Woof! Who doesn’t love a good dog? Folks in aviation certainly do, for man’s best friend has inspired the moniker of many a flying machine over the nearly twelve decades of powered flight. We’re going to look at a few of them today. We’ll stick to aircraft named for domestic doggies, those inspired by wild canids would need a whole ‘nother piece to do them justice. Like Fido, these aircraft are (mostly) dependable and great to have around. Although you probably wouldn’t want to keep them as house pets, as they might leak oil on your new carpet…

Honorable Mention: Douglas AD Skyraider – the ‘Able Dog‘

Yes, this one’s a bit of a cheat, since the aircraft itself wasn’t actually named after a dog. But, due to its trustworthiness, ruggedness, and tendency to leave oil stains on its pilot’s leg, US Naval aviators decided that its pre-1962 AD designator stood for ‘Able Dog’ (It really stood for “Attack aircraft built by Douglas,” but that just doesn’t have the same bark to it.)

The Skyraider was a beast of an aircraft, with a bombload exceeding that of a B-17 and performance that would’ve made any competitor drool with envy. It’s not the prettiest warplane, though it’s far from ugly, and oozes charisma and blue-collar grit. It’s the epitome of a roughneck workhorse. Or perhaps I should say a working dog.

10. Beagle Aircraft, Ltd.

We’ll start off the actual list not with a specific aircraft named after a dog but an entire manufacturer. The existence British Executive & General Aviation Limited—or, as it came to be known, Beagle Aircraft—was ephemeral, lasting only nine years, but it was nothing to stick your snout up at. The firm was formed through the merger of UK light aviation legends Auster and Miles. And, because just giving your company a canine name just isn’t good enough, their aircraft were all given names fit for the family puppy, too.

You could choose a single-engine, high-wing design like the Husky, Terrier, and Airedale—all adaptations of existing Auster designs—or opt for the sporty yet awkwardly proportioned twin-engine B.206, known as the Basset in RAF service. And, if you didn’t want something boring and everyday like a Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee, you could get yourself a nice B.121 Pup. The latter would be modified for military usage as the Bulldog, but that one has enough tricks to earn itself a mention of its own further up the list.

9. Foxcon Terrier 200

Like its furry namesake, you can take this light sport aircraft from Australia just about anywhere. It comes either on wheels or floats and, according to the manufacturer’s straight-out-of-1998 website, even comes in a dedicated camper version for those weekend trips deep into the Outback. Powered by a 100hp Subaru or Rotax engine, it’s got room for two—a pilot and his pooch, ideally—but a four-seat Terrier 400 appears to be in development.

8. Bristol Bulldog

This pugnacious fighter of the interwar years gets its name honestly, both for its brawling nature and its rugged good looks. It may be best known as the aircraft in which RAF legend Sir Douglas Bader lost his legs while performing aerobatics, but its eight-year service life saw considerable accomplishments. It never saw combat in British hands, though it did soldier on as a trainer well after being replaced in frontline service. It did, however, see action with the Finnish Air Force during the Winter War. With a two-to-one kill ratio, it didn’t quite reach the same level as the Fiat G.50 or Brewster Buffalo, but, considering those two victories were over a Tupolev SB and a Polikarpov I-16, both vastly more modern and (ostensibly) superior types? This little puppy packed one mean bite!

7. Sopwith ‘Pup‘

Let me start this one with the disclaimer that I have no evidence that this aircraft was actually named after a young dog. In fact, it was officially the Sopwith Scout; ‘Pup’ was a nickname that happened to catch on because it was the smallest of the Sopwith litter. This name could’ve been inspired by a canine pup, yes. But there’s also the distinct possibility that it was inspired by an otter pup. Or a seal pup. Or a shark pup. Or a ring-tailed lemur pup. But, let’s be honest. What’s the first pup that comes to mind? Yeah, that’s right. A cute little baby dog.

This particular Pup was certainly a pilot’s best friend. Extremely docile and highly maneuverable, it racked up quite the litany of accomplishments over its brief career. In 1917, a Pup became the first aircraft to land on a moving ship, and the type was used extensively used in shipborne operations thereafter. It was used to shoot down Zeppelins and Gotha bombers, and even after it was found to be outclassed by newer German fighters, it served well as an advanced trainer. That deserves a treat, methinks.

6. Mil Mi-4 ‘Hound‘

The Soviets mustn’t like dogs very much, because it fell to NATO to bestow upon this workhorse its canine code name. The Soviet S-55/Whirlwind (which is actually considerably larger than either the Sikorsky product or the Westland version, but don’t tell any jingoistic Americans/Brits that lest they get a bad case of rotor envy) proved itself worthy of its reporting name, particularly in Indian Air Force service.

Over 4,000 Mi-4s and Chinese license-built Z-5s were produced; Albania is thought to have been the last operator, operating ‘Hound’s as recently as 2005, but North Korea may or may not still have a few panting around somewhere.

5. Scottish Aviation Bulldog

The last product of Beagle Aircraft Limited that we met earlier, the Bulldog didn’t begin production until that company had ceased operations. It would’ve been the most successful of the Beagles, with over three hundred produced, serving as the standard basic trainer for the RAF and Royal Navy for over twenty-five years as well as equipping the air arms of ten other nations, including the Swedish Air Force, the type’s launch customer, and the Lebanese Air Force, who still have a few hanging around with their Air Force School.

But, while the Grob Tutor has replaced the Bulldog in British military service, it remains quite popular on the secondhand market. (They even turn up at air shows in the States every so often.) That means that, for the right price, you can go fetch one for yourself!

4. Kaman HH-43 Huskie

Certainly an oddity with its synchronized intermeshing rotors (a wartime German invention that came to the United States under the now-infamous Operation Paperclip), the Huskie wasn’t nearly as rancid as its unfortunate nickname—the Flying Shithouse—would have you believe.

Like the noble sled dog that runs at the back of the pack and is the last one to get a treat, but never complains and works just as hard as the others, the Huskie was an unsung hero, being used primarily as a firefighting and station search and rescue platform before becoming the primary short-range rescue helicopter in the Vietnam War.

Just a shame that it was designed by a former pal of Heinrich Himmler…

3. Aviat A-1 Husky

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/AviatA-1BHuskyC-GTHY01.jpg

Sticking with the theme of huskies, but spelled a little differently this time, this taildragger is the epitome of a blue-collar workhorse. It might look like a Super Cub, but it’s an animal all its own. Its 180hp (200hp in the A-1C-200 variant) Lycoming engine gives it an excellent power-to-weight ratio for its size, it’s got excellent short-field performance, and it’s built like a tank. And it comes from Wyoming, just south of Yellowstone National Park. If you’re going to have an aircraft manufacturer headquartered in Wyoming, then its aircraft had darned well be rugged as junkyard dogs.

