fifth generation’ fighter, that steals the show. It is a real Russian fighter design, and it looks utterly badass in the film, piloted by black-visored baddies in black. It is far more exciting than the rather workmanlike Super Hornet or tired F-14, though predictably as combat effective as a TIE fighter. There is strong Firefox (the film not the web browser) and MiG-28 energy in the ‘Felon’ scenes and these are the high points of the movie.

As in all war movies featuring jets, infra-red flares can fool radar-guided missiles. The pedantically minded may also enjoy spotting that shadow of Maverick’s single-seat aircraft is that of a two-seater.

What, if anything, is the film’s central message? It is far too conventional not to have a central message – and it seems to revolve around ageism. Both Maverick and the F-14 are older, seemingly obsolete, and win the day. This is reassuring to the millions of 40+ plus moviegoers feeling increasingly obsolete in their own lives.

The flying sections are very well done, but much like the first film, do not represent a great percentage of screen time.

The movie is a pointless – and occasionally fun – exercise in nostalgia. Is American cinema a rusty old F-14 expensively limping home with one engine? Unmanned aircraft are villainous threats to the future existence of fighter pilots in this movie, and Maverick would clearly rather have his kicks than entertain a future without friendly casualties. Villianising unmanned aircraft is itself a quite old fashioned view nowadays, it should be noted that songs are sung in celebration of the Bayraktar in 2022. The whole experience was like lying in a long cold bath. It is soupy pointless nostalgia that cost god knows how much to make.

The biggest mystery of the film, apart from the inexplicably universal positive reviews, is that a naval aviator would choose a P-51, an air force aircraft, as his weekend ride.

Click here for part 1 of Guy Plopsky’s fascinating analysis of Russian air power in Ukraine.

Part 2 will be out soon and will cover the more recent news.

A great aircraft is the civil (or military) partnership of a good engine and good airframe, and sometimes a separation is necessary to make way for a more appropriate partner. Many great airframe aircraft have been held back by combination with inappropriate or inferior engines. Here are 10 power-hungry flying machines that finally got the grunt they deserved.

10. Tupolev Tu-22/Tu-22M ‘Ziggy Red Stardust’

The Tu-22 is the David Bowie of aircraft, reinventing itself with such radical vision that you’re left to ponder what exactly is left of the original. Little wonder the supersonic bomber required reinvention really when you consider how awful the original Tu-22 was. The original Tu-22 was abysmal in almost every sense and detested by its crew and maintainers. Appalling unserviceability, misanthropic handling characteristics – a wing that allowed aileron reversal at high deflections – a tendency to pitch up and strike its rear end on landing, disappointing range and poor pilot view were only some of the problems endured by the hapless Soviet aircrew condemned to fly the ‘Blinder’.

The design bureau, Tupolev, was under pressure and didn’t take long to plan a major upgrade to this stinker, starting work the very same year the type entered service, 1962. Ten years later a virtually unrecognisable aeroplane, with different (and variable geometry) wings and a host of other modifications, entered service.

Despite all the radical changes, it didn’t get a new model number, just the humble addition of an M. NATO intelligence more appropriately, but incorrectly, guessed it to be the ‘Tu-26’. But it was still a dog. The terrible Dobrynin RD-7 turbojet of the Tu-22 had been replaced with the newer, but also shit, NK-22.

The most important change didn’t happen until the Tu-22M3 update, which included the replacement of the NK-22 with the hunky-dory Kuznetsov NK-25 turbofan and rather handsome wedge intakes. The new engines came hand-in-hand with other aerodynamic improvemts including a recontoured nose and greater maximum wingsweep. With these all new refinements, the top speed leapt from Mach 1.65 to 2.05 and its range was increased by a third.

(In retrospect I feel terrible comparing a Russian bomber to David Bowie)

9. Blackburn Buccaneer ‘The Speyed Seadog’

Blackburn are famous for making less than brilliant aeroplanes, and the initial Blackburn Buccaneer was no exception. The innovative S.Mk 1 was powered by the de Havilland Gyron Junior, and was a weakling. It was underpowered, as test pilot Dave Eagles quipped in his Hush-Kit interview it “relied on the curvature of the earth to get airborne ”. This was solved when the S.Mk 2 was introduced in 1962, powered by the Spey. Replacing the Gyron Junior of 7,100 pounds-force each with the 11,000 lbf Spey was a masterstroke. The result was a superb low-level aircraft with a long-range (longer even than the Tornado), a virtually indestructible construction and a rock-steady low-level ride. The type proved its worth in Desert Storm, and remained to the end of its life a potent weapon.

