Have a look at 38:24 minutes in.

Image credit: Copyright: Yuri Beletsky (Carnegie Las Campanas Observatory)

This week’s big news was a star identified by the Kepler Space Telescope which may harbour structures created by an advanced technological civilisation. I asked Brian Clegg, author of Exploring the Universe and Before the Big Bang for his thoughts on the matter:

“We have a long history of reading too much into observations – not surprising really as we understand the world through patterns, and it’s all too easy to see patterns where they don’t exist. Sometimes that makes bogeymen under the bed, sometimes, a surprising observation in space, whether it’s a pyramid on Mars or an apparent artificial structure around a distant star. Occam’s razor says let’s assume it’s a collection of debris until we get any better evidence to the contrary. But it keeps the media happy.”

For more detail, Brian recommended this article.

Follow me on Twitter here or Brian Clegg here

Image credit: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags

I was wrong. I wanted to write about the Planet Satellite because I thought it was merely an obscure, attractive failure. However, the more I researched the Satellite’s story, the more bizarre it became.

The 1948 Planet Satellite was an unusual and very beautiful aeroplane. Its appearance suggested that Hergé had created it especially for Tintin to steal. The aircraft was the shape of a tear-drop, with a butterfly ‘Y-shaped’ tail. Its ‘hygienically’ clean shape spoke of speed, progress and a utopian future.  The Satellite was a revolutionary design in almost every way. It was a true monocoque design, for those unfamiliar with the term- this does not mean it was single-penised (in fact, the aircraft had no penis). A monocoque structure is supported by its external skin, as opposed to using an internal frame. It is analogous to an invertebrate (such as a beetle), whereas an animal with a normal internal skeleton, like a person, is more like a traditional aircraft. Though many aircraft are described as monocoque, strictly speaking, the vast majority are actually semi-monocoque. The Satellite was a true monocoque design, meaning it was far simpler structurally than any contemporary aircraft. This simplicity could result in an aircraft that was cheap to produce and assemble, with far less to go wrong. These traits were vital as the Satellite was intended to become a flying Model-T Ford.
Following World War Two, Major J. N. D. Heenan (more on him later) went to the United States to study the needs of the general aviation market. He concluded that what was needed was a cheap and quiet aircraft. By adopting the ‘pusher configuration’, with the engine (he would choose a 250-hp Gipsy Queen 32) and propeller behind the cabin, the noise would be significantly reduced for the occupants. This layout would also give the pilot and passengers of the four-seater an excellent, unobstructed view from the cockpit. Additionally, it would allow the nose section to be smooth and aerodynamically efficient.

There was a potentially huge market for the aircraft, notably in the US and Australia. If Planet Aircraft Ltd got it right, tens of thousands of aircraft would be produced and exported across the world.

Revolutionary design

The Satellite was immensely ambitious, embracing several untried (though extremely promising) technologies. The first hurdle was to master the monocoque. As no bracing members were present, the skin had to be strong enough to keep the fuselage rigid. To get this level of rigidity without the design becoming massively overweight required the use of unusual materials. Major J. N. D. Heenan, the maverick designer of the Satellite, thought the answer was to make it from magnesium (Magnesium-Zirconium to be precise, as Hergé’s Thomson and Thompson would say). The company Magnesium Elektron (ME) came onboard, funding the programme (the company still exists today and builds components for, among other things, the F-22’s gearbox). ME had received enormous orders during World War II and had supplied 10,000 tons of the material in 1943. The post-war period was tough for ME and they were keen to diversify;Heenan was offering them a potentially vast and lucrative inroad into a new generation of all-magnesium aeroplanes. The author approached Magnesium Elektron for information relating to the Satellite, the company declined to reply, we shall see why. ME was a subsidiary of Hughes & Co Ltd, a chemical and plastics company. In 1946, Hughes were bought by Distillers Company Ltd, a Scottish whisky and gin giant, and so the Satellite was to be funded with booze money.

 

 

 

 

Most aircraft manufacturers used aluminium as their primary material, but some of the more maverick aircraft designers saw the potential of magnesium. These non-conformists also tended to put the propeller at the back in the ‘pusher configuration’. In 1943 Northrop flew the XP-56 ‘Black Bullet’, an aircraft that had seemingly flown in from a parallel universe. This bat-winged fighter was an extremely unconventional design and like the later Satellite, was a ‘Magnesium pusher’. The XP-56 proved dangerous to fly, and delays in its testing meant it was still unready at a time when piston-engined fighters were yesterday’s technology. Somebody at Northrop clearly thought the XP-56 was not mad enough and began work on the wonderfully lunatic XP-79, in which the unlucky pilot would have to lie down as he controlled a rocket-propelled flying wing while manoeuvring his aircraft to slice enemy aircraft in half with its leading edges. Despite the benefits of magnesium (it is exceptionally light and strong) it had a reputation for bursting into flames and, if impure, to corrode easily. On its maiden flight on September 12th 1945, the XP-79 spun out of control after seven minutes of flight. Test pilot Harry Crosby bailed out, but was struck by the aircraft and was killed. Shortly afterwards the project was binned.