This one certainly is. It’s used for everything from glider towing to fishery patrol to anti-poaching in Kenya. It takes to water like a golden retriever jumping into a lake to chase down a tennis ball and embraces the snow with the same tongue-out vigor as its namesake.

2. Grumman C-2 Greyhound

The aircraft named for the fastest animal on this list might not look particularly fast—and, in comparison to the next entry, it’s practically flying backwards—but, with a top speed of just under 400 mph at altitude, it’s no slouch, either. The US Navy’s COD—that’s carrier onboard delivery, not to be confused with the fish—can carry twenty-six passengers in utilitarian comfort (but still probably better than Spirit/Allegiant/Ryanair/insert your least favorite budget airline) or 10,000lb of cargo from ship to shore or vice versa.

Alas, it won’t be racing around much longer, as the USN has elected to replace it with the CMV-22B Osprey by 2024.

1. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31 ‘Foxhound‘

This behemoth of a long-range interceptor was an easy choice for the top dog, not only because it’s a monumentally impressive piece of machinery, but its NATO reporting name contains not one but two canine elements!

Thank you. Our aviation shop is HERE and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes HERE

Topping out at Mach 2.83, you won’t find many/any aircraft that can outrun the MiG-31. And it’s got as much bite as it has bark, with a PESA radar and the ability to carry air-to-air, anti-radiation, air-launched ballistic, and anti-satellite missiles in addition to its 23-mm rotary cannon. It prefers to hunt from bases in Russia and Kazakhstan.

By Sean Kelly

Sadly, this site will pause operations in mid October if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

Among the most dangerous flying roles in US 21st Century combat operations was piloting the OH-58D Kiowa armed reconnaissance helicopter. We spoke to former US Army OH-58D pilot Dan Berriochoa to find out more.

When I first joined the Army back in 2000, the OH-58D had two different roles.  The first was that of armed reconnaissance, the traditional cavalry role.  The second role was light attack.  I was never in a light attack unit, although we did practice certain attack tactics with hellfire missiles.

The cavalry mission was by far my favourite, and it consisted of the usual reconnaissance and security tasks.  My first unit was a division cavalry unit, 1-10 Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division.  We had three troops of M-1 Abrams and Bradley Fighting Vehicles and two troops of the OH-58D, totalling 16 aircraft.  There were also a few support troops in there as well.  We would work a lot with the ground side, operating over the shoulder for the tanks and Bradleys.  Typicall,y we would scout out routes, look for river fording sites, recon bridges, landing zones/pick up zones for air assaults and conduct the doctrinal screen, guard, and cover missions (although a Cavalry squadron couldn’t conduct the doctrinal cover mission). 

Now I would say this all changed post-invasion of Iraq.  As the battlefield transitioned from linear to asymmetric doctrinal roles for the OH-58D changed.  We transitioned to more of a security role, providing convoy security and on-call fire support for the troops on the ground.  We still did our reconnaissance, but it was no longer focused on probing enemy front lines. 

Afghanistan was primarily security-focused.  We flew in support of the ground force commander and operated over the top of the infantry or whoever was on the ground.  It was still doctrinal in the sense that we were there to provide reaction time and manoeuvre space to the ground forces and allow them the freedom to manoeuvre, but it was no longer at the brigade or division level; it was at the platoon/company level.  We were there for on-call close combat attacks.  It became a knife fight.

The 58D had agility and manoeuvrability.  If you thought it, the aircraft was doing it. THIS EXCITING STORY CONTINUES ON OUR NEW SITE HERE.

Faster, better-armed and longer-ranged than the contemporary Spitfire, the Gloster F9/37 was a superb machine that failed to enter production. We take a look at this seldom-discussed heavy fighter aircraft.

The Hawker Demon biplane fighter first flew in 1933. The same year the British Air Ministry released a requirement (F.5/33) for its replacement. They wanted a two-seat monoplane fighter equipped with a gun turret, the thinking being that aiming a turret is easier than aiming the whole aeroplane and allows a far greater field of fire. The Gloster Aircraft Company, masters of the biplane, responded with a twin-engined monoplane design powered by the Bristol Aquila radial engine (an abortive project but one which would lead to the Hercules,  Taurus, and  Centaurus). The Air Staff, rightly, were suspecting that the concept of F.5/33 was flawed, and so issued F.34/35 demanding an additional fixed forward-firing armament. Gloster adjusted their design accordingly, adding fixed guns, but Boulton Paul’s turret-equipped Defiant won an order, leaving the Gloster F.34/35 entrant out in the cold.

A year later, a new requirement was issued, F.9/37. This called for a single-seat, twin-engine, long-ranged fighter with fixed guns. At last, it seemed that Gloster’s luck was changing. The work they had done for F.34/35 put them in an excellent position, and the deletion of the heavy draggy turret created a fighter design potentially capable of spectacular performance. Gloster identified two possible engines, the water-cooled inline Rolls-Royce Peregrine and the extremely light powerful radial Bristol Taurus. Prototypes powered by each were to be built and tested.

When the first prototype (L7999), equipped with Taurus engines, flew in 3 April 1939 it was the fastest British fighter ever flown*, reaching an impressive 360 mph at 15,000 feet. Each of the Taurus T-S(a) engines generated an impressive 1,050 horsepower. The F9/37 (also known as the Gloster G.39) immediately earned the confidence of its pilot. It was blessed with fine handling, light controls and a dazzling performance.

 It was extremely manoeuvrable, a delight to take-off and land, and virtually vice-free. Its pilot enjoyed an excellent field of view and the aircraft was planned to pack a heavy punch in the form of two cannon and four machine-guns. 

It was also far faster than contemporary heavy fighters then in operational service such as the Potez 630 (264mph) – and marginally swifter than the Bf 110 (336 mph) which had an identical amount of installed power (the British aircraft was around 2500Ibs lighter at maximum weight).

*it is believed that the Whirlwind was yet to achieve this figure, though later would.

The prototype crashed through no fault of the design and as it was repaired work on the Peregrine-engined variant was progressing. When the Peregrine prototype flew it proved mediocre, the top speed dropping to a still respectable but not earth-shattering 330mph. The repaired and re-engined first prototype flew again in 1940 with the lower-powered 900 hp Taurus T-S(a)-Ills also proved disappointing.

A development of the F.9/37 as a night fighter, for a new Air Ministry Specifications F.29/40 – known unofficially as the Gloster ‘Reaper’ – was dropped despite being superior to the Beaufighter and (even the Mosquito in some respects).