-Joe Coles

8. Douglas C-47/DC-3 ‘Dakota turbo Fanning’

The DC-3 was a civilian airliner developed in the mid-1930s. At the beginning of the Second World War, it was adapted (with minor modifications) into a military transport aircraft and (predominately) designated the C-47. Over 95% of the airframes built were these military versions. During the decade of C-47 production, several engine variants were used, without significant changes to the type or size of the engine. The original DC-3 was powered by the 9-cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 producing 1,000 horsepower. The C-47 predominately used the 14-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp which produced 1,200 horsepower.

Roughly one-third of the US-built aircraft was the C-47B variant. This aircraft used Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90 engines with a high-altitude two-speed supercharger. This 1942 modification was critical for the China-Burma-India supply routes and allowed the aircraft to carry full payload over the 15,000’ mountain passes.

The Super DC-3 was developed post-war using 9-cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclones producing 1,475 horsepower. While not commercially viable due to the extensive airframe modifications required, the US Navy converted 100 aircraft and they were designated R4D-8 and later the C-117D. This variant had a cruise speed of 250 mph, up from 224 mph for the original C-47.

C-47s were also produced during the war in the Soviet Union and in Japan (due to pre-war licensing agreements). In both cases, similar engines produced in those respective countries were used. The Soviet version used the 9-cylinder Shvetsov M-62 producing 900 horsepower, and the Japanese used the 14-cylinder Mitsubishi MK8 Kinsei 43 producing 1,000 horsepower.

On a final note, a few airframes have been upgraded in recent years with various turboprop engines. With similar power, the aircraft performance is only modestly improved. However, the upgrade does significantly improve the engine maintenance and reliability.

-Joe Wilding

7. Lynx RR Gem to LHTEC CTS800 ‘Lynx Wray’s Comanche‘

The Westland Lynx burst onto the scene in the 70s showing previously unknown levels of manoeuvrability for a helicopter thanks to a semi-rigid rotor head hewn from a solid block of titanium and two Rolls-Royce Gem gas turbines. The 2,000 odd horsepower available from two tweaked Gem 60s helping drive G-LYNX to a helicopter World Speed Record of 216kts (400 km/h, M0.32) in 1986, a record which it still holds today.

The Gem began life with de Havilland prior to its merger with Bristol Siddeley in 1961. Rolls-Royce acquired Bristol in 1966 and the engine finally entered production in 1970 as the Gem RR.360. A compact design the Gem features an axial and a radial compressor, mounted on separate concentric shafts, with a third shaft for the power turbine passing through the centre to the reduction gearbox in front of the intake. The small size is aided by reverse flow combustion chambers where compressed air enters towards the rear of the engine before moving forwards to have fuel added. The resultant hot gases then turn through 180 degrees to pass over the three turbine stages which are surrounded by the combustion chambers.

Unfortunately, as with people, as aircraft age they tend to put on weight – the odd defensive aids suite here, an infra-red camera there – and suddenly you’re struggling to see your toes in the morning. A process made worse if rather than flitting around the North Atlantic you find yourself committing the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia, where the air is hotter and thinner. Both factors that count against engine and rotor blade performance. There are basically two ways out of this inevitable decline, you could choose violence, set higher limits for the engines and gearbox to run at, and accept the parts won’t last as long. Or you could try finding a new engine.

Handily for Westlands, the Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC) had just want they needed left over from the RAH-66 Comanche programme. The CTS800 despite weighing the same as the Gem produces 35% more power with a max output of 1563shp. Only 300 less than the max continuous power you could get from two Gems. This massively improved the hot and high performance of the Lynx Mk9A introducing novel concepts such as taking a full fuel load, and maintaining level flight after an engine failure, things the Mk9 couldn’t do in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq. The CTS800 also bought with it FADEC controls which are far more responsive and reliable than the frankly baffling system the Gem used to control fuel flow which seemed to involve blowing air from the compressors through a stainless-steel ocarina. Perhaps most confusing of all for aircrew and maintainers bought up on earlier gas turbines is the complete absence of oil or fuel leaks from the LHTEC engine.

The CTS800 was basically hormone replacement therapy for the Lynx and was so successful that after receiving the first of 12 converted aircraft the UK MoD stumped up £42M to have the remaining 10 Mk9s upgraded.