Click here for the story of Britain’s cancelled superfighter

A couple of months later, on 7 Nov 1945, Group Captain H. J. Wilson of the RAF was flying at over 600 mph in his Meteor F.Mk 4. This flight smashed the world air speed record and made a hero of Wilson. Though some Germans had flown faster in World War II, Wilson’s record was the first officially acknowledged speed record since 1939. Prior to the speed record  Hugh ‘Willie’ Wilson had already led a very impressive career. He had been a leading test pilot. He had fought with the RAF’s crack No. 111 Squadron. His skills had been used to test fly captured German aircraft and he had almost been killed as he tried to land a Ju 88 that suffered engine failure on take-off. The speed record was merely the most conspicuous achievement for a man who did much to further the progress of aeronautical science. He then left this world of glory to become test pilot for the fledgling Planet Aircraft company and soon become managing director.

Clean sheet
The Satellite was built in the Robinson Redwing factory at Croydon, Purley Way, Surrey in 1947. Its name, like its appearance, was bold and futuristic. It was not like any other aircraft. The July 15th 1948 issue of Flight found the design ‘startling’ and identified the reason for the designer’s unconventional approach,

“Major J. N. D. Heenan, of Heenan, Winn and Steel, consulting engineers, 29, Clarges Street, London, W.1, is the man responsible for the Satellite. It is the first aircraft which he has designed, but, as he himself says, had he ever designed an orthodox aircraft, preconceived ideas would have so trammelled his outlook that the concept of such a design as the Satellite would have been virtually impossible; an argument with which we are inclined to agree.” and further:

“ Beyond stating that the Satellite is so clean aerodynamically
that it almost justifies the term hygienic”

There was a certain genius to choosing a ‘virgin’ aircraft designer, free from conventional wisdom, but is this long-held view of Heenan correct? John Nelson Dundas Heenan is something of a mysterious character that history has largely forgotten. He appeared at, at least, one World One pilots reunion in the 1930s, though it is not believed he had flown in the Great War.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

A trawl of patent records reveals he filed seventeen, most relating to heaters and boilers; one, somewhat bizarrely, relates to an improved golf club bag. The solitary patent relating to aircraft is from 1949 and describes a radical fuselage framework structure requiring far fewer parts than conventional designs. He was also actively interested in metallurgy from the 1930s.

The idea of Heenan being an aviation outsider is a myth; in fact Heenan was a vital part of the secret project which led to America’s first jet aircraft. Heenan was involved in the British Air Commission in World War II and communicated a vast amount of Frank Whittle’s reports on jet propulsion to USAAF Col D. J. Keirn. Keirn was the AAF Materiel Command project officer, in charge of bringing Britain’s advanced jet technology to the US. With this information, America was able to build and fly its first jet, the P-59A in 1942.

Whisky business
The Satellite, which was yet to fly, was displayed at the 1948 Farnborough. Among the thousands of visitors attracted to the aircraft was a young Bill Gunston who wished he had enough money to buy one for himself. The prototype was taken to Redhill, an aerodrome used by Imperial airways in the 1930s in 1948. It received the registration G-ALOI in April 1949. The aircraft was ready for its first flight, at the able hands of Willie Wilson. He described this event to the Distiller’s Gazette, “After the first Hop which resulted in the undercarriage collapsing, the Air Registration Board called for an investigation into the stressing. After numerous delays, the machine was prepared for a second hop to about 20 ft, then executed what I thought to be quite a reasonable landing. When, on inspection, it was found that the main keel had broken, that really brought the wrath of the ARB upon us, insisting that the aircraft had to be completely re-stressed…my own view was that we should, in the old phrase, ‘jack up the windscreen and run a new aeroplane underneath’, and I recommended to Distillers that they pack up the venture and sack H. J. Wilson. To give them their due they appreciated my endeavours and did very kindly offer me a job in one of their divisions; but I considered that the profession of flogging whisky was probably more dangerous than test flying!”

Click here for the story of Italy’s cancelled superfighter

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

So what had gone wrong? In designing the Satellite, Heenan had sent a wing section to the National Physical Laboratory for testing, as some believed magnesium had insufficient torsional strength. The results were very encouraging. The section withstood ten million deflection cycles at 10 per cent of the maximum bending load on the wing. When deflection was increased to 40 per cent a further two million cycles were experienced before failure occurred. Tragically the same tests had not been carried out on keel member and undercarriage points.

Click here for the story of Convair’s insane ring-wing fighter
An unlikely venture
Two Satellite prototypes were built, but the project was cancelled shortly afterwards. However, the story of this gin-funded, magnesium weirdo was not over. Major Heenan’s rich imagination bore an even more outlandish plan: in 1951 the Heenan, Winn and Steel company began converting the Satellite prototype G-ALXP into an experimental helicopter! Heenan had purchased the rights to a helicopter concept first developed by the American designer Fred Landgraf, creator of the Landgraf H-2. Unlike any other helicopter before or since the H-2 used a tension-rod drive system to drive side-by-side rotors. Pitch of the freely rotating blade shells was controlled by ailerons close to the tips of the rotors.
In 1952, Firth Helicopters started construction of what was now known as the Firth FH-01/4, but it proved to be a nightmare. Numerous problems dogged the project, which seemed impossible to solve given the small size of the company’s resources. The helicopter was cancelled before it had reached a flight-worthy stage. What did exist of the Firth FH-01/4 was presented to the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield in 1955. The story of the Satellite was now over, but its configuration would return.