W.G. Carter’s proposed a single-seat heavy fighter based on the design but with Merlin engines for spec F18/40. Whereas the radar-equipped version was to be armed with four 20-mm cannon, the day version would also have an additional eight light machine-guns in place of the radar. This would not have been available until 1942.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Thank you. Our merchandise shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

Why bother?

The Reaper was lower powered than either the Mosquito or Bf 110 of the time, with either the Taurus or the Peregrine (which would soon be unavailable anyway). A Merlin-engined version would have worked but at this time everyone wanted Merlins. Ultimately why bother with a lumbering great heavy fighter when you’ve got the Mosquito busy being shit-hot at everything and the fastest production aircraft in the world? Or if you want something slower how about the Beaufighter? Gloster had their hands full building Hurricanes, and then Typhoons, as well as working on the development on Britain’s first jet aircraft. Arsing around with a complicated and expensive twin to no great purpose probably didn’t look like a great idea when you had two perfectly good heavy fighter designs and single engine types were proving perfectly fine at being cannon armed. As with the Whirlwind, when the question was asked, ‘what is more useful one heavy fighter or two Spitfires?’ the answer usually favoured the latter, unless the aircraft in question was the superlative (and already active) Mosquito.

Not every fighter flown in World War II looked like a Spitfire*. Some radical new shapes were tried, but reinventing the fighting aeroplane while your nation was fighting in the most destructive war in history was a risky expensive move, but one with potentialy huge rewards. More than sixty years before the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen made the tail-first ‘canard’ warplane commonplace, two enemy nations looked to master this unordodox configuration. Jim Smith asks why and finds out which was the better machine.

(*or a Spitfire that had swallowed a barrel in the case of the radial-engined aircraft)

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and Kyushu J7W Shinden

Two fighter designs, the Ascender from the USA, and the Shinden from Japan, featuring swept wings, a canard foreplane and a pusher engine installation. Before looking at the aircraft more closely, it is worth discussing why this layout might have appeared attractive.

Pusher-Canard Design Objectives

There are several possible advantages of using a canard foreplane and a pusher engine installation. A conventional design with a rear-mounted tailplane is normally trimmed and stabilised with a download on the tailplane, which reduces overall lift. A stable canard will have lift on both the canard and the wing, and the pitching moment to rotate for take-off will also be generated by increasing the lift on the foreplane.

If the aircraft is designed with a swept wing, as is both the Ascender and the Shinden, fuselage size, drag and weight can be reduced compared to a conventional design. The swept wing will allow fins and rudders to be positioned aft of the centre of gravity with sufficient moment arm for them to be effective, with the foreplane being used either as an elevator (Ascender), or to carry elevators (Shinden). Reducing the fuselage size will reduce wetted area and drag, and reduce pitch inertia, potentially increasing responsiveness to the controls.

In general, canard designs have benign stalling characteristics, since the foreplane will normally be designed to stall at a lower incidence than the wing, resulting in a pitch down at the stall. At high lift, downwash from the foreplane will reduce the incidence on the inboard wing, helping to ensure this desirable behaviour.

Selection of a pusher engine installation makes sense for a canard and swept wing configuration because the engine can be used to balance out the weight of the pilot and the armament, which can conveniently be located in the nose of the aircraft. Reduction in drag may also be claimed as the fuselage and wings will be free from propeller wash, offering the prospect of cleaner flow over the wings and fuselage. However, a rear-mounted engine may be more difficult to cool, and the efficiency of the propeller may be reduced as it will be operating in the wake of the aircraft. Rudder authority will also be reduced in the absence of the slipstream from the propeller, so directional stability and control may be an issue for some aircraft.

An outstanding example of a relatively current design with this configuration is the Rutan Vari-Eze, which can achieve a max cruising speed of 170kt on only 100hp.

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender

Designed to meet a 1939 specification for a well-armed high-performance fighter, the XP-55 Ascender was one of three unorthodox designs selected for development. The other two were the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose, and the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet. All three aircraft were of pusher configuration; the Ascender having swept wings and a canard; the Swoose Goose having a straight wing and twin tail booms; and the Black Bullet being a tail-less flying wing.

All three aircraft were originally intended to be powered by the 2200 hp Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine, which was cancelled, leaving an alternative engine to be selected. Curtiss fitted a 1275 hp Allison V1710-95 engine as a substitute in the Ascender, which would have ensured that the aircraft could in no way match the originally estimated maximum speed of 507 mph. Incidentally, the Northrop design had severe stability problems, and was eventually assessed as not airworthy, while the Vultee design substituted the X-1800 engine first with the Lycoming XH-2470 engine, and then proposed to use the Wright R-2160 Tornado, but both of these alternative powerplants were also cancelled.

The Ascender configuration design had been supported by the use of a full-scale, but light weight, demonstrator powered by a 275 hp Menasco engine, the CW-24B, which made no less than 169 test flights, and this helped to overcome initial AF doubts about the configuration. The XP-55 made its first flight on July 19, 1943, but was lost in an accident in November 1943. The aircraft became inverted following a stall, and could not be recovered by the pilot, who bailed out successfully.

The second and third prototypes continued the flight test program, flying in January and April 1944 with a range of modifications to improve directional stability and the effectiveness of the elevators. The third aircraft also featured additional wing and control modifications in response to the accident to the first aircraft. Even with these modifications, handling was poor at low speeds, the engine tended to over-heat, and the maximum speed of 390 mph was well below expectations.

By this time, it was apparent that the performance of in-service aircraft like the P-38 Lightning, P-47 Thunderbolt, and P-51 Mustang far exceeded anything that could be credibly expected from the Ascender. It was also clear to the Air Force that the future lay with jet propulsion, and the XP-55 Ascender joined the XP-54 Swoose Goose and XP-56 Black Bullet in being cancelled.

Kyushu J7W Shinden

The Kyushu J7W Shinden was a small and very neatly-packaged canard fighter concept that was originated by Captain Masaoki Tsurono of the Technical Staff of the Japanese Navy. Although the aircraft was fitted with a 2130 hp Mitsubishi MK9D radial engine, Captain Tsurono had always envisaged that this would be replaceable in the future by a jet engine.

The basic configuration was validated using an unpowered demonstrator, the Yokosuka MXY6, supplemented by some additional flights with a low powered 22 hp engine. With the assurance that the configuration was practical, the Navy instructed Kyushu to proceed with the design and construction of the J7W Shinden, with some technical assistance being provided by a Navy team led by Captain Tsurono.

The design which emerged was centred on a small, moderately swept wing of 36 ft span, carrying the engine on the wing centre section, with a shaft driven 6-blade propeller at the rear of the fuselage.  Cooling intakes were fitted to the fuselage ahead of the wing, with the cockpit, armament and forward canard making up the forward fuselage. With its compact packaging, powerful engine, and relatively high power-to-weight ratio, the Shinden might have been expected to offer high speed and good manoeuvrability.