-Bing Chandler

6. Wessex Wright Cyclone to Gnome, via Gazelle ‘Gnome Alone’

The Sikorsky S-58 was an entirely adequate helicopter powered by a Wright Cyclone piston engine that wouldn’t have looked out of place in a Dauntless dive bomber, or a Wildcat. If only because that’s where it started out. US manufacturers apparently having the same problem kicking the radial engine habit as British ones did going cold turkey on the Merlin. In the mid-1960s With the Royal Navy in the market for an ASW and General-Purpose helicopter Westlands hit on the idea of licence building the American aircraft, with one crucial difference. Out went 1200hp of high-octane, war-winning reciprocation and in came the Napier Gazelle. Which looked like an accident in a metal tube factory.

This was in fact a move of some genius. Although the Gazelle was down on horsepower compared to the Cyclone, 1450shp to 1525shp [1], it made up for this by being a few hundred pounds lighter. This gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 1.31shp/lb to the Cyclone’s 1.03shp/lb. Unlike the Cyclone the Gazelle didn’t need a heavy clutch and fan to keep air flowing over its cooling fins, nor did it vibrate like a tumble dryer full of bricks. For while the piston engine attempts to recycle dead dinosaurs into a rotational force by accelerating lumps of metal up and down a collection of tubes the gas turbine is a far more civilised device that does its magic by spinning a balanced shaft at high speed. Say 20,400 RPM for the Gazelle or about 10 times what the Cyclone was doing. At the same time gas turbines have about an order of magnitude fewer moving parts which is less of a headache if you’re trying to maintain them.

If one gas turbine is good, then two must be better right? Right. Which is just the approach Westlands took an upgrade was called for. This time two Rolls-Royce Gnome engines [2] were substituted for the Gazelle. These provided 1350shp each giving the Wessex Mk2 and 5 almost the same performance with One Engine Inoperative (OEI) as the Mk1 achieved with everything working. The Mk1’s OEI performance being something of an obvious weak point. The packaging was made relatively easy due to the compact size of the Gnome, 18.2” wide to the Gazelle’s 33”. In fact, the nose of an early Mk 2 is virtually indistinguishable from a Mk 1, apart from a baffling halving of the number of exhausts. To simplify the engineering challenge the output from the two Gnomes feeds into a combining gearbox the output of which goes to the same input on the main rotor gearbox as the Gazelle and Cyclone’s driveshafts did.

This extra power didn’t significantly alter the basic performance of the Wessex, the main rotor gear box just wasn’t designed to take much more than 1550hp continuously. However, it did allow it to take this basic performance to new places. For example, the H-34A had an out of ground effect hover ceiling of 5,500’, where the Wessex Mk5 had one of 10,000’ at an all-up mass of 11,500lbs. More power, smoother running, and capable of surviving an engine failure the Gnome-powered Wessex were Top Gun to the S-58’s Iron Eagle. [3]

[1] Accurate engine power figures are a bit tricky to get as it can be hard to know if the figure quoted is the max continuous power, or just what you can wring out of it for two minutes if your life depends on it. These figures are undoubtedly the latter.

[2] Inherited from de Havilland who had obtained a licence to build the GE T58.

[3] An honourable mention could be made for the S-58T where Sikorsky replaced the Cyclone with a Pratt & Whitney PT6T Twin-Pac turboshaft giving similar performance to a Wessex Mk5. But the resulting nose job was too ugly to be considered an all-round success.

– Bing Chandler

(special thanks to Ron Smith)

5. Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker ‘Stratocruising’

The KC-135 is a great example of an aircraft with enough longevity to receive a significant performance upgrade with a new-technology engine. This aerial tanker, which is roughly based on a Boeing 707 airliner (both of which evolved from the Boeing 367-80) first flew in 1956 when turbojet engines were the norm. A turbojet, the simplest version of a jet engine, passes all the engine airflow through the compressor, burner and turbine. By contrast, later turbofan engines have a ducted fan at the front of the engine, and only a portion of the airflow goes through the core of the engine. This allows better optimisation of the engine and provides better fuel and weight efficiency, lower noise and less pollution. The KC-135 originally used four Pratt & Whitney J57 engines each producing 13,000 pounds of take-off thrust (with water injection). The first production turbofan engine, the Rolls-Royce Conway, entered service soon after the KC-135. However, its performance was only marginally better than a turbojet, and an engine retrofit at that time was not justified. Turbofan technology continued over the next twenty years, and it was finally time for an upgrade in the 1980s. And what an upgrade it was! An initial upgrade to the Pratt & Whitney TF33 engine was performed on 157 aircraft. This increased the tanker performance (fuel off-loaded and/or mission range) by 20%. The more significant upgrade came in the mid-1980s with the KC-135R model. This upgrade used the CFM56 engine and was applied to a majority of the fleet. The CFM56 produces 22,000 pounds of take-off thrust, a 60% increase over the J57 engine. This, along with a few airframe upgrades, allowed for a maximum take-off weight increase, and a significant increase in aircraft performance. Compared to the original A model, the R model can offload nearly 30% more fuel, and its mission radius is increased by 60% or more, depending on fuel offload. Takeoff field performance, noise, and emissions are also improved.