Satellite of love

The Lear Fan was a product of love. When the aircraft’s creator Bill Lear died in 1978, his devoted wife Moya did all she could to see the project succeed. Bill Lear was a great innovator, his inventions included the 8-track tape and the Lear Jet. He also had a whimsical sense of humour, naming one of his daughters ‘Shanda’ (Shanda Lear!).

Moya was a former dancer, turned philanthropist and her father was the vaudeville genius John ‘Ole’ Olsen, creator of the broadway smash ‘Hellzapoppin’. As an aside, Moya and Bill’s son John Lear is one of the world’s most accomplished pilots and an ardent believer in the earthly presence of extraterrestrials.

Moya knew her late husband’s design was a winner, and aggressively pursued investors.
In configuration, the gorgeous LearFan was reminiscent of the Satellite. It was a pusher, and had the same Y-shaped tail. Like the Satellite it was innovative in its choice of construction and materials, and was one of the first aircraft to use large amounts of composite plastics.

The LearFan is officially recorded as making its first flight on the 32nd December 1980. The bizarre ‘date’ was an attempt to grant the project funding despite it technically being a day too late to be eligible. Like the Satellite, the LearFan was a case of too much too soon. It used two engines to power one propeller, making it as aerodynamically clean as a single-engined aircraft, but as reliable as a twin. The Federal Aviation Administration (the US organisation which ensures aircraft are safe), did not like this design as it put a lot of strain on the gearbox and would not give it their stamp of approval. The Lear Fan was abandoned in 1985, and Moya died in 2001.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

The celebrated aviation writer Bill Sweetman noted (in an article for Air & Space) that:

So was this the end of the ‘Y- pusher’?
In 2001 a new age of aerial warfare began. The US invaded Afghanistan, and the drone became the symbol of war in the ‘Information Age’. Just four weeks into 2001, a sinister aircraft had taken its maiden flight, the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. The Reaper was the first of a new breed of remotely piloted combat air vehicles. That the Reaper chose a similar design solution to the Satellite, with a Y-shaped tail and pusher engine, is a vindication of Major Heenan and his visionary little aeroplane. The coming of the Reaper was going to be the end of this story.

Until, I uncovered something very strange.

Shute and ask questions later
Neville Shute Norway was an aeronautical engineer and author of fiction when he joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in World War II. Earlier, he had worked on the famous R.100 airship with Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb. In 1931 he set up the Airspeed Ltd aircraft company, along with A. H. Tiltman, a friend from the R.100 project. Thanks to his immensely creative thinking Norway ended up in what would become the Directorate of Miscellaneous Weapons Development. The madcap DMWD were encouraged to think outside the box in developing ways to counter Nazi Germany. Their hare-brained, yet often successful, schemes included coating the sea in coal dust so, from the air, it appeared to be land. Norway himself was involved in the development of the ‘The Great Panjandrum’ of 1943. This was an enormous set of rocket-propelled wheels, full of a ton of explosives designed to blow a tank-size hole through the German coastal defences. The Great Panjandrum, named for a character in nonsense poem, proved a surprising performer. It was described by Brian Johnson, for the BBC documentary Secret War,
“At first all went well. Panjandrum rolled into the sea and began to head for the shore, the Brass Hats watching through binoculars from the top of a pebble ridge…Then a clamp gave: first one, then two more rockets broke free: Panjandrum began to lurch ominously. It hit a line of small craters in the sand and began to turn to starboard, careering towards Klemantaski, who, viewing events through a telescopic lens, misjudged the distance and continued filming. Hearing the approaching roar he looked up from his viewfinder to see Panjandrum, shedding live rockets in all directions, heading straight for him. As he ran for his life, he glimpsed the assembled admirals and generals diving for cover behind the pebble ridge into barbed-wire entanglements. Panjandrum was now heading back to the sea but crashed on to the sand where it disintegrated in violent explosions, rockets tearing across the beach at great speed.”. The unlikeliness of this device has led some to conclude that this project’s primary objective was to distract German Intelligence from Britain’s real invasion-planning efforts.

For Norway’s connection with the Satellite we need to delve further back, to his 1940 plan for a parasitical torpedo bomber. Buried away in a folder in Nuffield College Library, Oxford is a folder containing  text, with accompanying diagrams and drawings. The documents describe a proposal for the construction in the USA of  ‘a large Amphibian Flying Boat, capable of carrying  four “Satellite” planes, each capable of carrying its own 18″ torpedo or one 1500 lb.  “Diving Bomb”‘. The typescript was originally contained in a plastic folder labelled ‘Burney Amphibian and Satellites’. The concept is from the mind of Neville Shute. What is striking is not just the name of the parasitical torpedo bombers, but the configuration- they are ‘pushers’, with an overall similar configuration to Heenan’s aircraft.