However, timing was against the Shinden. Despite being ordered into production even before its first flight, only two aircraft could be built before the end of WW II, and only 3 flights of the prototype aircraft were made.

What can we learn from those flights? The reported information was that they revealed a strong swing to starboard during take-off, and significant vibration in the propeller and its drive shaft.

The first of these would have been due to the torque of the powerful engine, but would also have been exacerbated by the short moment arm between the wing-mounted fins and the aircraft centre of gravity. A production aircraft might have required a central fin to supplement those on the wings, and perhaps also larger rudder controls.

The vibration in the propeller and its drive shaft has been stated to be due to propeller flutter, and a redesign of the propeller to increase its stiffness would perhaps have resolved this problem. Unexplored issues which would need to be examined in flight test would include handling at low speeds and at the stall, engine cooling, and detailed evaluation of aircraft performance and armament effectiveness.

Despite these concerns, which might well have been resolved in flight and operational testing, the Shinden was a well-executed, forward-looking design, particularly as consideration had been given to a future jet-powered variant, the J7W2.

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and Kyushu J7W Shinden – Air Combat Comparison

Although design of the XP-55 started from a 1939 requirement, the aircraft did not fly until 1943, with the third and final aircraft not flying until April 1944. The J7W Shinden made its first flight in August 1945. The Shinden only made 3 flights; two of the three XP-55 aircraft were lost in accidents which reflected poorly on the controllability of the aircraft.

Unsurprisingly, there is limited information on which to judge their air combat performance, other than basic dimensional, power and weight data. What information there is suggests that the Shinden would have had substantial advantages over the XP-55 Ascender.

The Shinden had more power, and a greater power to weight ratio, and had a slightly lower wing loading than the Ascender. While the Ascender had a slightly higher aspect ratio, the advantage due to this in sustained turn rate could well have been negated by the higher power to weight ratio of the Shinden. The reported maximum speed data suggests a 70 mph speed advantage for the Shinden, but I would treat this estimate with some caution, as so little flight test of that aircraft was possible.

On sortie rate, there is little to go on. The air-cooled radial engine of the Shinden might have required less maintenance than the liquid-cooled engine of the Ascender, and there is some indication that there were cooling issues for that aircraft. Directional control and propeller flutter issues remained to be resolved for the Shinden.

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and Kyushu J7W Shinden Assessment

The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender, like the XP-54 and XP-56 with which it competed, turned out to be disappointing, largely because the engine for which it had been designed turned out not to be available. But it also had difficult handling qualities, especially at low speed. Possibly not as dangerous as the XP-56, and perhaps with greater, if still inadequate, performance potential than the XP-54, the XP-55 Ascender could not be considered a success.

The J7W Shinden seems to be a particularly well executed pusher-canard fighter, but with a total of 45 minutes flying, cannot be said to be a proven entity. The limited test flying revealed two early issues, yaw control on take-off and vibration of the propeller and prop-shaft. It is likely that the Shinden could have been developed into a successful fighter, particularly if the planned jet engine installation had gone ahead. But this will never be known with certainty, because the War in the Pacific ended before any meaningful testing or production had been undertaken.

Which aircraft was better? The choice could be as simple as observing that the Curtiss design was a dud, whereas the Kyushu Shinden had not been tested sufficiently to establish whether or not it was also a dud. This approach would, I think, be a cop out, so I am prepared to rate the Kyushu Shinden as the ‘better loser’ on two grounds – its development potential as a jet-powered aircraft, and its aesthetic appearance.

I was a very happy 11-year old boy when I was bought a copy of Stealth Warplanes, by Doug Richardson. I had negotiated hard to make my mum buy me the book. I left WH Smith’s in the murky depths of Wood Green Shopping Centre thrilled by my new book.

The Lockheed F-117 ‘Stealth Fighter’ had only just been revealed to the public; In November 1988, an airbrushed photo was held aloft to an ecstatic press by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, J. Daniel Howard. The F-117, until then top secret, was a new weird shape. Slightly preceding this (in April 1988) the DoD had released an artist’s impression of the Northrop B-2, which had also emerged from the Black world of secret defence projects. The B-2 was a charcoal grey flying-wing, clearly designed by the same person who designed the Batmobile.

Stealth was big news, until then, aeroplanes had been tubes with wings. Overnight the aircraft that had previously looked sleek and high-tech, now appeared drab and prosaic. The F/A-18 Hornet, with its sophisticated curves, the F-15 Eagle with its invincible muscularity, were both now relegated to the position of has-beens.

I believed that this book, with its immensely exciting cover, was my secret pass to the cladestine world of Stealth.

I bought another copy today, and it was fascinating to see how well this book had stood the test of 32 years.

Sweet EFA

Back then the Eurofighter typhoon was known as the European Fighter Aircraft (EFA). EFA is included as an example of a “reduced RCS (radar cross-section) design”. The large artwork, of an RAF machine, is surprisingly accurate.

Sadly, the dummy canopy (Canadian CF-18 stylee), an example of deception camouflage, visible on the artwork, has not been applied to real operational aircraft.

The strakes (a 1989 design amendment) and the PIRATE IRST are not featured, but the text acknowledges, these design changes took place after the artwork was made.

Eurofighter price. What is staggering is the cost estimate, put at wonderfully dainty £10-12 million (1989 prices), a far cry from today’s figure of around £68 million. Even taking into account inflation, this is quite a jump.

“You should not be at all surprised if someday you see me fly from New York to Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble a gas stove and weigh almost as much.” said charismatic but unlucky Serbian-born Nikola Tesla in 1913. The inventor of Alternating Current and precursive David Bowie impersonator is not such an an obscure figure these days in the world of science in general but his admittedly minor contribution to the field of aeronautics remains little-known.

In 1928 Tesla filed a patent (coincidentally his last) describing a vertical take-off machine with a tilt wing/rotor that was at once both astonishingly prescient and maddeningly naive. This V-22 Osprey precursor was to be powered by a turbine engine, which was well beyond the state of the art in the 1920s (Frank Whittle patented the gas turbine engine in 1930). However, although the aeroplane aspects of its design are fairly reasonable, the rotary wing aspects are less impressive. Torque is helpfully cancelled out by having the lift rotors/propellors rotate in opposite directions but it is unclear how the aircraft would be controlled in vertical flight and the rotors are clearly far too small to support the machine in the vertical plane. Nonetheless this is the first known iteration of the tilt-rotor concept to be patented and as such is the precursor of all those bizarre ‘fifties VTOL prototypes that never quite worked properly but looked amazing before they crashed somewhere.