As a postscript to this story, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber is in the process of a modern turbofan upgrade. The aircraft, from a similar era, was upgraded to TF33 turbofan engines with the H model in the early 1960s. Further upgrades have been discussed for decades, but finally last year a retrofit to the Rolls-Royce F130 engine was approved by the USAF, with full development work now in progress.

– Joe Wilding

4. North American P-51 Mustang ‘The 51st State’

Pairing the most aerodynamically advanced airframe in creation with the best aero-engine in the world was a match made in heaven. An excellent low-level fighter became a superb all-round fighter. Jealous British historians may claim the re-engining was an entirely British idea, but several in the US had also considered this happy marriage.

-Joe Coles

3. Macchi C.200-C.202/205V

When the Italian air force took the Macchi C.200 to war on the French border, Africa and the Balkans it proved utterly and dangerously outclassed. Its Fiat radial engine generated an unimpressive 870hp, leaving it underpowered compared to Allied opposition boasting 1000hp inline powerplants. Poor thinking in the 1930s had led Italy away from adopting powerful inline engines, in favour of the promise of reliable uncomplicated radials; in reality, all this thinking had got the Regia Aeronautica was a fighter force too slow to survive. Aware of the mauling Italian fighters were receiving, the General Staff frantically turned to Alfa Romeo and Fiat begging for radials of greater power, but none were forthcoming. In desperation, they turned to their German allies to request licence-production rights for the inline Daimler-Benz DB 601, as used by the formidable Bf 109 and Bf 110. The German engine had a far smaller frontal cross-section than the Fiat engine allowing for greater streamlining and far more power. A 601 was fitted to a C.202, and the machine was also given an enclosed cockpit. Thus the ‘Folgore’ was born in 1940- and it was one hell of a fighter. With a top speed of 372mph, it was as fast or faster than contemporary Spitfires and 109s – and its climb rate was spectacular, it was also agile and of extremely rugged construction. In North Africa, the Folgore proved a viciously superior fighter to the Kittyhawks, Tomahawks, Hurricanes and Fulmars it faced.

-Joe Coles

2. Grumman F-14 Tomcat ‘Flopgun’

The F-14 inherited a curse from the fat wheezy abortive F-111B it was made to replace, the lamentable TF30 engines. The TF30 story goes back even further, as it was originally conceived for the Douglas F6D Missileer a loitering ‘missile-truck’ of an aircraft which never flew. The TF30 proved passable for bombers looking to move extremely quickly at low-altitude without the violence of extreme dogfight manoeuvring and found gainful employment with the F-111. But, as a fighter engine it was terrible. Weak, thirsty, smoky, unreliable, pilots of the otherwise excellent Tomcat had to learn to manage these untrustworthy engines. The TF30-P-414A solved the reliability issue to some extent but the Tomcat was still underpowered. Eventually the Tomcat got the engine it needed, with the fitment of the excellent General Electric F110-GE-400. The new Tomcat was an awe-inspiring machine, with performance to match the world-class weapons and sensors.

-Joe Coles

The F-14’s engines have a bad reputation, is this deserved?

“Yes, as long as we are talking about the TF30 engines of the F-14A. You may know that the TF30 was intended as an interim engine for the F-14, but for several reasons it ended up as the primary. Plenty of other sources have described its limitations in a fighter. Something hardly ever mentioned is that in order to improve engine stability and longevity, maximum thrust in afterburner was actually decreased to roughly 17,000 lbs per engine. As I mentioned before, the TF30 did have good fuel specs and it also had good thrust, especially at lower altitude – but these points did not outweigh their poor performance as a fighter engine. But still, I flew A-models my entire career and I can tell you pilots did not sit around complaining about the TF30: they learned its weaknesses, worked around them, and went out and flew the best jet they could. They were Navy fighter pilots.” – Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek, TopGun instructor and Radar Intercept Officer

1. Avro Manchester ‘So much to answer for’

The famous Lancaster was more than a re-engined Manchester, but was not that much more. In fact, the prototype Lancaster was a conversion of the earlier twin-engined bomber and was initially known as the Manchester III . The obvious change was the addition of two extra engines, but there was also a larger wing, general beefing up and a new undercarriage. Despite these changes it is absolutely fair to describe the Lancaster as a new ‘Manc’. The result was spectacular, and the mediocre Manchester became the most destructive and survivable bomber of its time.

-Joe Coles