Could Heenan’s work in advanced projects at the British Air Commission have given him access to this project? It is certainly possible. If this is the case, then could it be Heenan’s naming of the aircraft was a wry reference to Shute’s secret torpedo bomber? The link is at best speculative, but there is another link between Heenan and Shute. Don Middleton, who until he passed away, was the leading authority on the Planet Satellite, was also an ex-Airspeed employee.

We will leave the last word on the Satellite to Wilson from the previously quoted interview in the DCL Gazette:

“The machine was probably the way ahead of its time, it was built in the wrong material, definitely understressed but otherwise possibly delightful…In case the  Distillers should take the above as criticism, may I state that currently I am testing their Gordon’s gin and Black Label whisky, both of which I find handle extremely well and fully meet their advertised performance.”

The author would like to add that his favourite gin is Hendrick’s.

You should may also enjoy our Top Tens! There’s a whole feast of fantastic British, French, Swedish, Australian, Japanese , Belgian,  German and Latin American aeroplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

More on the Bristol 188 here

Justin Bronk is a Research Analyst of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute. He recently released a fascinating report on the Typhoon fighter sponsored by Eurofighter. Hush-Kit grilled him on Typhoon and the biggest questions in the sphere of military aviation.

In your recent study of Typhoon, you note that the aircraft is second only to the F-22 in the air superiority role. Considering the virtually identical airframe performance of Rafale, its superior maturity, sensor fusion and electronic warfare abilities, how do you justify this?

The Typhoon has a significantly better thrust-to-weight ratio than Rafale as well as a larger radar which for a given M-Scan or AESA gives superior performance in the air superiority role. It also can operate higher and faster than Rafale (above 60,000ft) which lends itself uniquely well to cooperating with the US F-22. Rafale is, of course, a more mature mutli-role platform and also has the edge in terms of instantaneous roll-rate changes, especially at higher all-up weights. Essentially, Rafale has the aerodynamic airframe edge, Typhoon has the edge in engine tech and radar potential. Typhoon also incorporates a two-way datalink capability for Meteor which Rafale does not.

The recent joint RAF/IAF exercise reignited old debates about the relative merits of the Typhoon and Su-30, what are the most important differences between the types – and factoring equally good tactics and pilot skill- does either have a large advantage?

The Su-30 has a big advantage over Typhoon in the horizontal manoeuvres department, as well as quick ‘nose pointing’ at high angles of attack. However, in a representative combat situation the Typhoons would be cruising much higher and faster than the Su-30 with better RCS-reduction features, radar and energy conservation options.

The Typhoon was built to counter a notionally upgraded Su-27, the Su-35 is just such an aircraft, and yet many would say the types have parity; with the Su-35 having a significant advantage in the within-visual range combat scenario- has Typhoon failed its original objectives?

Su-35 overcomes many of the thrust-weight issues of the Su-30MKI so is significantly superior in terms of vertical energy management. However, Typhoon still has a significant edge in terms of BVR combat and WVR, LOAL and high off-boresight helmet cued IR missiles with impressive countermeasures resistance makes both aircraft unlikely to survive a traditional ‘merge’.

“The US is defenceless” Full story here

You have talked to several Typhoon operators, are they well supported by Eurofighter? Are parts supplied quickly and at a reasonable cost?

Yes, but only insofar as Eurofighter GmbH can operate within the confines of a consortium which is answerable to four countries with different funding, operational and political circumstances. However, the recent worsening of the international security environment has meant that the partner nations are now much better aligned than in the past and the current upgrade schedule and maintenance contracts (the latter are conducted by national industry, BAE Systems in the UK for example) outlook is good.

We then left Typhoon aside to move to more general issues

What are the biggest myths or misconceptions about modern air warfare?

I think one of the biggest myths about modern air combat are that agility and speed dictate the outcome of air-air encounters. Whilst the dogfight is not gone, it is now a serious rarity and helmet-cued missiles with extreme manoeuvrability and resistance to countermeasures have rendered such encounters brief. Red Flag exercises and the like suggest that modern air combat is decided by three key factors: situational awareness of each force and pilot, persistence in terms of fuel and missiles, and pilot training.

The ten most combat effective fighters in the within-visual range scenario

Looking at fighters of the early 1960s it could be said that air forces were being sold advanced technology that was not reliable or capable of delivering on its promised abilities. Can you see examples of this today, if so what are they?

I think that there is a real danger of falling into to the trap of believing that just because a fighter can do multiple missions sets, that it can do them all well in a single sortie. Being able to lift off with 1.5 times its own empty weight in mixed air-air and air-ground stores is a very impressive aerodynamic feat for Rafale, for example, but I don’t believe it can then supercruise at high altitude for superior BVR or manoeuvre effectively for WVR counter-air tasks without jettisoning most of it. It should be remembered that having fighters that are flexible enough to do all sorts of tasks, does not mean they can do them all at once – combat mass is still vital!

What is the biggest ethical problem for modern air forces?

Ethical issues will likely centre around the degrees of autonomy built into future strike and combat platforms. There are inherent limitations in remotely piloted solutions in terms of relay control input delays and datalink detectability and vulnerability. However, greater autonomy in terms of target selection and weapons release will be hugely controversial. However, the precedents set by the successful lawsuits against MoD for inadequate equipment provision to British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have set legal precedents which could make MoD liable for NOT using autonomous systems and putting servicemen and women in harm’s way.