‘Bizarre’ is also a word that could be reasonably applied to some of Tesla’s obsessions and habits. Clearly (to a modern audience) suffering from some form of OCD, Tesla’s eccentricities were not as horrific as Howard Hughes’s – no unsnipped fingernails or jars of urine for Nikola – but were sufficiently unusual to garner the attention of society at a time when mental illnesses were poorly understood at best. Passed off as eccentricities by his friends, these traits were used to ridicule poor Tesla by his enemies who insinuated he was totally insane. And there was a history of mental illness in his family – Tesla’s father was afflicted with multiple personality disorder and was known to engage in heated arguments with different versions of himself. His brother meanwhile suffered from violent hallucinations.

Like many who suffer from obsessive compulsive behaviours, Tesla was devoted to cleanliness. He would not consume anything that had not been sterilised or boiled. For this, at least, he had an explanation: after seeing bacteria in his drinking water through a microscope he said, “if you would only watch for a few minutes the horrible creatures, you would never again drink a drop of unboiled or unsterilized water.” In similar vein he would regularly refuse to shake hands and often wore gloves to avoid physical contact.

So far so obsessive compulsive, Tesla’s relationship with the number three is somewhat stranger. It is not known how or why he developed this strange obsession but he would often engage in rituals that involved the number three, including his practice of walking three times around a building before entering it. When dining he would fold 18 napkins before he started eating because 18 was divisible by three. When he stayed at a hotel, he would request that his room number was a multiple of three and specified that 18 fresh towels were to his room be delivered every morning. In addition to boiling all of his food, he would also determine the volume of the food on his plate, and then calculate the number of jaw movements required to consume it. Apparently he had a profound phobia of round objects, and refused to remain in the company of a woman who was wearing earrings. Curiously there is a widespread suggestion that Tesla designed a flying saucer aircraft, however given his problem with round items this would, one assumes, be the last shape he would consider unless through absolute necessity.

Unlike insanely wealthy OCD sufferer Howard Hughes, Tesla died penniless but not, at least, a filthy, morphine addicted recluse surrounded by jars of his own piss. At least Tesla is now being rediscovered as a scientific and cultural figure, not least through the efforts of Elon Musk. It is presumably not a coincidence that the modern Tesla car company’s only vehicle with a numeric model designation is, of course, the Model 3.

About Hush Kit . . . 

‘Hush-Kit is stupendously brilliant – irreverent and witty but also backed up by phenomenal knowledge and a completely fresh take. It’s completely addictive and, without doubt, the best aviation magazine in the world. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a thrilling read quite unlike any other aviation title’ James Holland

‘Funny, brilliant, and extremely well informed, Joe Coles’s Hush-Kit is my favourite aviation site and I’m utterly addicted. Nothing else is quite like it. The extremely handsome Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is an absolute must-have for anyone who has ever looked at an aeroplane with a little too much intensity!’ Al Murray

‘Joe Coles has written the most explosive book about aircraft ever’ Jim Moir (Vic Reeves)

“Joe Coles is one of the brightest, funniest people I know, and the only writer who makes aviation interesting to me. He manages to find something human in the cold, war-spattered world of planes, and brings light to the darkest subjects.” Eva Wiseman, Observer

A sequel to the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Plucking the best from over 1,000 articles from the highly respected Hush-Kit blog, Volume 2 takes an even deeper dive into the thrilling world of military aviation. A lavishly illustrated coffee-table book crammed with well-informed and utterly readable histories, listicles, interviews, and much more. Beautifully designed, with world-class photography, we reveal the bizarre true story of live bats converted to firebombs, the test pilot that disguised himself as a cigar-smoking chimpanzee, and an exclusive interview with the aircrew of the deadliest aircraft in history. Here is an utterly entertaining, and at times subversive, celebration of military flying!The spectacular photograph of the F-4 Phantom we have used on the cover was taken by Rich Cooper from the Centre of Aviation Photography. Pre-order your copy today and make this happen: https://unbound.com/books/hushkit2/

The first working submarine appears to have been invented as long ago as 1620 by Cornelius Van Drebbel whose demonstration of his creation on the Thames was recorded by Constantijn Huygens (below). The first manned flight took place under a balloon of the Montgolfier brothers just outside Paris in 1783. Despite 133 years of opportunity though the history of airborne anti-submarine warfare doesn’t really get going until September of 1916 when two aircraft of the Austro-Hungarian Navy sunk a French submarine, not bad considering the Austro-Hungarian Naval Air Service had only formed that August.

Anti-submarine aircraft spend their time hunting something that might not be there. Those of you who’ve read your Clancy will be familiar with the basics of modern Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), dipping sonar, bistatic sonobuoys, caterpillar drives and what have you. All of which are mostly irrelevant to this article as bar about four exceptions every submarine sinking by an aircraft took place in WW2 before such things were invented. The contents of the list is also massively skewed by the efforts of the Kreigsmarine who managed to lose 287 U-Boats to aircraft, more than the total number of submarines lost by the Royal, US, and Imperial Japanese Navies combined. [1]

Consequently, no German or Japanese aircraft appear, the former apparently only sinking two submarines from the air, both by Do-17. The Imperial Japanese Army do however deserve a special mention for equipping one of their Aircraft Carriers, the Akitsu Maru,with Kokusai Ki-76 observation aircraft to provide anti-submarine protection for their convoys. On November 15^th, 1944, these may  have spotted the USS Queenfish shortly before she fired the torpedoes which sank the carrier. This more or less finished the IJA’s involvement with anti-submarine warfare (ASW), despite some pioneering research into the use of auto gyros. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the meantime had commissioned the Kyushu Q1W1, probably the first aircraft in the world designed from the outset to find and attack submarines. Featuring either a magnetic anomaly detector or radar set, panoramic cockpit loosely based on that of the Ju-88, and an optional 20mm cannon fit, the 901^st Kokutai claimed to have sunk seven enemy submarines while operating the Lorna. Post war records indicate this is probably over-claiming by at least seven.

It’s worth noting that all kill numbers listed here are at best provisional due to the difficulty of confirming a) if you’ve really sunk a submarine and b) which one it was. It was only as recently as May 2021 that the fate of HMS/M Urge was confirmed when her wreck was found just off Malta remarkably free of damage from Italian fighters, but with a big hole where the bow should be, just like you’d get if you hit a mine. [2]

Around 30 types have been involved in sinking submarines, the third of them in this run-down aren’t necessarily the top scorers but do have a certain je ne c’est pas that lifts them above the rest.

[1] 79, 52, and 128 to all causes respectively.

[2] Malta Sub Dives Sink Conspiracy Theory

Wessex/Lynx/Wasp – Joint placing for the only aircraft to sink a submarine post-WW2.

Only one submarine has been sunk by aircraft since the end of World War 2. This unfortunate vessel was the ARA Santa Fe, whose origin as the USS Catfish in 1944 means no post-war submarine has been sunk by enemy action. [3]

On the morning of 25 April 1982, the Santa Fe was departing Grytviken in South Georgia, having landed supplies for the Argentinian forces occupying the island. The captain planned to hide in deep water off the coast before returning that night to an isolated bay to fully recharge the vessel’s batteries for the journey back to the mainland. Unfortunately for the Santa Fe she was detected on radar by the Wessex HAS3 from HMS Antrim before she was in an area to submerge. Approaching from the stern the Wessex was almost overhead before the crew saw it, moments later two depth charges fell towards the submarine. The damage from this first strike was sufficient to prevent the Santa Fe diving, if only because it was unlikely she’d ever surface if she did.

A running battle would now ensue as the Argentinians attempted to return to Grytviken while the Lynx from HMS Brilliant made strafing runs and Wasps from HMS Endurance and Plymouth fired multiple AS.12 missiles. Although the Santa Fe managed to return to the dock her war was over, and she remained there until 1985 when she was towed out to sea and scuttled.

At a stroke the Argentine active submarine force had been reduced by half, which in percentage terms places the Wessex, Lynx, Wasp combination in first place for effect on an enemy force. Meanwhile the ARA’s other active submarine, the San Luis, spent most of the conflict loitering around East Falkland as the most advanced ASW force in NATO failed to pick it out from the myriad wrecks in the area. Which is why the Sea King isn’t on this list.

[3] The North Koreans appear to have lost a submarine to a fishing boat in 1998. It probably wasn’t deliberate.

Lohner L – First aircraft to sink a submarine

Someone has to be first, and despite what the RAF Museum’s website may say, in the case of airborne ASW it wasn’t the UK. Confusingly it was the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Despite now being two medium sized land-locked European countries in 1914 their combined empire included most of what is now Yugoslavia Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia. Which gave them an extensive Adriatic coast. As such they had a substantial navy with 13 battleships, 18 destroyers, 6 submarines, an Air Service, and one Lt von Trapp who’d later gain fame for escaping Nazi Austria with a singing nun. [4]

On 15 September 1916 the French Navy’s Foucault was patrolling near the entrance to the naval base at Cattaro (now Kotor in Montenegro). Enter two Lohner L flying boats of the Austro-Hungarian Naval Air Service, which despite in many ways looking like what would happen if an engineer took the phrase ‘flying boat’ literally and just added a couple of wings to a rowing skiff, could carry a few hundred kg of bombs at ‘speeds’ of 57 knots. Although submerged the clear waters of the Adriatic allowed the crew of the two aircraft to spot the Foucault easily and, presumably after checking it wasn’t one of their submarines, attack it. Four bombs were dropped at least one hitting the submarine causing it to lose power and start sinking. Realising they’d broken the first rule of submarining, [5] and with a fire adding to their woes the French somehow managed to get to the surface. Facing an untenable situation, the Captain ordered the powerless submarine scuttled. To add insult to injury the crew were then rescued by their attackers who landed on the water to look after them until a torpedo boat could come to take them into captivity.

Almost definitely the slowest aircraft on this list the Lohner L does have the distinction of proving aircraft have a part to play in sinking submarines.

[4] Not totally relevant but he also married the granddaughter of the inventor of the torpedo.

[5] Don’t let water into the people tank.

Potez-CAMS 141

Although a relatively obscure type the Potez-CAMS 141 has the highest ratio of submarines sunk per airframes built of all time. Admittedly this is because only one of them was built, but it did at least manage to sink U-105 on 2 June 1943.

The Potez-CAMS 141, also known as the Antarès, was designed and built to a 1935 French Admiralty specification for a long-range maritime reconnaissance flying boat. Essentially a gallic Sunderland, Saint-Nazaire if you will. Oddly for a French inter-war aircraft it was very nearly aesthetically pleasing. Really only marred by the placing of a conservatory on either side of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit, presumably so the crew had somewhere to smoke Gauloises and discuss Sartre during long sorties.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

With the prototype flying in 1938 the programme showed the kind of urgency that the Tempest project manager has nightmares about with orders for an additional 19 airframes being placed by September 1939. However, with the factory coming under new management in June of 1940 no further airframes were actually completed. The sole example led a somewhat nomadic existence initially operating out of Morocco, by September of 1940 it was patrolling from Dakar as part of the Vichy French forces. With the Allied landings in North Africa in late 1942 the Antares changed sides again, paving the way for its successful prosecution of the U-105 just south of Dakar seven months later.

Alas being from a production batch of one and with few spares available by the beginning of 1944 she was nearing the end of her operational life, having flown around 1800 hours. Disappointingly the airframe appears to have been scrapped in Africa meaning there are few if any remains of what by at least one measure was the most successful anti-submarine aircraft of all time.

Curtiss H-12 – Responsible for both U-boats sunk by the RNAS.

The Royal Navy tried a variety of tactics to counter U-Boats during the First World War, before grudgingly accepting that, despite not being particularly Nelsonian, escorting merchant ships in convoys might be a more effective way of stopping them being sunk than trying to find a submarine to sink. Which to be fair was still a World War quicker than the US Navy took to come round to the idea. Around the same time convoys were being introduced in early 1917 the Admiralty were also receiving the first examples of the aircraft that would allow it to attack U-Boats from the air. The Curtiss H-12. These started a long tradition of the UK buying an American aircraft and improving it by changing the engine, think Mustang with the Merlin, think Boeing 707 with Conways, think Phantom with err… Speys? In the case of the H-12 the original 160hp Curtiss VX were replaced with Rolls-Royce Eagles with 375hp, more than doubling the installed power. This at least made the H-12, also known as the Large America by the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS), able to take-off from the water. Something the VX powered versions had difficulty with.

On 27 May 1917 Large America 8656 operating from the Isles of Scilly sighted UC-66 on the surface to the north of the archipelago. The pilot dropped the payload of 100lb bombs two of which seemed to have hit the U-Boat as it soon sank by the stern not to be seen again until 2009. Inconveniently in her dying moments UC-66 had managed to get a few rounds off at 8656, which then flew back to its base on Tresco with the Mechanic holding rags over a resultant leak in the starboard radiator.

At the other end of the English Channel on 22 Sep 1917 H-12 8695, escorted by two Camel fighters, attacked a surfaced submarine in the vicinity of West Hinder Light Vessel, about 20 miles off Ostend. After also being hit by two bombs it was seen to heel over and sink, leaving wreckage and oil on the surface. Initially identified as UC-72, its having been sunk by mines a month earlier rules it out as the actual victim. It’s now thought 8695 sank UB-32.

As an indicator of the effectiveness of the RNAS’ patrols only five merchant ships were sunk when in convoys with a combined air sea escort. Despite the paucity of actual sinkings by aircraft their presence was sufficient to warn off the U-Boats. On top of probably being responsible for 2/3rds of submarines sunk by aircraft in the First World War, Curtiss H-12s were also responsible for shooting down several Zeppelins. Which given its top speed of 87kts must have made for some of the most slowing moving dog-fights in history.

Wildcat

Grumman’s stubby first fighter on a list of submarine killers? What next the Hellcat in the top 10 of mine hunting aircraft? [6]

Although the Wildcat doesn’t appear to be solely responsible for the sinking of any submarines it was involved in the destruction of 27 of them. It kicked this streak off while operating with 802 NAS from HMS Audacity, along with one Lt Winkle Brown. In this case aircraft patrolling from Audacity to intercept German reconnaissance aircraft spotted U-131 on the surface near Madeira and carried out strafing runs while a group of destroyers and sloops closed to deliver the coup de grace with gunfire and depth charges.

More typically, and because it’s not clear you could get enough 0.5” ammunition into a Martlet for it to sink a submarine on its own they were more normally paired with either a Swordfish or Avenger. The vast majority of their assisted kills being while operating from the decks of a USN Escort Carrier alongside its Grumman stable mate. The Wildcat carrying out strafing runs while the Avenger positioned for a depth charge or torpedo attack. The torpedoes in question being code named Fido, were the first homing torpedoes and sought out the noise from the submarine’s propellers. Although a technical marvel it suffered slightly from having a top speed of 15 knots, slightly slower than the surfaced speed of most U-boats. The continual harassment from the Wildcat playing no small part in slowing them down or causing them to dive at which point they struggled to make 8 knots and became easy prey for Fido.

The Wildcat then wasn’t an out and out submarine killer, but it would happily kick them in the gentleman’s parts before its bigger friends delivered the knock-out blow. Like Mini-Me to the Avenger’s Dr Evil.

[6] Yes, yes it is. Didn’t attack many submarines though.

Swordfish

Confusingly for the layperson the main aim of anti-submarine warfare isn’t necessarily sinking submarines. Although it’s always nice if you can. The primary goal is generally to stop the submarine sinking your ships. This is especially true if your ships are carrying supplies that are keeping the country alive. So during the Battle of the Atlantic escorts that managed to sink five U-boats while their convoy was decimated could be viewed less favourably than ones who managed to bring their charges across without loss to either side. This was an area where aircraft could excel merely by flying around and causing the submarine to remain submerged for fear of being spotted. Unlike modern nuclear-powered vessels, which are faster submerged than on the surface, the diesel-electric craft of the first half of the 20^th century were much slower underwater. A typical U-boat could manage 17 knots surfaced but only around 7 knots submerged, and then only for a limited time 5 knots being more sustainable. With a typical convoy progressing at around 10 knots, it became impossible for the submarine to catch its prey while underwater unless it was inside an area in its path the extents of which are known as the Limiting Lines of Approach (LLA). These also apply to nuclear powered submarines although in their case the limit is defined by the speed above which the propellers start to cavitate and create enough noise for Evelyn Glennie to detect them while headlining Wembley.

With this in mind Fairey’s better contribution to the art of naval warfare deserves a special place on this list. In total the Swordfish is credited with 25 submarine kills, which places it 9^th overall on pure numbers. [7] However, its ability to operate not just from Escort Carriers but the even smaller flight decks on Merchant Aircraft Carriers (MACs) enabled them to provide an almost continuous aerial escort across the Atlantic.  MACs were as the name suggests merchant ships with a wooden flight deck just 410’ x 62’ built over the holds, as such they had a limited top speed of around 12kts and carried at most four Swordfish. Despite their limited capability their presence forced the opposition underwater keeping the LLA as favourable as possible. Which goes someway to explaining why in the 207 convoys escorted by Swordfish operating MACs only 9 ships were lost to U-boats despite none having been sunk by the embarked aircraft.

[7] 22 U-boats, 1 Italian sub torpedoed off Libya, 1 Vichy French submarine off Madagascar, and an unfortunate incident with the Free French Submarine Perle.

At 7 knots U1 can’t intercept the merchant ship, after 1 hour she’s in the same position relative to it that U2 was at the beginning of the hour. U2 at 7 knots has meanwhile just fallen further behind the merchant ship.

Sunderland or Catalina

In a world where runways are everywhere it’s easy to forget that before the rapid increase in their numbers during the Second World War water was considered a suitable surface for large aircraft to take-off and land on. Thus, interwar long-distance travel saw the use of the Boeing Clipper and Shorts C-Class Empire flying boat. It’s not surprising then that long-range patrol aircraft would use the same format in the early stages of the war. For ASW the best of these was undoubtedly the Consolidated Catalina. Able to carry out a two-hour patrol at 800 miles from base, two hundred more than the Shorts Sunderland, taking the fight far out into the Atlantic. Despite only having half the engines of the Sunderland the Catalina could carry almost the same weapons load and had the advantage of also being able to use torpedoes, something it used in anger against Japanese shipping around Guadacanal.

In terms of anti-submarine activity, the Catalina sank 40 submarines, 14 more than the Sunderland and equal second overall with the Avenger.

On top of its exploits in the North Atlantic, a Catalina sank two IJN submarines in the Pacific, and for fans of long-range air travel instigated the Double Sunrise service from Ceylon to Western Australia, the usual stop offs in Rangoon and Singapore having issues with take-off and landing rights. The stripped-down aircraft on this service carried three passengers, 152lbs of essential mail, and 1988 gallons of fuel to give it a range of 3600nm for the 3500nm route. Taking between 27 and 33 hours to complete, and with no choice of in-flight movie, this was a test of endurance for both the aircrew and the passengers. Even Ryan Air’s worst flight presumably not having to contend with the threat of being intercepted by the Japanese Air Force over the dark waters of the Indian Ocean.

Wellington

World War II saw the RAF sticking to their pre-war doctrine that strategic bombing would solve everything.  If bombing land locked towns in Germany wasn’t stopping U-boats from attacking convoys, then the answer must be to bomb them harder. This plan didn’t prioritise aircraft for Coastal Command, the defence of merchant shipping apparently being incidental to ensuring the Air Force had the supplies and fuel it needed to wage war. Even by 1941 the best they could hope for were cast offs that Bomber Command didn’t want. Enter the Wellington.

Initially operating a handful of Wellington Mk1Cs with a limited anti-U-boat capability in 1942 the better equipped GR MkVIII became available. As well as the ASV II radar that some Mk1s had had fitted for detecting surfaced submarines it also featured the first use of the Leigh Light a powerful spotlight, and a radar altimeter to allow them to descend safely over the sea at night. After detecting a U-Boat using radar the Wellington would descend to 250’ to make its attack run, as the contact disappeared into the clutter at the bottom of the radar display the Leigh Light would be turned on illuminating the target and allowing the pilot to complete the attack visually. On 4 June 1942 the first such attack was made by a Wellington of 172 Squadron against the Italian submarine Luigi Torelli which was transiting the Bay of Biscay and suddenly found itself lit up like Elvis headlining Vegas. Shortly after that it found itself surrounded by four depth charges. Although the submarine survived the attack it was sufficiently damaged to force a return to port. More was to follow with another three boats forced back to base that June. From being relatively safe waters, the Bay of Biscay now had to be transited submerged, reducing the time that could be spent in the operational areas of the Mid-Atlantic by five days. In July worse was to come for the Kreigsmarine as the first U-boat was sunk by a Wellington as it was returning to France from the Caribbean.

From sinking no U-Boats in the first half of 1942 Coastal Command found itself responsible for 13 and a half in the period from August to December. At a time when ‘Bomber’ Harris was telling Churchill that Coastal Command was ‘merely an obstacle to victory’ this was fortunate indeed. Although the Wellington didn’t have the range to protect convoys in the mid-Atlantic gap, generally managing around 2 hours 500 miles from base, it made the waters around the U-boats’ French bases far more dangerous and pioneered tactics that would be used by Coastal Command to turn the tide in the Battle of the Atlantic from 1943 onwards.

Avenger

While the Swordfish was a good carrier borne ASW aircraft it suffered in a few areas, mainly speed and crew comfort. And contrary to popular opinion it wasn’t as sturdy as you might want when landing on a deck that’s moving up and down by 20 or 30 feet, even if it was easy to repair. If you really wanted to kill submarines while operating off a ship the Grumman Avenger on the other hand suffered none of these issues.

The extra speed not only allowed it to cover a greater search area in a given time, but also meant that during an attack run it would be exposed to the U-boats gunfire for a shorter period. About half in fact. On top of this it made it much easier for other Avengers to make follow up attacks as they’d have a chance to get to the scene of the action before contact with the submarine was lost. Most U-boats being sunk due to a continued aggressive attack rather than a single killer blow. U-118 for instance being attacked with depth charges from 8 Avengers from the USS Bogue before submerging for the final time, which appears to be the record for attacks by a single aircraft type.

KEEP THIS SITE GOING BY CLICKING ON THE DONATE BUTTON AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. YOUR SUPPORT KEEPS THIS GOING. Thank you.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Thank you. 

The Grumman Ironworks approach to aircraft construction meanwhile meant the Avenger suffered far less damage during carrier operations. Analysis by the RN not only showed the American aircraft suffered 1/7^th the rate of damage the Swordfish did, but that the lower risk of damage meant carriers were more likely to actually fly them. [8] Which is very much the first stage in detecting a submarine with an aircraft. Having done the analysis, the Fleet Air Arm prioritised its Avengers for anti-submarine warfare, until everyone realised it was better at most things than the Barracuda and they went to the Pacific to be used as bombers.

These advantages, together with being with the convoys the submarines were trying to find, place the Avenger at number two on the all-time list of submarine killing aircraft, with 35 U-boats and at least 5 IJN submarines falling to it.

[8] Directorate of Naval Operational Studies. ‘Achievements of British and US Escort Carriers’. Admiralty, 12 February 1944. ADM 219/95. The National Archives, Kew, United Kingdom.

Liberator

The Kreigsmarine lost 287 U-Boats to aircraft, a quarter of these were lost to the Liberator. Which by all accounts makes it the most submarine killingest aircraft of all time.

The first Liberators delivered to the RAF were considered unsuitable for combat over Europe, Bomber Command therefore magnanimously gave them to Coastal Command who received 20 ex-USAAF B-24As in 1941. These gained the relatively basic ASV Mk II radar, and a less basic semi-retractable pack of four 20mm cannon in the forward bomb bay to attack ships and U-boats with. They could also make a more traditional attack with up to six depth charges while some would receive fittings to carry 60lb rocket projectiles either side of the forward fuselage.

The later Liberator GR Mk III was based on the B-24D as used by Air Forces various, however for the anti-submarine role certain changes were made. The self-sealing liners to the fuel tanks and most of the armour was removed. The turbo-superchargers for the engines that maintained performance at high altitude were deleted, relatively few U-Boats being found above 5,000’. The ventral gun turret was also removed ultimately providing a location for a more advanced centimetric radar. Having undergone the kind of diet that gets you a shot at being the face of Weight Watchers the spare capacity was taken up with over two thousand gallons of fuel and a payload of eight depth charges. As an example of what this allowed on 17 March 1943 a Liberator of 86 Squadron left Aldergrove for an eight-hour fifty-minute flight to join convoy SC122, attacking U-439 on the way causing it to remain submerged for the rest of the day. On reaching SC122 the aircraft came under the orders of the Escort Group Commander and proceeded to sweep the convoy’s route, during which she attacked U-338, again forcing it to submerge. After 11 hours airborne she then returned to base finally landing at Eglinton, short of fuel, 18 hours and 20 minutes after taking off.

In this later Very Long Range (VLR) configuration the Liberator, together with aircraft from Escort Carriers which came into their own around the same time, solved the Mid-Atlantic Gap where U-boats had previously operated without fear of attack from aircraft. The majority of kills were made by aircraft of Coastal Command, however the USAAF’s anti-submarine squadrons were responsible for at least 7 sinkings before they handed over responsibility to the USN’s PB4Y Liberator squadrons. To give some idea of the scale of the Battle of the Atlantic the Liberator was also the second most successful submarine killer in the Pacific. Where it appears to have sunk three IJN submarines.

With endurance, a range of armaments, and able to be modified as new sensors became available the Liberator is the most successful anti-submarine aircraft of all time. Its capabilities again beating housewives’ favourite the B-17 and its paltry 11 sinkings.

Bibliography

A Submariners’ War, The Indian Ocean 1939-45, Michael Wilson

Business in Great Waters, John Terraine

Japanese Anti-Submarine Aircraft in the Pacific War, Ishiguro and Januszewski

https://www.history.navy.mil

The Royal Navy’s Air Service in the Great War, David Hobbs

Uboat.net

Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer and current Wildcat Air Safety Officer. If you want a Sea Vixen t-shirt he can fix you up.