 Is the ultra-long range Meteor air-to-air missile the right idea?

Meteor is an excellent idea in situations where the rules of engagement allows long range beyond-visual range shots without visual confirmation of target ID (rare). However, at short to medium ranges, it is slower than solid-fuelled missiles such as AMRAAM. As with many such things, the right solution is a balance of the two capabilities – so mixed load-outs!

The ten most combat effective fighters in the beyond-visual range scenario

Does Britain need aircraft carriers?

Britain does not need aircraft carriers. If we are serious about spending the sorts of money the governments have committed to the QEC/F-35B combination then it must be done seriously. Without sufficient mass of aircraft on the carrier, regular rotations at sea to maintain crew/aircrew readiness and currency, and battlegroup-level protection, the whole thing is a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere. There is a reason that only the US Navy currently does carrier power-projection well; because they do it at scale and with the required C2, force protection and training/maintenance enablers. If the QEC/F-35B force is simply to be used to sail around for a few months a year doing port visits and ‘shows of resolve’ then it will be a waste of finite defence resources at a time when all three services, but especially the Royal Navy are under-resourced for their core commitments.

The F-35 will change the future in ways that we don’t want, full story here

What are the worst military aircraft procurement deals of the last ten years and why?

To cease F-22 production in the US. Time has shown that the F-35A cannot fulfil the pure air superiority role and the F-22 incremental cost had come down significantly by the time the programme was cancelled. The USAF does not have enough of its premier air superiority fighter for current and projected global commitments in Europe, Asia and the Arctic.

Does the RAF have all the equipment it needs?

No. However, given the budgetary constraints of 2010-2015, it has done great work with what it has. Fast jet squadron mass is too low for global commitments and this will worsen when Tornado retires. Furthermore, assets  like the E-3 AWACS fleet are grossly in need of modernisation – this work having been repeatedly shelved over a decade in the name of ‘cost and efficiency savings’.

What are the most under- and over-rated military aircraft?

Most underrated: Saab Gripen. Most overrated: T-50/PAK FA

Should the Peshmerga have an air force? Do you see any chance of this happening?

No, and no: they have neither the funding, centralised organisational capability or territorial integrity required for an air force.

What are the current air- and air defence assets of IS?

Aside from a few captured MiG-21s and barely serviceable helicopters which would be blasted out of the sky within about three minutes of leaving the ground, none. Air defence consists of MANPADS which, whilst very dangerous at low level, are incapable of threatening coalition airpower operations over Iraq or Syria.

What are your thoughts on the RuAF Su-27s and ’34s currently in Syria?
A wonderful diplomatic two fingers at the West. Not militarily significant against ISIL or other anti-Assad forces in Syria in a strategic sense but they mean that any future operations by the US-led coalition over Syria will have to deconflict with and, therefore, consult the Russians.  It also puts paid to any coalition ideas about imposing a no-fly zone on Assad.

Can a modern revolution happen without air power?
A modern revolution can certainly happen without airpower. The Arab Spring is clear evidence of that. The Maidan in Kiev likewise had no airpower involvement.

What should I be asking you?
Wait and see until after my current project –a report on the F-35 for the UK military – is published in late October!

Follow him on Twitter: @Justin_Br0nk

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

You should also enjoy our other Top Tens! There’s a whole feast of fantastic British, French, Swedish, Australian, Japanese , Belgian,  German and Latin American aeroplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read as is the Top Ten cancelled fighters.

Read an interview with a Super Hornet pilot here.

100 years ago this year the first true fighters flew into action, heralding a new world of ‘dogfights’, ‘air aces’, endless heated discussions about which fighter was ‘best’ at any given time, and pointless lists, such as this one.
The aeroplane at the start of 1915 was a true multi-role machine, the same aircraft being expected to carry a bomb on one mission, a camera on the next, and take occasional pot-shots at enemy aircraft if the situation arose. By the end of the year, reflecting its somewhat tardy appreciation as a useful tool of war, the armed forces of several nations began to realise that aircraft epitomised for specific roles might prove more effective than the general purpose machines then in service. One of those aircraft was that most fearsome of flying machines, the fighter. Some of the following aircraft can barely be called fighter aircraft in the modern sense, most are little more than lash-ups, none of them was capable of exceeding 100mph and none seems particularly threatening, yet this is the pick of the bunch from the dawn of air to air combat and one of them appeared to be so effective it caused near panic in its enemies.

10. Voisin III

It might look like a pram bolted to some bamboo and a kite but this aeroplane made history.

First on the list and it isn’t even a fighter. This bomber scored the first air to air kill in history on the 4th October 1914 when Joseph Frantz and Louis Quénault downed an Aviatik B.II.  Or rather the first by gunfire, Pyotr Nesterov destroyed a German reconnaissance aircraft earlier but he achieved this by ramming, an action that neither he nor his aircraft survived and this tactic remained, understandably, unpopular. The Voisin III was a highly successful aircraft and hundreds served with French and British forces but it possessed virtually none of the attributes necessary for a fighter. However, its inclusion here can be justified by its epoch-making achievement.

9. Pfalz Eindecker

This is an experimental Pfalz monoplane fitted with an inline engine, the service versions were all fitted with rotaries and weren’t as good-looking.

Pity the poor Pfalz, a licence built Morane monoplane fitted with a machine gun and interrupter gear, its performance even by the standards of 1915 was marginal and it had the misfortune to follow the (relatively) superlative Fokker into service. To add a further frisson of unwelcome excitement for the lucky German pioneer aviator, it had a reputation for shoddy build quality and was liable to fall apart. Nonetheless it was well armed and available, and against the virtually defenceless reconnaissance aircraft of 1915 it did fairly well.

The top ten fighters of 1985 here

8. Sopwith Tabloid

These naval aviators have failed to realise that having their aircraft hoisted up on a crane doesn’t count as ‘flying’.

The dainty Tabloid floatplane won the 1913 Schneider Trophy, setting a world speed record in the process. Nearly a hundred served the RFC as landplanes and the Royal Navy, who called it the Schneider, operated a similar number of floatplanes. Many were fitted with a Lewis gun on the top wing but there is no record of any air to air combat involving the little Sopwith except once, when Norman Spratt of the RFC successfully forced down an Albatros C.I in Allied territory by firing at it with his revolver(!) This was a shame for the British as the Tabloid had the performance and manoeuvrability necessary to defeat the ‘Fokker Scourge’. It is most famous today for performing the first bombing raid on Germany, and successfully destroying Zeppelin Z.IX in its shed at Düsseldorf.

Check out the ten worst carrier aircraft here.

7. Vickers F.B.5 ‘Gunbus’

A flying replica of the F.B.5 Gunbus was completed in 1966 and flew until late 1968. It is now an exhibit at the Royal Air Force museum.

In the absence of any means to fire through the propeller arc, the arms giant Vickers took the logical step of fitting a machine gun in the nose of an aircraft with the engine and propeller behind the crew. Thus they created the first ever purpose-designed fighter aircraft to enter service, this being reflected in its designation: F.B. stands for ‘Fighting Biplane’ Sadly, despite its comparatively formidable armament installation, the Gunbus was underpowered and lacked the performance to intercept most of its adversaries. Nonetheless in early to mid 1915 it performed adequately and caused something of a stir amongst its foes. By the end of the year it was totally outclassed.

Top Ten fighter aircraft at the outbreak of World War II here

6. Morane Saulnier Type L

This is one of the Pfalz built L Types that remained unarmed whilst Germany happily bolted machine guns onto a bunch of French L Types they’d captured. It is unclear why.

The pilot Roland Garros had been working on a gun synchroniser with Raymond Saulnier but the firing rate of the Hotchkiss machine gun was too erratic to allow this to work. As a crude alternative they fitted two steel wedges to the propeller, any bullets that struck the propeller blades would be deflected by these wedges and the pilot could fire directly through the propeller arc. A Morane Type L was fitted with gun and wedges and Garros shot down three German aircraft during April, an unheard of success rate at the time. The Type L itself was fairly fast but had a reputation as being difficult to handle (as can be read about in the excellent memoir ‘Sagittarius Rising’ by Cecil Lewis). Confusingly, although Pfalz built the Type L under licence for the Germans, they never fitted a machine gun to it, though inexplicably they did fit one to several captured French built examples which they then proceeded to use operationally.

5. Bristol Scout

This Scout has an unsynchronised Lewis gun arranged to fire directly forward, if fired it would be liable to blow the propeller off.

The fastest aircraft on this list (probably – contemporary specifications are often vague and there was less standardisation between airframes of the same type) the Scout was an excellent aeroplane hampered by inadequate armament. Despite this it was surprisingly successful, particularly in the hands of Lanoe Hawker, the first British air ace. Hawker devised a mounting for a fixed Lewis gun arranged to fire forward and to the left, outside the propeller disc. Despite the apparent difficulty in aiming a weapon so fitted, by the end of July Hawker had destroyed three enemy aircraft and won the Victoria Cross. By the time attempts to develop a synchroniser had succeeded, the Scout had been surpassed in performance. Its operational use ended in early 1916 but its flying qualities were such that many were retained as squadron hacks and runabouts until the end of the conflict.

4. Morane Saulnier Type N

The look of concern on this pilot’s face belies the unpleasant flying qualities of the Morane N. Note the ‘casserole’ spinner and the deflector wedges on the propeller blades.

Fitted with the same deflectors as on the Type L, the Type N should have been spectacularly effective due to its performance, which was excellent, and its armament, which could (sort-of) be fired through the propeller disc. However the Type N was unpopular and only 49 were built. Derived, like the Tabloid, from a racing aircraft, the Type N was aerodynamically advanced and fitted with an amazing and enormous spinner known as ‘la casserole’. Unfortunately the casserole made the engine overheat so it was discarded (with no apparent loss of performance, except in the aesthetic realm). The Type N’s future looked rosy but the aircraft was simply too difficult to fly, the controls were sensitive, it was unstable in all axes, it had a high landing speed and it could not be flown hands off. In the right hands it was formidable, several aces scored their first victories on the type but it was just too hard for the average pilot to fly at all, let alone attempt to engage the enemy.  

3. Nieuport 10 C.1

Most of World War 1 was fought in black and white, the Nieuport was ahead of its time.

Once again, like the Type N and Tabloid, the Nieuport 10 was intended as a racing aircraft and had a better performance than most of its contemporaries. Most Nieuport 10s were two-seaters but the C.1 was a single seat fighter variant with a Lewis gun fixed to the top wing. The immensely popular French pilot Georges Guynemer, who would eventually record 54 confirmed victories, acheived ‘ace’ status by shooting down his fifth aircraft in a Nieuport 10, his first victory was scored whilst flying the aforementioned Morane Type L. The Nieuport 10 was a very good aircraft but its greatest significance was as the basis for the considerably superior Nieuport 11 and the insanely successful Nieuport 17, probably the best fighter in the world in early 1916.

Top Ten French aircraft here

2. Fokker Eindecker

These casual Germans are pretty sure their Fokker is the best fighter in the World. They are almost definitely wrong.

If psychological effect were the sole criterion for a fighter’s effectiveness then this spindly little monoplane would be the most successful combat aircraft ever built. Whilst the Pfalz monoplane was identical to the Morane monoplane, the Fokker, though it was externally similar, was a complete redesign with a lengthened fuselage of sturdy steel tube construction. If easier to fly than the Morane Type N, the Fokker was not an aircraft for the novice with overly sensitive unbalanced tail surfaces and lateral control by wing warping rather than the eminently superior ailerons which would become universal. Its performance was not going to set the world on fire but it was definitively good enough, which was all that was then required as it was equipped with the first reliable system allowing the gun to fire through the arc of the propeller. Henceforth the fighter pilot aimed the whole aircraft at the target and fired, a practice that remains standard for gun armament on fighter aircraft to the present day. From the moment of its introduction it was a fantastic success, such that it became collectively known as the ‘Fokker Scourge’ to the British and the first German aces were beginning to accumulate victory tallies that could only be dreamed of by the Allies. Chief amongst these early fighter pilots was Max Immelmann, who downed a remarkable 15 Allied aircraft solely with various models of Eindecker. Ultimately the Fokker’s greatest legacy was to spur frenzied activity amongst Allied designers to produce aircraft to defeat it, thus starting a see-sawing arms race of fighter aircraft that continues to the present day. 

Top Ten fighter aircraft at the outbreak of World War II here

1. Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2a

Decent photographs of the F.E.2a are virtually unknown. Here is the Vintage Aviator’s accurate flying replica of an F.E.2b. This variant had a more powerful engine, an extra gun and deleted a pointless airbrake.

No one would call it pretty nor is it particularly famous but the F.E.2 was one of the great survivors of the First World War. Designed around the same time and in the same configuration as the ponderous Gunbus, the F.E. was in a different league – tough, well armed, docile and with a performance consistently good enough to allow it to operate as a fighter by day until mid-1917. It was in combat with F.E.2s in July 1917 that Richthofen, the ‘Red Baron’ was shot in the head, a wound which nearly killed him and from which some maintain he never recovered. By this time, in contrast, the Eindecker was literally a museum piece (Immelmann’s first Eindecker was on display in Berlin’s Zeughaus museum by April 1916 where it was destroyed in a British bombing raid in 1940). Even then the F.E.2 was useful enough to operate as a tactical night bomber until the end of the war. To put this into context, the Nieuport 11, a highly successful fighter, entered service in January 1916 yet was already being replaced in March. First operational variant was the F.E.2a which arrived at the front in 1915, by 1916 the slightly more powerful F.E.2b, which introduced an additional rearward firing gun, was being produced in large numbers and this was the variant that, in concert with later aircraft such as the Nieuport 11 and DH.2, would contain and ultimately quash the Fokker Scourge. The figures are telling, less than 300 Eindeckers were built as opposed to over 2000 F.Es. At least 32 aircrew became aces in the F.E.2, including, if you believe everything you read, ‘Biggles’ the children’s book character. The Eindecker was the first of what would become the archetypal fighter aircraft but it was the F.E.2 that would prove specifically more effective and infinitely more useful for far longer. It was the exceptional fighter aircraft of its generation.

How many F-35s does it take to change a lightbulb?

Three: One to change the criteria of changing a lightbulb, the second to undergo maintenance, and the third to tell the press  the lightbulb has been changed.

If you have any F-35 jokes please add them to the comments section.

Bob Dorr, respected aviation author and columnist passed away in 2016. In 2015 Hush-Kit had the pleasure of talking to about the subject of USAF and its capabilities and role in the modern world. 

 

What is USAF’s role — and is it used correctly?

I would like air power (meaning, the Air Force) to be recognised as the primary instrument in war. The role is to use long-range, land-based air power to deter or defeat strategic threats. This means that the Air Force must be much more than just “a partner in the joint fight,” to quote former chief of staff General Norton Schwartz. The Air Force is not an adjunct to other services. It is, and should be, the primary service branch. These views are similar to those expressed by Alexander Seversky (pictured below)  in his book ‘Victory Through Air Power‘ in 1942.

Is USAF really underfunded — surely it is the wealthiest air force by a significant margin, and the USA has not been attacked by a nation state since 1945?

We need funding for a new bomber, tanker and rescue helicopter. That doesn’t mean we need more money. It means we must address people costs and base costs. We can get plenty of income without increasing  taxes by rationalising our personnel system—it no longer makes sense to be able to retire at age 37 with a pension—and by closing bases. We’re spending money on electricity, running water, roads, and all sorts of administrative costs at bases that we don’t need at all.

What is the current vision for the future bomber and is it the right one?

The Air Force is working hard to “get it right” with the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B), which may eventually be designated B-3. In my view, the service is devoting too much attention to the LRS-B as a sensor fusion platform and as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. I would like the priority to be on delivering ordnance to target, anywhere on the globe. Very little is public about LRS-B but it’s possible the Air Force will give me what I want.

Many have criticised the F-35, how do you rate the Euro-canards and do you think they are a valid alternative for air forces not wishing to buy into F-35?

I’m not an expert on European fighter designs. My view is that stealth (the principal advantage offered by the F-35) is overrated. Alarmist comments by Air Force officials notwithstanding, so-called fourth generation fighters can survive in a modern, high-tech battlespace. Since I want to protect our industrial base—especially the St. Louis, Missouri fighter production line—I would prefer to see overseas buyers purchase advanced versions of the F-15K Slam Eagle, F-16E Desert Falcon, or F/A-18F Super Hornet.

What is the biggest mistake regarding USAF in recent years?

It was a terrible mistake for Defense Secretary Robert Gates to fire Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and chief of staff General T. Michael ‘Buzz’ Moseley in 2008. That’s the subject of my new book,

What is the point of the European F-22 deployment and what are your views on this?

The current F-22 deployment to Europe is the sort of thing we do routinely. It’s no doubt intended in part to send a message to Russia’s Vladimir Putin about tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East, but I’m not too sure just what that message is. We should employ the F-22 routinely where possible and that’s what we’re doing. In the book ‘Air Power Abandoned’ I cite four occasions when US military leaders wanted to deploy F-22s abroad and Gates refused to allow it.

How many USAF aircraft types did you think remain in the ‘black’ world and what roles do think they serve?

There are no manned aircraft in the ‘black’ world and never were any that we don’t know about. There’s an entire industry devoted to covering imaginary “black” aircraft and its practitioners include some respected writers and publications who ought to be ashamed of themselves — but the ‘black’ aircraft are no more real than the little green men. There is at least one totally black drone program.

The F-35A performed badly in BFM tests against the F-16D, what are your thoughts on this?

I haven’t studied this specific event but the F-35A doesn’t seem to be a very good air-to-air fighter despite being packaged and sold as such. The F-16 remains a very formidable fighting machine. The extent to which basic fighter manoeuvring matters in today’s world is a topic of considerable debate.

Who do you think will and who do you think should win the T-X trainer programme, does the F-35s performance merit a supersonic aircraft?

The roster of possible candidates for T-X has been a moveable feast, with many changes in recent months. In previous trainer competitions, I not only studied the candidates, I flew in most of them. There has been some discussion of returning to a universal scheme under which all pilot trainees would fly the T-38 or its replacement — enabling the Air Force to retire all T-1A Jayhawks except those used for combat systems officer training. I think that’s a good idea. I haven’t formed a conclusion about which aircraft would make the best T-X and I don’t believe supersonic speed is a necessity.

A-10s future: any chance of refurbished aircraft going to the governments of Afghanistan or Iraq?

I hope not. Our efforts to provide aircraft to those countries have been catastrophic failures. I want to keep as many A-10 Thunderbolt IIs in US service as long as possible. All were brought up to A-10C standard recently and have no structural issues and have engines that continue to perform well. So I don’t see a need for refurbishing but I do think we should keep our A-10s.

Finally- is there a big military aviation issue that the media should be paying more attention to?

Yeah. We’re defenceless. Here’s a quote from my new book:

“In 2015, I asked Moseley a question that went something like this:

If we were talking in 2005, the year you became chief of staff and I asked you to picture the Air Force of ten years from now, what would you see?

Moseley’s reply, again paraphrased:

We would have a robust force of F-22 Raptor fighters, operational F-35s, the beginnings of a new bomber force, a new tanker operational in squadrons, and a new combat rescue helicopter, also operational in squadrons. Today, we have none of those things.”

Keep this blog alive!

To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- we need donations. We’re trying to do something different with Hush-Kit: give aviation fans something that is both entertaining, surprising and well-informed. Please do help us and click on the donate button above – you can really make a difference (suggested donation £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty. Once you’ve done that we hope you enjoy 10 Incredible Soviet fighter Aircraft that never entered service. A big thank you to all of our readers.

Air Power Abandoned: Robert Gates, the F-22 Raptor, and the Betrayal of America’s Air Force. Signed copies of this book are available on line or directly from Bob on  703 264-8950 or by email at robert.f.dorr@cox.net.

Robert F ‘Bob’ Dorr – September 11, 1939 – June 12, 2016

More from Bob Dorr here

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit