Category Archives: Weimar and Nazi Germany

Spitfire with DB 605A, “Messerspit”

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1944)

Experimental Engine Testing Aircraft: 1 Converted Airframe

The enigmatic and misunderstood ‘Messerspit’ test aircraft lies at the center of a number of theories, its original purpose largely forgotten. (google.uk)

Introduction

Few aspects of the Second World War have been so misunderstood, misrepresented, and pushed into near mythology as the Luftwaffe’s test programs. Their discussion in less academic circles is dominated by rampant speculation from those who indulge in sensationalist historical stories. With respect to that, one might be surprised to find the bizarre photographs of a Spitfire Mk. VB with a Daimler Benz engine to be one of the few remaining genuine artifacts from an obscure Luftwaffe test program. With so little information publicly available, naturally, the odd plane’s origins, purpose, and performance have been drowned in a sea of speculation. However, while it is often erroneously claimed that the so-called ‘Messerspit’ was some bizarre attempt to combine the best aspects of the two planes, in reality, the aircraft was converted to settle a technical argument which had been raging in Luftwaffe research and development circles since 1942.

Engine Trouble

The history of fighter engine development is one of ceaseless improvement in power and weight which are largely achieved through improving methods of design, production, and the use of better materials. In the case of the Luftwaffe, it was not long until the chase for power was subsumed by the need to develop engines which could more reliably run on inferior materials. Following the end of the battle of Britain in the autumn of 1940, the Luftwaffe soon found itself short of several key materials necessary in building heat and corrosion resistant alloys, most notably nickel, tin, and, later, chromium and cobalt. Nearly all of these materials were available only in limited quantities across Europe, with tin, used in heavy duty piston bearings, being almost totally unavailable. This was further exacerbated by the transition to synthetic gasoline and lubricants, whose properties differed enough from their petroleum counterparts to cause trouble.

In order to cope with the restricted access to these materials, Sparrmetall economy alloys were introduced to ensure the aviation industry would have access to enough materials, albeit ones which would cause a slate of problems. The Bf 109E had nearly finished its production run before the transition to the new materials began and was soon being phased out by the new F model in late 1940, and there the trouble began. The new production DB 601N engines in these would make use of high octane C3 synthetic fuel. However, the engine was neither designed nor properly tested around this, and had instead been developed around the petroleum based C2. Beyond this, its nickel-poor, and thus corrosion prone exhaust valves, coupled with its more fragile piston and crank bearings, would soon create a web of issues that would take weeks to sort out.

A cut away of the troublesome DB 601N engine. (Flight Magazine)

The C3 fuel reacted chemically with the 109F’s rubber bag tank, and, if stored in the tank long enough, would ruin the anti-knock qualities of this fuel. When run on this degraded fuel, these engines soon suffered absolutely horrible mechanical problems, chief of which were violent vibrations which could thoroughly wreck them. The C3 fuel could also cling to the chamber walls after failing to thoroughly disperse through the fuel injectors, and then escape into the oil system. In most other aircraft, the fuel would simply boil away, but the Daimler Benz engine ran cooler than most, and thus the fuel would eventually dilute the oil until it failed to act effectively as a lubricant, resulting in increased wear or catastrophic engine failure in the worst cases.

Expecting the issue to be one of a mechanical nature, the fuel and bag were not seen as the obvious culprit. Rather, the engine mount, the air intake position, and the cooling system were suspect. This guess would be partially correct in the case of the intake. Eventually, they tracked the fuel degradation to the tank and adjusted the fuel injectors. The unreliable engine was then phased out for the DB 601E, which ran on the more common B4 fuel and was installed in the subsequent Bf 109F-3 and 4 models. Almost all Bf 109’s built after this point were run on this more common, lower performance fuel. Prior to this, the F series were restricted from running at emergency power and were at a considerable handicap in combat for much of 1941 and 42. Regardless of this impediment, many Luftwaffe fighter squadrons often found these their most successful years.

The Bf 109G initially provided no real advantage over its predecessor, and its unreliable engine would prove a particular liability in less than ideal settings, like this G-2 in Finland. (asisbiz)

Problems would resurface again when it came time to re-engine the 109 with the new DB 605A. Developed from the DB 601E, the new engine was to be a marked improvement, with its larger displacement, improved supercharger, and higher compression ratios promising a considerable increase in power. However, new material restrictions would sharply curtail the use of molybdenum, tungsten, and especially cobalt. Supplies of which practically dried up when Germany’s largest source in French North Africa had been lost after Operation Torch. Problems new and old emerged, the most egregious of which were exhaust valve failures, which were due to the low nickel content of the components, resulting in rapid corrosion and cracking. There were also lubrication failures, which were made worse after the switch was made from ball to sleeve bearings. The first Gustavs would enter service in early 1942, though they soon had their performance limited, off and on, to prevent engine failure rates from reaching unmanageable levels. As a result of these limitations, the Gustav was initially slower than the plane it was supposed to replace.

Problems were made even worse when the materials in the engines at Daimler Benz’s testing and development facilities did not match those on the production line, leading to considerable delays in destructive testing. It would eventually receive the improvements to allow it to use its emergency power setting, as exhaust valves were chrome plated and the oil scavenge system was improved, but it was clear that any major future increase in engine performance was only possible after a costly and extended development cycle. The DB 605A would finally be released from all restrictions in August of 1943, almost two years after the first Gustav left the factory.

The Blame Game

The DB 605’s flaws would be magnified in the light of a cascade of engine failures. The most publicized incident involved the loss of ace pilot Hans Marseille, who was lost in action after his engine caught fire and he died trying to escape his aircraft. (asisbiz)

Continued development of the Bf 109 was in a very precarious place, as performance improvements were expected without any major increases in engine power. These goals were largely unachievable for the time being, and thus most of those involved would try placing the fault with some other party when the unrealistic plans fell through. Willy Messerschmitt would place the blame with Daimler Benz, whose engines, he claimed, had cooling requirements that were too high, and thus required the use of larger, drag inducing radiators. In part, he was correct in that Daimler Benz’ engines ran cooler, though in doing so, he seems to have neglected issues with the plane’s radiators, which were supplied by other firms. The Bf 109 was fitted with radiators that operated under considerably lower pressures and temperatures than those used on Allied fighters, and were thus very robust, but less efficient. To his frustration, Messerschmitt was unable to increase the efficacy of the system without more efficient, high pressure radiators, which his suppliers were unable to provide.

In 1942, Messerschmitt began an increasingly adversarial correspondence with Fritz Nalinger of Daimler Benz on the state of his engines, and would request that he permit the engine to run at higher temperatures. In a letter sent in December of that year, he would draw a comparison between the ailing DB 605A and the powerful Merlin 61, then in service with the RAF. He placed particular emphasis on the higher operating temperatures and its use of radiators that were 55% smaller than those in service on the Bf 109. He would leave out that British aircraft designers were working with high pressure radiators which were far more efficient than those on his own aircraft.

At a conference with Göring at Carinhall in March of 1943, Messerschmitt would openly lay blame on Daimler Benz and Nalinger, largely reiterating the points from his correspondence. Nalinger would defend the firm by stating they had put their primary focus in designing the engine in reducing the frontal area and maintaining a high power to weight ratio, but he largely side stepped Messerschmitt’s Merlin 61 comparison by extolling the promise of the still in development DB 628. At the end of the meeting, it had become clear that both men would need to work against one another to defend their own reputations. By then, the Bf 109G had been flying for well over a year under strict engine power restrictions.

The Hybrid

To try and prove Messerschmitt wrong, Daimler Benz planned a simple and clear demonstration. They would install one of the firm’s engines in a Spitfire to show that the DB 605A did not require a large radiator to run. The Spitfire in question was EN830, a Mark Vb which had crash landed in the German occupied Jersey Islands in November of 1942. Its pilot, Lieutenant Bernard Scheidhauer, crash landed his plane after being struck by ground fire during a rhubarb raid over Northern France and a fuel leak prevented him from returning to Britain. After ditching his plane, Lieutenant Scheidhauer attempted to destroy the aircraft when it became clear that he was not on a British held channel island, however, there was insufficient fuel to burn the Spitfire. Scheidhauer was subsequently sent to Stalag Luft III, in Poland. He was among those murdered by the Gestapo after the legendary mass escape.

A standard Spitfire Mk Vb. (wikimedia)

The plane was subsequently taken in hand by the Luftwaffe, repaired, and used for trials at the Rechlin test center. It was later pulled from storage for Nallinger’s tests sometime in late 1943. The plane was re-engined with a DB 605A, though much of the rest of the aircraft was left as it was, save for the radio and armament, which were stripped out. All of the work was done at the Daimler Benz Untertürkheim factory in Stuttgart, after which it was delivered to the Luftwaffe for testing at the nearby airfield at Echterdingen. It was no simple effort to re-engine an aircraft, but it seemed to have been managed well. Testing began in the spring of 1944, with the report on the aircraft being finished May 10th.

The modified aircraft retained much of the same equipment, save for the weapons, which were removed. The avionics were likely all replaced with German alternatives. (Valengo)

The plane flew quite well and proved Nallinger right in that the DB 605A could work using a significantly smaller radiator area. It also made for an interesting comparison with the Bf 109’s radiators, as it was found that the high pressure model fitted to the Spitfire Mk V was 50% smaller but provided only 4% less cooling capacity. The tests also showed that the ‘Messerspit’ was about 25 km/h faster at lower altitudes than the original Spitfire Mk Vb thanks to its fluid coupling supercharger, which proved more efficient at low altitude. Between 4 and 6 km in altitude, the standard Mk V proved faster, before its single stage supercharger again proved less capable than the fluid coupling type on the DB 605A. The hybrid aircraft proved to be between 10 to 20 km/h slower than a Bf 109G-6 at all altitudes save for above 10.5 km, where the ‘Messerspit’ held a slightly higher speed and service ceiling. The experimental aircraft also out climbed the Bf 109 at all altitudes, however, this data is not particularly useful as the plane was unarmed and no ballast to account for its absence was installed.

Overall, the experiment produced mixed results, but proved Messerschmitt right. On one hand, the DB 605 ran effectively throughout the tests using radiators significantly smaller than were found on the Bf 109G. On the other, the type of high pressure radiator used on the Spitfire was not something that could be replicated, owing to numerous material and industrial limitations. In the end, it was Daimler Benz’s requirements that the DB 605 run cooler, and the inability of German radiator manufacturers to produce high temperature, high pressure models, that kept the Bf 109 from achieving greater performance. Following the end of the tests, the aircraft was placed in storage and was likely written off after an 8th Airforce bombing raid on the airfield at Etcherdingen on August 14, 1944.

The Ultimate Fighter?

Unfortunately, due to this unique aircraft’s strange appearance and obscurity, it has been at the center of a number of bizarre theories. Perhaps the most popular of these theories is that the Germans were trying to build a plane that blended the strengths of both the Spitfire and the Bf 109. Some go as far as to claim that the Germans had managed to build something superior to both. This first theory can immediately be written off. By early 1944, neither the Bf 109 nor the Spitfire were considered state of the art, or at the forefront of design in either country. They simply would not be considered an acceptable starting point for any new aircraft design.

However, beyond that, the ‘Messerspit’s’ performance was not particularly impressive for its day. In the official tests, it was compared to both an early Spitfire Mk Vb, which was thoroughly obsolete by the end of 1943, and a Bf 109G-6, which was mediocre by the standards of early 1944. Even then, it compared rather poorly with the G-6, possessing only a higher service ceiling while being considerably slower at almost all but the most extreme altitudes, where it held a slim advantage. To add to this, this low altitude performance gap with the Mk Vb only exists when its Merlin 45 engine is limited to +9 lbs of manifold pressure. When that engine was cleared to run at +16 lbs in November 1942, the Mk V exceeded the DB 605A powered ‘Messerspit’ at altitudes below 5.5 km in linear speed by a margin similar to the Bf 109G-6.

Spitfire Mk IX, Fw 190A-8, Bf 109G-6, P-51B (world war two photos, asisbiz, National Archives)
Aircraft (Manifold pressure) Top Speed at Sea level (km/h) Low blower/Speed (km/h) high blower/Speed (km/h) Maximum Output (hp)
Spitfire LF Mk IX Spring 1944 (18 lbs) 540 617 at 3.2km 655 at 6.7km 1720
Spitfire Mk VB Mid 1942 (9lbs) 460  N/A (single stage, single speed) 605  at 6.1km 1415
‘Messerspit’ Late Spring 1944 (1.42 ata) 488 N/A (variable speed SC) 610  at 6.5km 1454
Bf 109G-6 Mid 1943 (1.42 ata) 510 N/A (variable speed SC) 620 at 6.5km 1454
Bf 109G-6AS Early 1944 (1.42 ata) 506 N/A (variable speed SC) 653 at 8.3km 1415
Fw 190A-8 Early 1944 (1.42 ata)  558 578 at 1.5km 644 at 6.3km 1726
P-51B-15 w/ wing racks Early 1944 (67” Hg)  586  656 at 3.1km 685 at 7.2km 1720

*Values for the Spitfire Mk IX and Mustang indicate use with 100 Octane fuel and not high performance 150 octane, which became fairly common after mid-summer 1944 amongst the strategic fighter forces based in England. Likewise, Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190 performance does not reflect the use of MW50 or higher power clearances, respectively, as they were not in widespread use at the time of the tests. Unrelated, the P-51B-15 made for 627 km/h at 6.5 km with wing racks.

Compared to other contemporary frontline fighters of its day, its performance was far less impressive. The contemporary Spitfire Mk IX, with its Merlin 66 running at 18 lbs manifold pressure, outstripped the hybrid aircraft at all altitudes by a much wider margin than the Bf 109G-6. A further comparison with the Fw 190A-8 and P-51B-15 also demonstrates the continued extreme disparity in linear speed against more modern fighters. While the aircraft did demonstrate a very high climb rate, approximately 21 m/s at sea level (a Spitfire Mk IX made for 23 m/s), this can be explained by the lack of any weapons aboard. The Mk Vb was initially equipped with 2 Hispano 20 mm cannons and four .303 caliber Browning machine guns. The absence of these, and other pieces of equipment, reduced its weight by over 300 kg compared to the Mk Vb used in RAF and Luftwaffe performance trials. This resulting lightening of the aircraft, and the subsequent loss of drag with the removal of the protruding wing cannons, more than explains its high climb rate. The plane’s performance overall was very modest, and frankly did not compare well to any of its contemporaries. In the end, despite being a fusion of the Bf 109 and Spitfire, it compared rather poorly to either one.

Another theory presupposes that the plane was part of an effort to actually produce Spitfires for the Luftwaffe. The foundations for nearly all of these claims rest with an often misunderstood quote from the battle of Britain. When Reichsmarschall Herman Göring asked fighter group commander Adolf Galland if there was anything he needed, Galland responded “I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”. Galland would later clarify in his memoirs that he meant this rhetorically. In truth, he wanted a plane which could serve better as a bomber escort, something he felt the RAF’s Spitfires were better suited to, with their better visibility and low speed handling, than his own Bf 109’s, which he felt were more capable on offensive patrols. Beyond that, reverse engineering and then manufacturing an aircraft which was designed around the industrial standards and practices of another country was totally unfeasible. It also seems rather implausible that anyone would go to the trouble of building an airplane on the basis of an off hand remark made three years earlier.

Construction

A fore view of the experimental plane. (frankenplane)

The ‘Messerspit’ was built using the airframe of a later production Spitfire Mk Vb. The Mk V differed from earlier models in that it used a heavier engine mount to keep up with increases in output from new engines. It was otherwise much the same as the Mk I’s and II’s which preceded it. These planes were fairly innovative during the interwar period, being all-metal and using a semi-monocoque structure, though these features were soon made commonplace in the earliest days of the Second World War.

The fuselage contained the engine, behind which sat the fuel tank, the firewall, and then the cockpit. The tail boom was of a semi monocoque construction and contained the oxygen bottles, and radio. Aboard the ‘Messerspit’, the engine mount had to be reworked to accommodate a DB 605A, the fuel tank was likely changed to fit the new volume, and the instruments and most of the electronics were swapped for German versions. The radio appears to have been removed entirely. In all likelihood, Lt. Scheidhauer most likely smashed the instrument panel when he knew his plane was in enemy territory. Beyond that, they would have needed to convert the voltage to the German standard, and simply replacing all the equipment would have proven easier than modifying all of the existing components. There were also some instruments, like the DB 605’s RPM governor readout, that would not have had a British analogue.

The wings were elliptical with a large surface area, which granted the aircraft an excellent rate of climb and low wing loading. On the ‘Messerspit’, the inboard pair of 20 mm cannons and the outboard four .303 caliber Browning machine guns were removed and the ports were faired over. Most importantly, the radiator under the starboard wing was connected to the DB 605A engine’s oil and coolant lines. The wings were otherwise unchanged. Generally speaking, the better wheel brakes, greater visibility out the bubble canopy, and its wider wheel base would have likely made this a far more pleasant plane to fly than a Bf 109G.

A DB 605A mounted in a preserved Bf 109G-6 (wikimedia)

The engine was a Daimler Benz DB 605A, an inverted, 35.7 liter, V-12. The reason for it being inverted was to ensure the propeller shaft was as low as possible. This would enable a low mounted, centerline cannon to fire through its center without its recoil seriously jeopardizing the aircraft’s stability. They were able to achieve this using direct fuel injection, which was fairly common practice in German aviation by the start of the war, though rare elsewhere. The engine also possessed a high level of automation, which let the pilot manage the engine and most of its associated systems just through the throttle lever. These were essentially a series of linkages between components that adjusted one another as the pilot increased or decreased engine power. As such, it did not possess a true engine control unit, as was used in the BMW 801. Perhaps most impressively, the engine used a single stage, centrifugal supercharger which used a hydraulic coupling for variable transmission. The fluid coupling supercharger automatically adjusted itself barometrically, and was easily the most impressive feature of the engine, allowing it to smoothly adjust for boost as the plane climbed or descended. This allowed the aircraft to avoid the engine performance gaps between certain altitudes that were otherwise encountered with engine superchargers with multiple stages and fixed speed settings. These gaps were the result of running the supercharger at fixed, unnecessarily high speeds for a given altitude.

The engine used B4 87 octane aviation gasoline, as most of the C3 high performance stock was dedicated to squadrons flying Fw 190s. In comparison to the Merlin 45, which was originally in the Spitfire Mk.Vb, it produced 150 bhp more at sea level thanks to the fluid coupling supercharger, which saw lower pumping losses compared to the Merlin 45. The Merlin 45’s supercharger was geared to medium altitude use, and allowed the engine to outperform the DB 605A between approximately 4 and 6 km.

A DB605A mounted in a Bf 109G, cowling removed. (Norwegian air museum)

In spite of these innovative features, the engine’s output was fairly modest for its day. It produced up to 1475 PS, though this was only possible after several major modifications, such as replacing the exhaust valves for chrome plated sets and modifying the oil scavenge system by adding additional pumps and a centrifuge to improve flow and reduce foaming, respectively. Between 1942 and late 1943, the high power settings on almost all of these engines were disabled in order to keep failure rates manageable. The supercharger too would eventually lag behind its contemporaries, as despite its smoothness, its volume became a bottleneck. This was most apparent in comparison to the two-stage, intercooled models of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Some later models would mount an enlarged supercharger, taken from the larger DB 603, though the upgrade was not universal. Nearly all would be equipped with an anti-knock boost system in the form of MW50 in the weeks after the ‘Messerspit’s’ tests, which would boost output up to 1800 PS, though the corrosive mixture of methanol and water decreased the engine’s lifespan. Engines with the larger supercharger were designated DB 605AS, those with the boost system being DB 605M, and those with both were 605ASMs. These upgrades gave late war Bf 109’s a good degree of performance after nearly three years of mediocrity. Neither of these upgrades were present on the ‘Messerspit’.

The engine measured 101.1 × 71.9 × 174 cm, had a bore and stroke of 154 mm (6.1 in.) x 160 mm (6.3 in.), and weighed 745 kg (1,642 lb). The aircraft was equipped with the prop spinner from a Bf 109G, used the same supercharger scoop, and was likewise fitted with a two meter VDM propeller. The engine cowling of this aircraft seems to have been built for requirement.

Spitfire Mk V with DB 605A Specification
Engine  DB 605A
Engine Output 1475PS
Gross Weight 2740kg
Maximum speed at Sea Level 488 km/h
Maximum speed at Critical Altitude 610 km/h
Max climb rate at sea level 21 m/s
Max climb rate at FTH at ~6.5km 11 m/s
Crew Pilot
Wingspan 11.23 m
Wing Area 22.5 m^2

Conclusion

Another view of the experiment (Aviationhumor)

In the end, the ‘Messerspit’ was built to serve a single, fairly mundane purpose. It was never meant to set records, achieve any kind of technical breakthrough, or somehow be an unbeatable synthesis of two planes that had already seen their day in the sun. Above all, it was never meant to see combat nor produce a plane that would. Its only battlefield would be a corporate one.

Illustration

The Spitfire Mk V mit DB 605A, better known as the “Messerspit”.

 

Sources:

Primary:

Bf 109G-2 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand Juni 1942).Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. November 1942.

Bf 109G-4 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. September 1943.

Bf 109G-2 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. October 1943.

Daimler-Benz DB 605 Inverted V-12 Engine. National Air and Space Museum Collection. Inventory number: A19670086000.

Flugzeug Flugleistungen Me 109G-Baureihen. Messerschmitt AG Augsburg. August 1943.

Flugleistungen Normaljager Fw 190A-8. Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Abt. Flugmechanik.L. October 1944.

Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe: Normaljäger Fw 190A-8. Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. November 1943.

Leistungen Me 109G mit DB 605 AS. Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg. 22, January 1944.

P-51B-15-NA 43-24777 (Packard Merlin V-1650-7) Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150). 15 May, 1944.

Spitfire V Steigleitungen. Daimler Benz. Versuch Nr. 1018105428. Baumuster DB.605A. May 1944.

Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 (Merlin 45) Brief Performance Trials. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. June 1941.

Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878 (Merlin 45) Climb, speed, and cooling tests at combat rating. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. 25 November, 1942.

Spitfire L.F. IX. RAF Aircraft Data Card, 2nd Issue. 28, October 1943. The performance of Spitfire IX aircraft fitted with high and low altitude versions of the intercooled Merlin engine. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. March 1943.

USAAF 8th Airforce Bombing Raid Records.


Secondary:

Scheidhauer, Bernard W.M. Traces of War.

Douglas, Calum E. Secret Horsepower Race: Second World War Fighter Aircraft Engine Development on the Western Front. TEMPEST, 2020.

C. Douglass, personal communication, November 25, 2022.

Price, Alfred. The Spitfire Story. Silverdale Books. 2nd Edition, 2002.

Radinger, W. & Otto W. Messerschmitt Bf 109F-K Development Testing Production. Schiffer Publishing. 1999.

Spitfire EN 830. Lostaircraft.com

Galland, Adolf. The First and the Last. Bantam. 1979.

 

Credits

  • Article written by Henry H.
  • Edited by Stan L. and Henry H.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Godzilla

 

8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1933)
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 19,650 Built

8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role

With the growing use of aircraft during the First World War, many nations developed their own anti-aircraft weapons. Initially, these were mostly crude adaptations of existing weapons systems. During the interwar period, the development of dedicated anti-aircraft guns was initiated by many armies. Germany, while still under a ban on developing new weapons, would create the 8.8 cm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun. The gun, while originally designed for the anti-aircraft role, was shown to possess excellent anti-tank firepower. This gun would see action for the first time during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and would continue serving with the Germans up to the end of World War II.

This article covers the use of the 8.8 cm Flak gun in the original anti-aircraft role. To learn more about the use of this gun in its more famous anti-tank role visit the Tank Encyclopedia website.

 

World War One Origins

Prior to the Great War, aircraft first saw service in military operations during the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911. These were used in limited numbers, mostly for reconnaissance, but also for conducting primitive bombing raids. During the First World War,  the mass adoption of aircraft in various roles occurred. One way to counter enemy aircraft was to employ one’s own fighter cover. Despite this, ground forces were often left exposed to enemy bombing raids or reconnaissance aircraft that could be used to identify weak spots in the defense.

To fend off airborne threats, most armies initially reused various artillery pieces, sometimes older, or even captured guns, and modified them as improvised anti-aircraft weapons. This involved employing ordinary artillery guns placed on improvised mounts that enabled them to have sufficient elevation to fire at the sky. These early attempts were crude in nature and offered little chance of actually bringing down an enemy aircraft. But, occasionally, it did happen. One of the first recorded and confirmed aircraft kills using a modified artillery piece happened in September of 1915, near the Serbian city of Vršac. Serbian artilleryman Raka Ljutovac managed to score a direct hit on a German aircraft using a captured and modified 75 mm Krupp M.1904 gun.

A captured Krupp gun was modified to be used for anti-aircraft defense by the Serbian Army during the First World War. Other warring nations also employed similar designs during the war. [telegraf.rs]
On the Western Front, the use of these improvised and crude contraptions generally proved ineffective. Dedicated anti-aircraft guns were needed. This was especially the case for the Germans who lacked fighter aircraft due to insufficient resources and limited production capacity. The Germans soon began developing such weapons. They noticed that the modified artillery pieces were of too small a caliber (anything smaller than 77 mm caliber was deemed insufficient) and needed much-improved velocity and range. Another necessary change was to completely reorganize the command structure, by unifying the defense and offensive air force elements, into a single organizational unit. This was implemented in late 1916. This meant that the anti-aircraft guns were to be separated from ordinary artillery units. The effect of this was that the new anti-aircraft units received more dedicated training and could be solely focused on engaging enemy aircraft.

The same year, trucks armed with 8 to 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns began to appear on the front. While these had relatively good mobility on solid ground, the conditions of the Western Front were generally unsuited for such vehicles, due to difficult terrain. With the development of better anti-aircraft gun designs, their increased weight basically prevented them from being mounted on mobile truck chassis. Instead, for mobility, these were placed on specially designed four-wheeled trailers and usually towed by a K.D.I artillery tractor.

Both Krupp and Ehrhardt (later changing their name to Rheinmetall) would develop their own 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, which would see extensive action in the later stages of the war. While neither design would have any major impact (besides the same caliber) on the development of the later 8.8 cm Flak, these were the first stepping stones that would ultimately lead to the creation of the famous gun years later.

The Krupp 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun. [Wiki]
As the newer German anti-aircraft guns became too heavy to be used in more mobile configurations by mounting them on trucks, they had to be towed instead. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War

Work after the War

Following the German defeat in the First World War, they were forbidden from developing many technologies, including artillery and anti-aircraft guns. To avoid this, companies like Krupp simply began cooperating with other arms manufacturers in Europe. During the 1920s, Krupp partnered with the Swedish Bofors armament manufacturer. Krupp even owned around a third of Bofors’ shares.

The Reichswehr (English: German Ground Army) only had limited anti-aircraft capabilities which relied exclusively on 7.92 mm caliber machine guns. The need for a proper and specialized anti-aircraft gun arose in the late 1920s. In September 1928, Krupp was informed that the Army wanted a new anti-aircraft gun. It had to be able to fire a 10 kg round at a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The gun itself would be placed on a mount with a full 360° traverse and an elevation of -3° to 85°. The mount and the gun were then placed on a cross-shaped base with four outriggers. The trailer had side outriggers that were raised during movement. The whole gun when placed on a four-wheeled bogie was to be towed at a maximum speed of 30 km/h. The total weight of the gun had to be around 9 tonnes. These requirements would be slightly changed a few years later to include new requests such as a rate of fire between 15 to 20 rounds per minute, use of high-explosive rounds with a delay fuse of up to 30 seconds, and a muzzle velocity between 800 to 900 m/s. The desired caliber of this gun was also discussed. The use of a caliber in the range of 7.5 cm was deemed to be insufficient and a waste of resources for a heavy gun. But despite this, a 7.5 cm Flak L/60 was developed, but it would not be adopted for service. The 8.8 cm caliber, which was used in the previous war, was more desirable. This caliber was set as a bare minimum, but usage of a larger caliber was allowed under the condition that the whole gun weight would not be more than 9 tonnes. The towing trailer had to reach a speed of 40 km/h (on a good road) when towed by a half-track or, in case of emergency, by larger trucks. The speed of redeployment for these guns was deemed highly important. German Army Officials were quite aware that the development of such guns could take years to complete. Due to the urgent need for such weapons, they were even ready to adopt temporary solutions.

Krupp’s first 8.8 cm Flak 18 prototype. [8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1]
Krupp engineers that were stationed at the Sweden Bofors company were working on a new anti-aircraft gun for some time. In 1931, Krupp engineers went back to Germany, where, under secrecy, they began designing the gun. By the end of September 1932, Krupp delivered two guns and 10 trailers. After a series of firing and driving trials, the guns proved to be more than satisfactory and, with some minor modifications, were adopted for service in 1933 under the name 8.8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (anti-aircraft gun) or, more simply, Flak 18. The use of the number 18 was meant to mislead France and Great Britain that this was actually an old design, which it was in fact not. This was quite commonly used on other German-developed artillery pieces that were introduced to service during the 1930s. The same 8.8 cm gun was officially adopted when the Nazis came to power.  In 1934, Hitler denounced the Treaty of Versailles, and openly announced the rearmament of the German Armed forces.

Production

While Krupp designed the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, aside from building some 200 trailers for it, was not directly involved in the production of the actual gun. The 8.8 cm Flak 18 was quite an orthodox anti-aircraft design, but what made it different was that it could be mass-produced relatively easily, which the Germans did. Most of its components did not require any special tooling and companies that had basic production capabilities could produce these.

Some 2,313 were available by the end of 1938. In 1939, the number of guns produced was only 487, increasing to 1,131 new ones in 1940. From this point, due to the need for anti-aircraft guns, production constantly increased over the coming years. Some 1,861 examples were built in 1941, 2,822 in 1942, 4,302 in 1943, and 5,714 in 1944. Surprisingly, despite the chaotic state of the German industry, some 1,018 guns were produced during the first three months of 1945. In total,  19,650 8.8 cm Flak guns were built.

Of course, like many other German production numbers, there are some differences between sources. The previously mentioned numbers are according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Dreaded Threat: The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role). Author A. Radić (Arsenal 51) mentions that, by the end of 1944, 16,227 such guns were built. A. Lüdeke (Waffentechnik Im Zweiten Weltkrieg) gives a number of 20,754 pieces being built.

Year Number produced
1932 2 prototypes
1938 2,313 (total produced at that point)
1939 487
1940 1,131
1941 1.861
1942 2.822
1943 4,302
1944 5,714
1945 1,018
Total 19,650

 

Design

The gun 

The 8.8 cm Flak 18 used a single tube barrel that was covered in a metal jacket. The barrel itself was some 4.664 meters (L/56) long. The gun recuperator was placed above the barrel, while the recoil cylinders were placed under the barrel. During firing, the longest recoil stroke was 1,050 mm, while the shortest was 700 mm.

The 8.8 cm gun had a horizontal sliding breechblock which was semi-automatic. It meant that, after each shot, the breach opened on its own and ejected the shell casing, enabling the crew to immediately load another round. This was achieved by adding a spring coil, which was tensioned after firing. This provided a good rate of fire of up to 15 rounds per minute when engaging ground targets and up to 20 rounds per minute for aerial targets. If needed, the semi-automatic system could be disengaged and the whole loading and extracting of rounds done manually. While some guns were provided with a rammer to help during loading the gun, it was sometimes removed by the crew.

This particular gun is equipped with a loading rammer with a new round which is ready to be loaded into the chamber. [Pinterest]
For the anti-tank role, the 8.8 cm Flak was provided with a Zielfernrohr 20 direct telescopic sight. It had 4x magnification and a 17.5° field of view. This meant a 308 m wide view at 1 km. With a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s, the maximum firing range against ground targets was 15.2 km. The maximum altitude range was 10.9 km, but the maximum effective range was around 8 km.

The dimensions of this gun during towing were a length of 7.7 m, width of 2.3 m, and height of 2.4 meters. When stationary, the height was 2.1 m, while the length was 5.8 meters. Weight in firing position, it weighed 5,150 kg, while the total weight of the gun with the carriage was 7,450 kg. Due to some differences in numbers between sources, the previously mentioned 8.8 cm Flak performance is based on T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role).

When stationary, the gun had a height of 2.1 meters, which offered a relatively large target for enemy gunners. Good camouflage and well-selected positions were vital for its crew’s survival. [defensemedianetwork.com]

The Gun Controls

The gun elevation and traverse were controlled by using two handwheels located on the right side. The traverse handwheel had an option to be rotated at low or high speed, depending on the need. The lower speed was used for more precise aiming at the targets. The speed gear was changed by a simple lever located at the handwheel. To make a full circle, the traverse operator, at a high-speed setting. needed to turn the handwheel 100 times. while on the lower gear, it was 200 times. With one full circle of the handwheel, the gun was rotated by 3.6° at high speed and 1.8° at low speed.

Next to it was the handwheel for elevation. The handwheel was connected by a series of gears to the elevation pinion. This then moved the elevation rack which, in turn, lowered and raised the gun barrel. Like the traverse handwheel, it also had options for lower and higher rotation speed, which could be selected by using a lever. During transport, in order to prevent potential damage to the gun elevating mechanism, a locking system was equipped. In order to change position from 0° to 85°, at high speed, 42.5 turns of the handwheel were needed. One turn of the wheel at high speed changed the elevation by 2°. At lower speed, 85 times turns of the handwheel were needed. Each turn gave a change of 1°.

The two control handwheels. The front handwheel is for traverse while the rear one is for elevation. Source: W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military

Sometimes, in the sources, it is mentioned that the traverse was actually 720°. This is not a mistake. When the gun was used in a static mount, it would be connected with wires to a fire control system. In order to avoid damaging these wires, the guns were allowed to only make two full rotations in either direction. The traverse operator had a small indicator that informed him when two full rotations were made.

The 8.8 cm Flak at its maximum elevation. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role

The 8.8 cm fuze setter is located on the left side of the gun. Two rounds could be placed for their time fuse settings. These were usually done manually but the gun controls could also be connected to an external control system.

The 8.8 cm fuze setter. [Pinterest]

The Kommandogerat 36

The fire control system Kommandogerat 36 (Stereoscopic Director 36) was an important device when using the 8.8 cm guns in an anti-aircraft role. This piece of equipment actually is a combination of a stereoscopic rangefinder and a director. It uses a 4-meter-long, stereoscopic rangefinder. It has a magnification of 12 to 14x with a reading case ranging from 500 to 50,000 meters. When the unit was being transported, the stereoscopic rangefinder would be disengaged and placed in a long wooden box. If for some reason the Stereoscopic Director 36 was not available or not working, a smaller auxiliary Stereoscopic Director 35 could be used instead.

The 8.8 cm guns were usually used in a square formation consisting of four guns.  Inside this squire was a command post, which would usually have additional range-finding equipment and instruments. These four gun’s positions were also connected to the battery unit command.

The Stereoscopic Director 36 was a vital piece of equipment that provides the necessary acquisitions of targets. [waralbum.ru]
Common 8.8 cm anti-aircraft employment was a square formation with four guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War

Mount

The mount which held the gun barrel itself consisted of a cradle and trunnions. The cradle had a rectangular shape. On its sides, two trunnions were welded. In order to provide stability for the gun barrel, two spring-shaped equilibrations were connected to the cradle using a simple clevis fastener.

Carriage

Given its size, the gun used a large cross-shaped platform. It consisted of the central part, where the base for the mount was located, along with four outriggers. The front and the rear outriggers were fixed to the central base. The gun barrel travel lock was placed on the front outrigger. The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. These were held in place by pins and small chains which were connected to the gun mount. To provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. This cross-shaped platform, besides holding the mount for the main gun, also served to provide storage for various equipment, like the electrical wiring. Lastly, on the bottom of each outrigger, there were four round-shaped leveling jacks. This helped prevent the gun from digging in into the ground, distributing the weight evenly, and to help keep the gun level on uneven ground.

A close-up view of the dismantled 8.8 cm Flak cross-shaped platform. The two folding side outriggers are missing. The central octagonal base would later be replaced with a much simpler square-shaped one. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. In order to provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. At the bottom of each outrigger were round-shaped leveling jacks. Their purpose was to prevent the gun from digging into the ground and to keep the gun level on uneven ground. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
The side outriggers are fully raised during transport. [o5m6.de]
To prevent damaging the gun during transport, a large travel lock was installed on the front outrigger. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual

Bogies

The entire gun assembly was moved using a two-wheeled dolly, designated as Sonderanhanger 201. The front part consisted of a dolly with single wheels, while the rear dolly consisted of a pair of wheels per side on a single axle. Another difference between these two was that the front dolly had 7, and the rear had 11 transverse leaf springs. The wheel diameter was the same for the two, at 910 mm. These were also provided with air brakes. While these units were supposed to be removed during firing, the crew would often not remove them, as it was easier to move the gun quickly if needed. This was only possible when engaging targets at low gun elevations. Aerial targets could not be engaged this way, as the recoil would break the axles. The front and rear outriggers would be raised from the ground by using a winch with chains located on the dollies. When raised to a sufficient height, the outriggers would be held in place by dolly’s hooks. These were connected with a round pin, located inside of each of the outriggers.

The two trailer units were connected to the front and rear outriggers by using simple hooks, which would quite easily be disengaged. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
The front view of the Sonderanhanger 201 dolly could be easily identified by the use of only two wheels. The chain’s winch would be used to raise the outriggers. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual

Firing with both trailer units still connected to the gun as possible, but it raised the height of the gun and prevented it from engaging air targets. [o5m6.de]
Later, a new improved Sonderanhanger 202 model was introduced (used on the Flak 36 version). On this redesigned version, the two towing units were redesigned to be similar to each other. This was done to ease production but also so the gun could be towed in either direction when needed. While, initially, the dolly was equipped with one set of two wheels and the trailer with two pairs, the new model adopted a doubled-wheeled dolly instead.

Protection

Initially, the 8.8 cm Flak guns were not provided with an armored shield for crew protection. Given its long-range and its intended role as an anti-aircraft gun, this was deemed unnecessary in its early development. Following the successful campaign in the West against France and its Allies in 1940, the Commanding General of the I. Flakkorp requested that all 8.8 cm Flak guns that would be used at on the frontline receive a protective shield. During 1941, most 8.8 cm Flaks that were used on the frontline were supplied with a 1.75 meter high and 1.95 meters wide frontal armored shield. Two smaller armored panels (7.5 cm wide at top and 56 cm at bottom) were placed on the sides. The frontal plate was 10 mm thick, while the two side plates were 6 mm thick. The recuperator cylinders were also protected with an armored cover. The total weight of the 8.8 cm Flak armored plates was 474 kg. On the right side of the large gun shield, there was a hatch that would be closed during the engagement of ground targets. In this case, the gunner would use telescopic sight through the visor port. During engagement of air targets, this hatch was open.

Most guns were initially not provided with a shield. Given its original purpose, this is not surprising. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
Most guns that were issued for field use would be provided with a large 10 mm thick front armored shield. The wire cover on the top was used for camouflage. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
On the left side of the gun shield, there was a hatch that would be used for the gunner to find his aerial targets. [worldwarphotos.info]

Ammunition

The 88 mm FlaK could use a series of different rounds. The 8.8 cm Sprgr. Patr. was a 9.4 kg heavy high-explosive round with a 30-second time fuze. It could be used against both anti-aircraft and ground targets. When used in the anti-aircraft role, the time fuze was added. The 8.8 Sprgr. Az. was a high-explosive round that had a contact fuze. In 1944 the Germans introduced a slightly improved model that tested the idea of using control fragmentation, which was unsuccessful. The 8.8 Sch. Sprgr. Patr. and br. Sch. Gr. Patr. were shrapnel rounds.

The 8.8 cm Pzgr Patr was a 9.5 kg standard anti-tank round. With a velocity of 810 m/s, it could penetrate 95 mm of 30° angled armor at 1 km. At 2 km at the same angle, it could pierce 72 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 40 was a tungsten-cored anti-tank round. The 8.8 cm H1 Gr. Patr. 39 Flak was a 7.2 kg heavy hollow charge anti-tank round. At a 1 kg range, it was able to penetrate 165 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm ammunition was usually stored in wooden or metal containers.

The 8.8 cm Flak used large one-piece ammunition. It was stored in either wooden or metal containers. [defensemedianetwork.com]

Crew

The 88 mm Flak had a crew of 11 men. These included a commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, a loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver of the towing vehicle. Guns that were used on a static mount usually had a smaller crew. The two gun operators were positioned to the right of the gun. Each of them was responsible for operating a hand wheel, one for elevation and one for the traverse. The front operator was responsible for traverse and the one behind him for elevation. The front traverse operator was also responsible for using the weapon gun sight for targeting the enemy. On the left side of the gun were the two fuse operators. The loader with the ammunition assistants was placed behind the gun. A well-experienced crew needed 2 to 2 and a half minutes to prepare the gun for firing. The time to put the gun into the traveling position was 3.5 minutes. The 8.8 cm gun was usually towed by an Sd.Kfz. 7 half-track or a heavy-duty six-wheel truck.

The 8.8 cm guns that were used for supporting ground units had a fairly large crew. [Pinterest]
The Sd.Kfz. 7 half-tracks were the primary towing vehicles for this gun. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Six-wheeled heavy-duty trucks would sometimes be used due to the lack of half-tracks. They did not offer the same driving performance. [worldwarphotos.info]

Flak 36 and 37

While the Flak 18 was deemed a good design, there was room for improvement. The gun itself did not need much improvement. The gun platform, on the other hand, was slightly modified to provide better stability during firing and to make it easier to produce. The base of the gun mount was changed from an octagonal to a more simple square shape. The previously mentioned  Sonderanhanger 202 was used on this model.

Due to the high rate of fire, anti-aircraft guns frequently had to receive new barrels, as these were quickly worn out. To facilitate quick replacement, the Germans introduced a new three-part barrel. It consists of a chamber portion, a center portion, and the muzzle section. While it made the replacement of worn-out parts easier, it also allowed these components to be built with different metals. Besides this, the overall performance of the Flak 18 and Flak 36 was the same. The Flak 36 was officially adopted on the 8th of February 1939.

As the Germans introduced the new Flak 41, due to production delays, some of the guns were merged with the mount of a Flak 36. A very limited production run was made of the 8.8 cm Flak 36/42, which entered service in 1942.

In 1942, the improved 88 mm Flak 37 entered mass production according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle. On the other hand J. Ledwoch (8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155) state that the Flak 37 was introduced to service way back in 1937. Visually, it was the same as the previous Flak 36 model. The difference was that this model was intended to have better anti-aircraft performance, having specially designed directional dials. The original gunner dials were replaced with the “follow-the-pointer” system. It consists of two sets of dials that are placed on the right side of the gun. These received information about the enemy targets from a remote central fire direction post connected electrically. This way, the gun operator only had to make slight adjustments, such as elevation, and fire the gun.

The necessary information about the enemy targets was provided by a Funkmessgerate ( Predictor) which was essentially a mechanical analog computer. Once the enemy aircraft were spotted, their estimated speed and direction were inserted into this computer which would then calculate the precise position and elevation. This information would be sent to any linked anti-aircraft batteries by a wire connection. One set of the dials would then show the crew the necessary changes that need to be done to the elevation and direction of the enemy approach. The crew then had to manually position the gun elevation and direction until the second dials indicators matched the first one. The funkmessgerate computer also provided correct fuse time settings. In principle, this system eased the aiming task of the crew and at the same time improved accuracy. When used in this manner the Flak 37 could not be used for an anti-tank role.

The last change to this series was the reintroduction of a two-piece barrel design. Besides these improvements, the overall performance was the same as with the previous models. From March 1943 only the Flak 37 would be produced, completely replacing the older models.

The 8.8 cm Flak 37 introduced the use of specially designed directional dials, which help the crew better adjust the gun. Source: Norris 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45

Organization 

German air defense was solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe, with the majority of 8.8 cm guns being allocated to them. The German Army and Navy also possessed some anti-aircraft units, but these were used in quite limited numbers. The largest units were the Flak Korps (Anti-aircraft corps). It consisted of two to four Flak Divisionen (Anti-aircraft divisions). These divisions, depending on the need, were either used as mobile forces or for static defense. These were further divided into Bigaden (brigades ) which consisted of two or more Regimenter (Regiments). Regiments in turn were divided into four to six Abteilunge (Battalion). Battalion strength was eight 8.8 cm guns with 18 smaller 2 cm guns. To complicate things a bit more, each Battalion could be divided into four groups: Leichte (Light, equipped with calibers such as 2 cm or 3.7 cm), Gemischte (mixed light and heavy), Schwere (Heavy equip with a caliber greater than 88 mm) and Scheinwerfer  (Searchlight).

Mobile War

Initially, operations and crew training was carried out by the Reichswehr. They were organized into the so-called Fahrabteilung (Training Battalion) to hide their intended role. By 1935, the German Army underwent a huge reorganization, one aspect of which was changing its name to the Wehrmacht. In regard to the anti-aircraft protection, it was now solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe. For this reason, almost all available 8.8 cm guns were reallocated to Luftwaffe control. Only around eight Flak Battalions which were armed with 2 cm anti-aircraft guns were left under direct Army control.

In Spain

When the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Francisco Franco, leader of the Nationalists, sent a plea to Adolf Hitler for German military equipment aid. To make matters worse for Franco, nearly all his loyal forces were stationed in Africa. As the Republicans controlled the Spanish navy, Franco could not move his troops back to Spain safely. So he was forced to seek foreign aid. Hitler was keen on helping Franco, seeing Spain as a potential ally, and agreed to provide assistance. At the end of July 1936, 6 He 51 and 20 Ju 57 aircraft were transported to Spain under secrecy. These would serve as the basis for the air force of the German Condor Legion which operated in Spain during this war. The German ground forces operating in Spain were supplied with a number of 8.8 cm guns.

These arrived in early November 1936 and were used to form the F/88 anti-aircraft battalion. This unit consisted of four heavy and two light batteries. Starting from March 1937 these were allocated to protect various defense points at Burgos and Vittoria. In March 1938, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery dueled with an enemy 76.2 cm anti-aircraft gun which were manned by French volunteers from the International Brigades. While the 8.8 cm guns were mainly employed against ground targets they still had a chance to fire at air targets. For example, while defending the La Cenia airfield, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery prevented the Republican bombing attack by damaging at least two SB-2 bombers on the 10th of June 1938. Three days later one SB-2 was shot down by an 8.8 cm gun. In early August another SB-2 was shot down by the same unit. The performance of the 8.8 cm gun during the war in Spain was deemed satisfying. It was excellent in ground operations, possessing good range and firepower.

An 8.8 cm Flak gun in Spain.[weaponsandwarfare.com]

During the Second World War

Prior to the war, the 8.8 m guns could be often seen on many military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. The first ‘combat’ use of the 8.8 cm Flak in German use was during the occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The entire operation was carried out peacefully and the 8.8 cm gun did not have to fire in anger.

Prior to the war, the 8.8 cm guns war could have been often seen on military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

The Polish campaign saw little use of the 8.8 cm guns. The main reason for this was that the Polish Air Force was mostly destroyed in the first few days of combat. They were mainly used against ground targets. In one example, the 8.8 cm guns from the 22nd Flak Regiment tried to prevent a Polish counter-attack at Ilza. The battery would be overrun while the crew tried to defend themselves, losing three guns in the process. The 8.8 cm Flak gun also saw service during the battles for Warsaw and Kutno.

The 8.8 cm followed the Germans in their occupation of Denmark and Norway. One of the key objectives in Norway was the capture of a number of airfields. Once captured, the Germans rushed in Flak guns including the 8.8 cm, to defend these as they were crucial for the rather short-ranged German bombers. On the 12th of April 1940, the British Air Force launched two (83 strong in total) bombing raids at the German ships which were anchored at the Stavanger harbor. Thanks to the Flak and fighter support, six Hampden and three Wellington bombers were shot down.

Following the conclusion of the Polish campaign, the Germans began increasing the numbers of the motorized Flak units. Some 32 Flak Batteries were available which the Germans used to form the 1st and 2nd Flak Corps. 1st Corps would be allocated to the Panzergruppe Kleist, while the second was allocated to the 4th and 6th Army. The Luftwaffe, as in Poland (September 1939), quickly gained air superiority over the Allied Air Forces. Despite this, there was still opportunity for the 8.8 cm guns to fire at air targets.  During the period from the 10th to 26th May 1940, the following successes were made against enemy aircraft by flak units that were part of the XIX Armee Corps: the 83rd Flak Battalion brought down some 54, 92nd Flak Battalion 44, 71th Flak Battalion 24, the 91st Flak Battalion 8, 36th Flak Regiment 26, 18th Flak Regiment 27, and 38th Flak Regiment 23 aircraft. During the notorious German crossing near Sedan, a combined Allied air force tried to dislodge them. The strong Flak presence together with air fighter cover, lead to the Allies losing 90 aircraft in the process.

Following the Western Campaign, the 8.8 cm guns would see extensive service through the war. Ironically they would be more often employed against enemy armor than in the original role. Given the extensive Allied bombing raids, more and more 8.8 cm would be allocated to domestic anti-aircraft defense. One major use of 8.8 cm Flak was during the German evacuation of Sicily, by providing necessary air cover for the retreating Axis soldiers and materiel to the Italian mainland.

In the occupied Balkans, the 8.8 cm Flak was a rare sight until late 1943 and early 1944. The ever-increasing Allied bombing raids forced the Germans to reinforce their positions with a number of anti-aircraft guns, including the 8.8 cm Flak. Some 40 8.8 cm Flak guns were used to protect German-held Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia. Most would be lost after a successful liberation operation conducted by the Red Army supported by Yugoslav Partisans. The 8.8 cm Flak guns were also used in static emplacements defending the Adriatic coast at several key locations from 1943 on. One of the last such batteries to surrender to the Yugoslav Partisans was the one stationed in Pula, which had twelve 8.8 cm guns. It continued to resist the Partisans until the 8th of May, 1945.

Some of the 8.8 cm guns were destroyed or abandoned. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51

Defense of the Fatherland

While the 8.8 cm Flaks would see service supporting the advancing German forces, the majority of them would actually be used as static anti-aircraft emplacements. For example, during the production period of October 1943 to November 1944, around 61% of the 8.8 cm Flak guns produced were intended for static defense. Additionally, of 1,644 batteries that were equipped with this gun, only 225 were fully motorized, with an additional 31 batteries that were only partially motorized (start of September 1944).

When the war broke out with Poland, the Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units had at their disposal some 657 anti-aircraft guns of various calibers. The majority were the 8.8 cm with smaller quantities of the larger 10.5 cm and even some captured Czezh 8.35 anti-aircraft guns. An additional 12 Flak Companies equipped with the 8.8 cm guns were given to the navy for the protection of a number of important harbors. The remaining guns were used to protect vital cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The important Ruhr industry center was also heavily defended.

The majority of the 8.8 cm Flak guns built would be used in static defense without the cross-shaped platform. These would mostly be destroyed by their crews to prevent their capture when the Allies made their advances into Germany. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

One of the first enemy aircraft shot down over German skies were British Wellington bombers. This occurred on the 4th of September 1939 when one or two enemy bombers were brought down by heavy Flak fire. These intended to bomb vital German naval ports. In early October 1939, in Strasbourg, a French Potez 637 was shot down by the 84th Flak Regiments 8.8 cm guns. One Amiot 143 and a Whitley aircraft were shot down in Germany in mid-October. During December 1939 British launched two bombing raids intended to inflict damage on German ports. Both raids failed with the British losing some 17 out of 36 Wellington bombers.

After Germany’s victory over the Western Allies in June, the Germans began forming the first Flak defense line in occupied territories and coastlines. These  were not only equipped with German guns but also with those captured from enemy forces.

A 8.8 cm by the Atlantic coast in 1941. This crew had already achieved two kills, judging by the kill marks on the barrel. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

Due to the poor results of their daylight bombing raids, the British began to employ night raids. These initially were quite unsuccessful with minimal damage to Germany’s infrastructure and industry. The Flak defense of Germany was also quite unprepared for night raids, unable to spot enemy bombers at night. The situation changed only in 1940 with the introduction of ground-operated radar. Thanks to this, the first few months of 1941 saw German Flak units bring down 115 enemy aircraft.

In 1942 the British military top made a decision to begin the mass bombing of German cities. The aim was to “de-house” (or kill) workers, damage infrastructure to make urban industrial areas unusable, and try and cause a moral collapse as was the case in 1918. Implementation of this tactic was initially slow due to an insufficient number of bombers. In addition, vital targets in occupied Europe were also to be bombed. In May 1942, the British launched a force that consisted of over 1,000 aircraft causing huge damage to Germany, killing 486 and injuring over 55,000 people.

In 1943 several huge events happened. The German defeats in East and North Africa led to huge material and manpower losses, while the Allies were preparing to launch massive bombing raids mainly intended to cripple Germany’s production capabilities. In response, the Germans began increasing their number of Flak units. At the start of 1943, there were some 659 heavy Flak batteries, which were increased to  1,089 by June the same year. Due to a lack of manpower, the Germans began mobilizing their civilians regardless of their age or sex. For example, in 1943 there were some 116,000 young women who were employed in various roles, even operating the guns. Near the end of the war, it was common to see all-female crews operating Flak batteries. In addition in 1944 some 38,000 young boys were also employed in this manner. Ironically, while all German military branches lacked equipment, the anti-aircraft branch had spare equipment and guns, but lacked the manpower to operate them. To resolve this, foreign Volunteers and even Soviet prisoners of war were pressed into service. The downside was the general lack of training, which greatly affected their performance.

In the first few months of 1944, the Allied 8th and 15th Air Forces lost some 315 bombers with 10,573 damaged, all attributed to the heavy Flak. In 1944 (date unspecified in the source) during an attack on the heavily defended Leuna synthetic oil refinery, some 59 Allied bombers were brought down by the heavy Flak guns. By 1944 the number of heavy anti-aircraft guns that were intended for the defense of Germany reached 7,941. By April 1945 the Flak guns managed to shoot down 1,345 British bombers. The American 8th lost 1,798, while the 15th Air Force lost 1,046 bombers due to German Flak defence by the end of the war.

The last action of the 8.8 cm Flak guns was during the defense of the German capital of Berlin. Due to most being placed in fixed positions, they could not be evacuated and most would be destroyed by their own crews to prevent capture. Despite the losses suffered during the war, in February 1945, there were still some 8,769 8.8 cm Flak guns available for service.

The Flak provided necessary and crucial defense of vital industrial centers. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

Effectiveness of the 8.8 cm Guns in Anti-aircraft Role

Regarding the effectiveness of the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns with the necessary number of rounds needed to bring down enemy aircraft. Author E.B. Westermann (Flak German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945) gives us a good example and comparison between three main German anti-aircraft guns. The largest 12.8 cm Flak on average fired some 3,000 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft. The 10.5 cm gun needed 6,000 and the 8.8 cm 15,000 rounds (some sources mentioned 16,000). This seems at first glance like a huge waste of available resources, but is it right to conclude that?

According to an Allied war document dated from early 1945, they mentioned a few interesting facts about German flak defense. According to them, in 1943 some 33% of bombers destroyed by Germany were accredited to heavy Flak gunfire. In addition, 66% of damage sustained by their aircraft was also caused by the heavy Flak fire. In the summer of 1944, this number increased. The majority (some 66%) shot down enemy bombers were accredited to the heavy Flaks. And of 13,000 damaged bombers some 98% were estimated to be caused by the Flaks. Here it is important to note that by this time, Luftwaffe fighters lacked the ability to attack bomber formations en mass. Therefore this increase of aircraft shot down by the Flaks may be explained by this.

In addition, we must also take into account two other functions that these guns had which are often overlooked. They did not necessarily need to bring down enemy bombers. It was enough to force the enemy fly at higher altitudes to avoid losses. This in turn led to a huge loss of accuracy for the bombers. Secondly, the enemy bombers were often forced to break formation when sustaining heavy Flak fire, which left them exposed to German fighters. The shrapnel from the Flak rounds could not always directly bring down a bomber, but it could cause sufficient damage (fuel leaks for example) that the aircraft, later on, had to make an emergency landing, even in enemy territory. The damaged aircraft that made it back to their bases could spend considerable time awaiting repairs. Lastly, the Flak fire could incapacitate, wound or even kill bomber crews. Thus there was a huge psychological effect on enemy bomber crews. B-17 gunner Sgt W. J. Howard from the 100th Bomb Group recalled his experience with the German Flak. “All the missions scared me to death. Whether you had fighters or not you still had to fly through the flak. Flak was what really got you thinking, but I found a way to suck it up and go on.”

Hitler was quite impressed with the 8.8 cm performance. On the 28th of August 1942, he stated:  “The best flak gun is the 8.8 cm. The 10.5 has the disadvantage that it consumes too much ammunition, and the barrel does not hold up very long. The Reich Marshall Göring continually wants to build the 12.8 into the flak program. This double-barreled 12.8 cm has a fantastic appearance. If one examines the 8.8 from a technician’s perspective, it is to be sure the most beautiful weapon yet fashioned, with the exception of the 12.8 cm”.

Despite the best German efforts, the Flak’s effectiveness greatly degraded by late 1944. The reason for this was the shortage of properly trained crews. At the start of the war, the Germans paid great attention to crew training, which lasted several months. As the Flak guns were needed on the front, less experienced and trained personnel had to be used instead. In the later stages of the war, these crews received only a few weeks of training, which was insufficient for the job they had to perform. Lastly, Allied bombing raids eventually took their toll on German industry, greatly reducing the production of ammunition, which was one of the main reasons why the anti-aircraft defense of Germany ultimately failed. Of course, a proper analysis and conclusion could not be easily made and would require more extensive research, a wholly different topic on its own.

Self-Propelled Versions

When used as anti-aircraft weapons, the 8.8 cm guns were in most cases used as static defense points. Despite this, the Germans made several attempts to increase their mobility by placing the 8.8 cm guns on various chassis. One of the first attempts was by mounting the 8.8 cm gun on a VOMAG 6×6 truck chassis. The small number built was given to the 42nd Flak Regiment which operated them up to the end of the war.

The VOMAG truck was armed with 8.8 cm guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War

The truck chassis offered great mobility on good roads, but their off-road handling was highly problematic. So Germans used half-tracks and full-track chassis.  Smaller numbers of Sd. Kfz 9 armed with the 8.8 cm gun were built. Attempts to build a full-track vehicle were made but never went beyond a prototype stage. The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell was a project where an 8.8cm gun was mounted on a fully tracked chassis with a folding wall, but only one vehicle would be built.  There are some photographs of Panzer IV modified with this gun, and while not much is known about them they appear to be a field conversion, rather than dedicated design vehicles. There were even proposals to mount an 8.8 cm gun on a Panther tank chassis, but nothing would come from it in the end.

Some 12 Sd. Kfz. 9 were modified by receiving an 8.8 cm gun. [worldwarphotos.info]
The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell Pz.Sfl.IVc prototype.[uofa.ru]
The strange-looking Panzer IV armed with this gun. [armedconflicts.com]
Mounting the 8.8 cm gun on railroad cars was a common sight in Germany at early stages of the war. There was various design that may differ greatly from each other. [defensemedianetwork.com]

Usage after the war

With the defeat of Germany during the Second World War, the 8.8 cm Flak guns found usage in a number of other armies. Some of these were Spain, Portugal, Albania, and Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1950s, the Yugoslavian People’s Army had slightly less than 170 8.8 cm guns in its inventory. These were, besides their original anti-aircraft role, used to arm navy ships and were later placed around the Adriatic coast. A number of these guns would be captured and used by various warring parties during the Yugoslav civil wars of the 1990s. Interestingly, the Serbian forces removed the 8.8 cm barrel on two guns and replaced them with two pairs of 262 mm Orkan rocket launcher tubes. The last four operational examples were finally removed from service from the Serbian and Montenegrin Army in 2004.

The 8.8 cm Flak in the Yugoslavian People’s Army service, during military training near the capital in 1955. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51
Two 8.8 cm Flak guns were reused by replacing the gun with two 262mm rocket launchers. While not a success, these two remained in use up to 1998. [srpskioklop.paluba.info]

Conclusion

The 8.8 cm Flak was an extraordinary weapon that provided the German Army with much-needed firepower during the early stages of the war. The design as a whole was nothing special, but it had a great benefit in that it could be built relatively cheaply and in great numbers. That was probably its greatest success, being available in huge numbers compared to similar weapons of other nations.

Its performance in the anti-aircraft role was deemed satisfying, but still stronger models would be employed to supplement its firepower. The 8.8 cm anti-air gun’s effectiveness was greatly degraded toward the end of the war, which was caused not by the gun design itself but other external forces. These being mainly the lack of properly trained crews and shortages of ammunition.

8.8 cm Flak 18 Specifications:
Crew: 11 (Commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver)
Weight in firing position: 5150 kg
Total weight:  7450 kg.
Dimensions in towing position: Length 7.7  m, Width 2.2 m, Height 2.4 m,
Dimensions in deployed position: Length 5.8  m, Height 214 m,
Primary Armament:  8.8 cm L/56 gun
Elevation: -3° to +85°  

 

Gallery

The Flak 88 mm gun in towing postion

 

Flak 88 in firing position

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by David B.

Sources

  • J. Norris  (2002) 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45 Osprey Publishing
  • D. Nijboer (2019) German Flak Defences Vs. Allied Heavy Bombers 1942-45, Osprey Publishing
  • T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle  Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/41 in the Anti-Tank role
  •  T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak
  • W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
  • E. D. Westermann (2001) Flak, German Anti-Aircraft Defense 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas.
  • German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel (29th June 1943) War Department Technical Manual
  • T. Anderson (2018) History of Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-45, Osprey publishing
  • T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey publishing
  • S. Zaloga (2011) Armored Attack 1944, Stackpole book
  • W. Fowler (2002) France, Holland and Belgium 1940, Allan Publishing
  • 1ATB in France 1939-40, Military Modeling Vol.44 (2014) AFV Special
  • N, Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armored Operation North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
  • A. Radić (2011) Arsenal 51 and 52
  • While A. Lüdeke, Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon
  •  J. Ledwoch 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155
  • S. H. Newton (2002)  Kursk The German View, Da Capo Press
  • W. Howler (2002 France, Belgium and Holland 1940, Ian Allan
  • J. S. Corum (2021) Norway 1940 The Luftwaffe’s Scandinavian Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing
  • https://uofa.ru/en/zenitnoe-orudie-88-vermaht-strashnaya-vosemdesyat-vosmaya/

 

Heinkel He 176

Nazi flag Germany (1937)
Rocket Powered Aircraft – 1 Prototype Built

For many years artists often imagined that the He 176 would have looked something like this. [luft46.com]
Prior to, and during the war, the German aviation industry developed a series of operational and prototype aircraft designs. Among the leading new technologies, rocket-powered aircraft were being developed. The concept was initially tested prior to the war on a smaller scale, including limited theoretical tests and prototyping. But further development would lead to the creation of the first rocket-powered aircraft known as the He 176. While it wasn’t accepted for service, it proved that such a concept was feasible and set the stage for the later Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft.

History of Rocket Engine Development in Germany

Following the end of the Great War, Germany was forbidden to have an Air Force. This also included the development of aircraft designs, though this did not stop the Germans from experimenting with new aviation technology. One such new technology was rocket propulsion. One of the first such flights using rocket propulsion occurred in June of 1928, when aviation enthusiast Fritz Stramer took to the sky his rocket-powered glider. Another pioneer in rocket-powered flight occurred at the end of September 1929. A pilot named Fritz von Opel managed to take to the sky in his rocket-powered glider, named Ente (Duck). Von Opel was assisted by another prominent aircraft designer Alexander Martin Lippisch. While technically speaking these were not real rocket-powered flights, given that these gliders did not take to the sky using purely the rocket engine but were towed to altitude. Nevertheless, these flights showed that flight using rocket engines was possible.

Von Opel experimental take-off using a rocket propulsion. [L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]
Over the following years, Lippisch became quite interested in rocket technology and would join the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut DFS, where he worked as an engineer. There, he developed a series of new glider designs, like the DFS 40. This work would eventually lead to the creation of the Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. The Junkers Aircraft company also was interested in rocket development as they built and tested rocket take-off boosters. One such engine was ground tested in 1936.

Another stepping stone in rocketry research was the work of Wernher von Braun. In 1932 and 1934 von Braun managed to successfully launch two rockets using liquid-fuel rocket engines. In 1935 he managed to come into contact with Dr. Ernst Heinkel 1935. After von Braun presented his work, Dr. Ernst was highly impressed and promised to provide von Braun with any assistance in his work. For this, he appointed a young and energetic aircraft engineer named Walter Wenzelunzel to assist von Braun. In order to properly test the installation of rocket engines in aircraft designs, a special test center was established at Kummersdorf in 1936.

The He 112 prior to the start of testing with the von Broun rocket engine. [luft46.com]
Dr. Ernst supplied this research team with a few He 112 airframes. The first He 112 was used for ground testing. For this reason, its fuselage was retained while its wings and the original engine were removed. The rocket engine, which ran on a combination of liquid oxygen and alcohol, would be placed in the rear of the fuselage, with the engine nozzle being placed just beneath the tail unit. Von Braun’s team installed the oxygen tanks in front of the cockpit, with the alcohol tank behind the pilot seat. The engine (the sources do not specify its precise designation) could provide a thrust of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) with an endurance of 30 seconds. During the testing the engine exploded, destroying the aircraft in the process.

Despite this setback, the project went on. By this time, German Army Officials were becoming interested in the project. In order to maintain its secrecy, von Braun and his team were instructed to find a remote auxiliary airfield where these tests could continue to be conducted away from prying eyes. The team, wanting to be close to Berlin, chose a small field at Neuhardenberg, which was covered on most sides by dense forest. Temporary housing, cabins, and tents were quickly set up in 1937 and the work could finally go on.

In 1937 von Braun began close cooperation with another enthusiast of rocket engine development, Helmuth Walter. This cooperation was partly initiated by the German Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) who intended to use the rocket engines for other proposals, like assistance during take-offs. Walter was a young scientist who was highly interested in rocket propulsion. He managed to obtain military funding, which greatly helped in his work. In 1936 he used a Heinkel He 72 to test this engine. In 1937, he even managed to get the attention of the RLM. The RLM formed a Special Propulsion System department (Sondertriebwerke) with the aim of experimenting with rocket engines in the aircraft industry. While this department was mainly focused on developing rocket engines for short take-off assistance, Walter wanted more than that. He intended to develop a strong rocket engine that could replace the standard piston engines of the day. Walter managed to develop such an engine, named Walter TP-1, which was fueled by the so-called ‘T-Stoff’ (hydrogen peroxide) and ‘Z-Stoff’ (water solution of either calcium or sodium permanganate).

Von Braun requested another aircraft which Henkel provided, this was the He 112 V8 (during these trials it received a slightly changed designation V8/U). The test pilot Erich Warsitz managed to take it to the sky using the aircraft’s original piston engine. Warsitz was a crucial pilot for the German early rocket and jet engine development, being heavily involved in testing and helping with the overall design of both the He 176 and He 178. At about 450 meters Warsitz activated the rocket engine, and during the 30 seconds of the engine burn phase, a speed of nearly 400 km/h (or 460 km/h (286 mph) depending on the source) was reached. Due to the dangerous leakage of the engine, the flight had to be aborted, but otherwise, the flight has deemed a success. This He 112 V8 would be returned to Heinkel, but two more aircraft (H7/U and A-03) would be donated to the rocket research program.

Test pilot Erich Warsitz whose experience and work proved to be vital for both He 176 and 178 aircraft development. [firstjetpilot.com]
After this flight, all further tests were conducted using the Walter TP-1 rocket engine. In contrast to the von Braun engine which used alcohol and liquid oxygen as fuel, Walter’s own engine used hydrogen-peroxide and calcium permanganate as a catalyst. This engine was deemed safer too, which is somewhat ironic given the corrosive and volatile fuel. To avoid accidentally coming into contact with the Walter engine fuel, the pilot had to wear a highly protective suit. If exposed to the corrosive fuel, it caused disintegration without actually burning.

More tests were conducted at this location until the end of 1937, when the research was to be moved to Peenemunde. Due to some delays, the tests on the He 112 continued on from April 1938.

Heinkel’s First Rocket-Powered Aircraft

Following the series of tests on the He 112, some officials from the RLM began showing great interest in the prospect of using a rocket-powered aircraft interceptor. It was originally hoped that this aircraft would be capable of vertical, or nearly vertical take-off. When sufficient altitude was reached, the aircraft was then to make a swift dive on its target, firing a volley of its full weapon load. After this attack run, it was simply to glide away once it was out of fuel, to its base of operation.

The work on the project was conducted under a veil of secrecy and began in 1936 at the Heinkel Rostock-Marienehe work. The following year the first drawings of the He 176 V1 (derived from “Versuchsmuster 1” meaning “Experimental Model”) were completed by Hans Regner. Interestingly the designers set a huge task in front of them, by actually trying to reach a blistering speed of 1000 km/h (620 mp/h). An astonishing and difficult feat to achieve with such a novelty design. This set a number of challenges that had to be overcome. One of them was a proper wing design able to withstand the pressure of such high speed. For this reason, it had to be designed to be flat, at only 90 millimeters thick, with very sharp leading edges. This in turn caused further problems, as this design would cause the aircraft to stall at low speeds. In addition, the installation of wing fuel tanks would be difficult.

In order to make the whole design smaller and thus save weight, the pilot had to be placed in a rather unpleasant semi-recumbent position, with his legs stretched out in front and the pilot’s seat reclined. This was also done to help the pilot better cope with the extreme G-forces that he would be subjected to during the extremely high forward acceleration. The fuselage had a very small diameter of only 0.8 meters (2ft 7in) and was specially designed according to the height of the test pilot, Warsitz.

The construction of the first prototype was undertaken at the Heinkel’s aircraft works in Marienehe. Once the aircraft was completed, it was to be transported to Peenemunde. The aircraft’s testing was conducted under great secrecy and was transported there via military escort in June 1938. Just prior to the actual testing, Warsitz was informed by RLM officials that given the experimental nature of the design, and Warsitz’s valued status as an experienced test pilot, he was advised not to fly it. Warsitz, who was heavily involved in the He 176 design, protested to Air Minister (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) Ernst Udet, who gave him permission to undertake the first flight. After this was settled, there were some delays with the assembly and engine adjustment.

The initial tests were undertaken on the ground. Due to unsuitable terrain and lack of a proper towing vehicle, ground testing proved ineffective. So it was decided to use the aircraft’s own engine for these tests, which were conducted at the end of 1938. Using the He 178’s own engine on the ground presented a new problem, namely the rudder could not provide steering during take-off. As the aircraft had no propellers to generate airflow, steering the aircraft using the rudder on take-off was ineffective, thus the only way to maintain the aircraft’s heading was by using the left and right brakes on the main wheels. This was quite dangerous for the pilot and the aircraft, as an imbalanced braking force could potentially lead to an accident. The result of the initial testing showed that some changes to the overall structural design were needed. For this, the Heinkel crews spent the winter of 1939 modifying the He 178.

First Flights

During the Spring of 1939, a series of small test flights were conducted with the He 178. Somewhat unexpectedly, the Heinkel team was visited by an RLM delegation led by Udet himself. After observing the He 178 on the short flight they were quite impressed, but surprisingly for the Heinkel team, Udet forbade any more flights on it. Mostly due to fear for the pilot’s life. After some delays, Warsitz visited Udet in Berlin and filed a plea that the project should go on. Udet finally accepted this and gave a green light.

A military delegation led by Udet observed the He 176’s initial short flight attempts. The man in the white suit is the test pilot Warsitz who is speaking with delegation members about the flight, with Dr. Ernst just behind him. [luft46.com]
While the first official flight of the He 176 was to be conducted under the supervision of many RLM officials, feeling that something might go wrong, Erich Warsitz and Heinkel’s team (without the knowledge of Dr. Erns) decided to perform the flight in secrecy. The date for this was set on the 20th of June, 1939. After a rough take-off, the pilot managed to take the He 176 to the sky. Given the small fuel load, the flight lasted around a minute. Overall, the first test flight was deemed a success. The following day, Udet and his delegation visited the site and observed another test flight.

The Fuhrer Inspects the He 176

Hitler during his inspection of the He 176.[L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]
A couple of days later Warsitz and Heinkel’s team were informed that any further flights were forbidden. The reason was that Hitler himself became interested in the project and wanted to personally see the aircraft. The He 176 was to be transported to the Rechlin Secret Test Center and shown to many high-ranking members of the Luftwaffe. On the 3rd of July 1939, the aircraft was to be demonstrated to a large delegation including Hitler himself. First, a flight of a He 111 equipped with rocket-assisted take-off was shown to Hitler, which greatly impressed him. Another Heinkel innovative design, the He 178 jet-engine powered aircraft, was also present. While it was not yet capable of taking to the sky it was used for ground testing. Next in the line for inspection was the He 176, after a brief examination of its interior by the delegation, the stage was set for it to take to the sky. The flight initially went well, but the pilot miscalculated and shut down the engine too soon. While still at high speed, he began descending rather rapidly. After several attempts to restart the engine, he finally succeeded, just before hitting the ground. The plane took an almost vertical climb of some 50 meters before the pilot regained control and landed it safely. Hitler and his delegation were under the impression that the pilot performed this maneuver intentionally to demonstrate the aircraft’s potential. For his flight, the pilot was awarded 20,000 Reichsmarks.

The End of the Project

After this exhibit, Heinkel’s team tried to prepare the He 176 for reaching speeds up to 1,000 km/h. Structural analysis of the design, on the other hand, showed that this would not be possible. For this reason, preparation for the construction of a second prototype was underway. It was to be powered by a von Braun rocket engine, which suggested that the aircraft could be launched vertically. This was possible thanks to weight reduction efforts sufficient to enable vertical take-off.

Ultimately the whole project would be canceled. The order was given by Adolf Hilter, who insisted that designs that could not enter production in less than a year, be canceled. Despite Heinkel’s attempt to win over Udet’s support, it went nowhere and the project was officially terminated.

The He 176 V1 was disassembled and transported to the Aviation Museum in Berlin to be exhibited. Sadly it would be later on destroyed in one of many Allied bombing raids. The He 176 V2 was almost complete, but its parts were eventually scrapped. The V3 had also been under construction, but was ultimately abandoned in its early stages.

Technical Characteristics

The He 176 was designed as an all-metal, high-wing rocket-powered experimental reconnaissance aircraft. Its fuselage had a simple circular cross-section design. The wings had an asymmetrical profile and were quite thin. During take-off, there was a significant chance of the wingtips contacting the ground, due to the fuselage’s small diameter and extreme vibrations during take-off. To avoid damaging them, Heinkel engineers added a “U” shaped metal bar under each wingtip as a temporary solution. The wings were also initially to act as fuel tanks, but this feature had to be abandoned on the prototype, and fuel was instead stored behind the cockpit. The tail and rudder design was more or less conventional.

To avoid causing damage to the wings during take-off, Heinkel engineers added a “U” shaped metal bar under each wingtip.

The rocket engine chosen for the He 176 was the Walter RI type. It provided thrust ranging between 45 kg to 500 kg (100 to 1,1100 lb) with an endurance of one minute. Due to the weight issues combined with a relatively weak propulsion unit, the desired speed of 1,000 km/h (620 mph) was never reached. The maximum speed reached by this aircraft differs greatly between sources. For example, D. Nešić mentioned that the maximum speed was only 345 kmh, while authors J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay quoted a figure of 700 kmh. Lastly, the test pilot himself in his own logbook mentioned that he managed to reach a speed of 800 kmh (500 mph).

The landing gear consisted of one front smaller wheel, two larger wheels 700 mm in diameter, and one more to the rear. While the front wheel was fixed the remaining three were completely retractable.

The He 176 during take-off [L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]
The cockpit provided the pilot with an excellent forward view and was made of plexiglass. Given the experimental nature of this aircraft, great attention was given to pilot safety. As in case of emergency, bailing out of the fast-moving and cramped aircraft was almost impossible. Heinkel engineers designed the entire cockpit section to be jettisonable. The cockpit assembly was connected to the fuselage by four locks which were equipped with small explosive charges. When the pilot was jettisoned from the fuselage his parachute would open automatically and allow him to land safely. This system was tested by using a wooden cockpit containing a dummy pilot. This trial cockpit was then taken to the sky by a He 111 and at sufficient height, it was released. The parachute opened without an issue and it landed on the ground intact. The results of the dummy pilot showed that this system was safe if the cockpit landed on soft ground.

The small size of the cockpit prevented the use of a standard instrument panel, as it would severely affect the pilot’s forward visibility. Instead, the instruments were placed to the left and the right of the pilot. Interestingly, while Heinkel did not intend to arm the aircraft, RLM officials insisted that two machine gun ports be placed beside the pilot. Due to the cramped cockpit interior, the two machine guns had to be placed where the pilots’ side controls were positioned. As this would cause delays and much-needed redesign work, the Heinkel engineers simply placed machine gun ports (without the actual machine guns equipped) and kept the original control units in place. The RLM officials, when visiting the work, were told that these were just temporary measures.

The Only Photograph

The real He 176 was quite different in design. [luft46.com]
Given the secretive nature of the project, RLM officials effectively gathered all films and photos for themselves. All persons involved in the project were also forbidden from taking any pictures. At the war’s end, the Soviets either destroyed or captured these and their final fate is unknown. Sometime after the war, many artists attempted to produce sketches of how the He 176 may have looked. These greatly differed from the original design, but given the lack of information and general obscurity of the He 176, this is understandable.

Conclusion

The He 176 project arose as a collaboration of several different parties. It was heavily influenced by rocket engine testing and development done by von Braun and Walter. Heinkel Flugzeugwerke provided the necessary resources and production capabilities, while test pilot Erich Warsitz provided valuable feedback which guided necessary changes and improvements to the design.

It was a novel idea to use rockets to power aircraft, which offered numerous advantages, such as reaching high speed and altitude very quickly. Given that this project was more or less a Heinkel private venture in the development of new technologies it likewise did not find a place in German military service. It, however, did set the stage for future designs like the Me 163, which actually saw some combat during the war.

He 176 Specifications

Wingspans 4 m / 13 ft 1 in
Length 5 m / 16 ft 4 in
Height 1.4 m / 4 ft 7 in
Wing Area 8 m² / 53 ft²
Engine Walter RI rocket engine
Empty Weight 1,570 kg / 3,455lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight 2,000 kg / 4,400 lbs
Maximum Speed 700 km/h / 435 mph
Endurance flight Range 60 seconds
Crew One Pilot
Armament
  • None

Gallery

Illustration by Godzilla

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustration by Godzilla

Sources

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book
  • D. Mondey (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • D. Donald (1998) German Aircraft Of World War II, Blitz Publisher
  • J. R Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
  • Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009), Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland & Company Inc
  • L. Warsitz (2008) The First Jet Pilot The Story of German Test Pilot Erich Warsitz Pen and Sword Aviation

Sack AS 6

Nazi flag Germany (1943)
Experimental Circular Wing Aircraft – 1 Prototype Built

The unusual Sack AS-6 circular-wing aircraft [falkeeins.blogspot.com]
In the history of aviation there were many designers who had ambitious ideas and concepts for new designs, but never had the chance to bring their ideas to fruition. On the other hand, there were those who had radical or even completely impractical designs that did manage, at least to some extent, to be built. Germany had a fair share of such individuals, especially during the later stages of the Second World War. These designers may have proposed their projects out of desperation to save their country or in fear of being sent to the front. There were also those that were simply enthusiasts in aircraft development but lacked a better understanding of how aerodynamics actually work. One such person was Arthur Sack (1900-1964), who prior to the war came up with the idea of building a circular-wing aircraft known simply as the Sack AS-6.

History

Prior to the war, Germans were prohibited from developing and building military aircraft. The Germans simply bypassed this prohibition by instead focusing on gliders, but also on civilian aircraft which if needed would be quickly converted for military use and conducted secret experiments. They especially took great care in the development and investment of manned gliders, but also scale model-building competitions and organizations. While this may seem like a waste of time and money, it actually helped gain initial and valuable experience in aircraft development which proved vital for the later Luftwaffe.

One such model competition was the National Contest of Aero Models with combustion engines, held in late June 1939 at Leipzig-Mockau. Here, aviation enthusiast Arthur Sack presented his model of an unusually circular-wing-shaped aircraft named AS-1. It is sadly unclear why Sack pursued the design of such an unusual aircraft design. Due to engine problems, the AS-1 was unable to take off from the ground, so the small model had to be launched by hand instead. The Air Minister (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) Ernst Udet, who was present at the event, seemed to be impressed with this design and advised Sack to continue its development.

Arthur Sack and his AS-1 model. [lvz.de]
Thanks to financial support from the RLM, Sack was able to proceed with the development and even the construction of a few scale models, a process that lasted some three years. In 1943 he submitted a fully operational model SA-5 to the RLM. The presentation went well for Sack and the RLM commission provided the necessary funds for the construction of a fully operational prototype. Interestingly, at some point Sack came into contact with another unusual aircraft designer Dr. Alexander Lippisch. While not completely clear, it appears that Sack received some design tips from Lippisch, to better improved his work.

With the order secured, Sack initiated the construction of a prototype. He named this aircraft the AS-6 V1 (Versuchs – version). As he had no proper workshop to build the aircraft himself, the glider manufacturer Mitteldeutsche Metallwerke was tasked with this instead. The initial work for the assembly of the aircraft began in the autumn of 1943. It took nearly half a year to complete the working prototype. Interestingly, due to the general shortage of materials, the AS-6 was constructed by utilizing a considerable amount of salvaged components from other damaged aircraft. For example, the cockpit canopy and parts of the interior were taken from a Bf 109B. Once the prototype was ready, it was allocated to the Luftwaffe for initial tests in early 1944.

AS-6 side view. [lvz.de]

Technical Characteristics

A good view of the AS-6 internal wooden frame construction.[all-aero.com]
The AS-6 was designed as an experimental prototype to test the idea of using circular-wing design. Sadly, this aircraft is quite obscure and poorly documented so not much is known about its overall design. It was a single-seater aircraft that was mostly built out of wood. It did not have a classical fuselage, instead, the majority of the aircraft consisted of two large circular wings. The internal design is more or less conventional with a wooden construction frame being covered with canvas. Two large elevators were installed on the rear of the wings. The tail assembly is a conventional design as well, consisting of one vertical stabilizer and two horizontal stabilizers.

The AS-6 rearview. The two elevators were too small, poorly designed, and did not provide adequate control during initially limited test flights. [all-aero.com]
The AS-6 was powered by an Argus As 10C-3 engine, which ultimately proved to be inadequate [all-aero.com]
The AS-6 was powered by a 240 hp Argus As 10C-3 engine driving a two-blade wooden propeller. The engine was housed in a metal frame, which was then bolted to the AS-6 fuselage. The engine was salvaged from a Bf 108 aircraft.

The cockpit canopy and its interior, as already mentioned, were taken from a Bf 109B. The cockpit was slightly elevated above the fuselage and provided the pilot with an excellent all-around view. The landing gear was also salvaged from a Bf 109B, but in the case of the AS-6, it was fixed. Initially, a landing skid was used on the rear, which was later replaced with a landing wheel instead.

The canopy and landing gear was taken from a damaged Bf 109 aircraft [ufxufo.org]

Testing the Prototype

Initial evaluation tests of the AS-6 prototype were conducted at the Luftwaffe Brandis Airbase. The flight tests were conducted by Rolf Baltabol Junkers test pilot. While several short take-offs were made, there were no attempts to actually take the aircraft to the sky. The test pilot noted that the aircraft had an overall poor design and was difficult to control. He urged that the control surfaces and rudder be completely redesigned. The engine was also deemed too weak. During the last short take-off, one of the two landing gear assemblies was damaged.

The AS-6, following its unsuccessful start, spent several weeks in repairs and received a number of modifications in an attempt to improve its performance. These included adding an additional 70 kg of weight to the rear, installation of brakes taken from a Ju 88, and repositioning the landing wheels to the rear by about 20 cm. Sack proposed moving the landing wheels further back, but the test pilot Rolf simply refused to fly it if this change was implemented. He argued that placing the landing gear to the rear would imbalance the aircraft potentially leading to tipping forward during a take-off. For this reason, the modification was not implemented. While the engine was underpowered, there were simply no alternatives available at that time.

The AS-6 during testing [falkeeins.blogspot.com]
The next test was scheduled for April 1944. During these tests, Rolf tried to take it to the sky, but failed again to do so. This time it was noted that the wings were simply too short. Further tests were canceled, the AS-6 was to await more modifications, and was to be tested in a wind tunnel; if possible with a completely new engine.

The fate of the AS-6

Following the unsuccessful testing, the AS-6 was stored at the Brandis airfield. In the summer of 1944, this airfield became the main operational base for the experimental Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. The pilots of the I./JG 400 (charged with testing the Me 163) found the AS-6. One of its pilots, Franz Rossle, expressed a desire to attempt flying the unusual plane. But when the ground crew was preparing the aircraft for take-off, one of its landing gear units simply broke due to rough terrain, effectively preventing the test flight to be conducted. After this, it was once again stored at Brandis. It would remain there until early 1945 when it was lost in an Allied bombing raid.

The AS-7 project

While not clear when (possibly during early 1945), Sack approached Messerschmitt company with a proposal to use his circular-wing design on the Bf 109K-4 aircraft. The aircraft marked as SA-7 would be powered by a DB 605 2,000 hp engine. Fitted with circular wings it was theorized that it would be capable of carrying more armament inside the wings. It is believed (but not clear) that Messerschmitt was interested in this proposal and designated the project Me 600. Due to the war’s end, nothing really came from this project.

Conclusion

While certainly an unusual and interesting design, due to poor quality and salvaged materials used during its construction, the AS-6 performed poorly and never actually achieved flight. We will never know if the AS-6 circular-wing design offered any major advantage over more conventional wing designs. It appears that Arthur Sack did not continue with his idea after the war and passed away in the mid-1960’s. While his work was never implemented in mass production, his unusual design was often mistakenly taken as some advanced and secret German World War II project, which ironically, it never was.

AS-6 Specifications

Wingspan 16 ft 5 in / 5 m
Length 21 ft / 6.4 m
Wing Area 19.62 ft² / 211 m²
Engine One 240 hp Argus As 10C-3 engine
Maximum Take-off Weight 1,984 lbs / 900 kg
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • None

Gallery

Illustration by Ed Jackson

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Blaze
  • Illustrated by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • B. Rose and T. Butler (2006) Secret Projects Flying Saucer Aircraft, Midland Publishing
  • J. Dennis G.G. Lepage (2009) Aircraft of the Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company
  • Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemacka. Beograd.
  • http://www.luft46.com/misc/sackas6.html

Messerschmitt Me 163D Komet

Nazi flag Germany (1944)
Rocket-Powered Interceptor Prototype – 1 Built

The Me 163D prototype [luftwaffephotos.com]
The Me 163 showed to have great potential as a fast rocket-powered interceptor, but its design had some shortcomings. These included a limited view from the cockpit, lacking of landing gear, increased fuel storage, etc. The German companies Messerschmitt and later Junkers tried to resolve this by implementing a number of improvements to its design leading to the Me 163D of which only a few prototypes were built given the late start of the program.

History 

The Me 163 small size, while reducing the overall cost of the aircraft, enforced limitation of the fuel that could be stored inside which in turn led to a limited operational powered flight time of fewer than 8 minutes. In combat operations, this proved to be insufficient but no auxiliary tanks could be added to the Me 163 wings not inside of it. Another issue was the lack of proper landing gear. The Me 163 was instead forced to use a two-wheel dolly. Once the aircraft was in the air, the dolly was jettisoned. On occasion, there were accidents regarding this system when for example the dolly refused to be detached from the aircraft or even worse when it bounced off the ground and hit the aircraft from below. On the landing, the Me 163 were to use a simple retractable landing skid, placed beneath the fuselage. After landing the aircraft was immobile and essentially an easy target for enemy crafts.  For this reason, a normal retracting landing gear unit was desirable but once again due to Me 163 small size impossible to install.

To redress the previously mentioned issues engineers at Messerschmitt began working on an improved version named Me 163C. It incorporated a longer fuselage, extended cockpit, having an engine with two combustion chambers, and other modifications. The work on this version was rather slow and by war end not much was done on it besides a few incomplete airframes.

Illustration of a Me 163C aircraft, which was to replace the Me 163B. [walterwerke.co.uk]
One or two Me 163B prototypes had their fuselage extended in order if such modification was possible. [walterwerke.co.uk]
Parallel with the Me 163C development another project was carried out in early 1944 once again by Messerschmitt. This project was initially designated as Me 163D and was to have substantial numbers of improvements mostly regarding the overall shape of the aircraft, engine use, weaponry etc. For testing this new concept of substantially extending the aircraft fuselage if it was feasible at all. One or two (depending on the source) Me 163 (BV13 and BV18) was to be experimentally modified with an extended fuselage. In addition, experimental landing gear was also to be added. The testing of this rebuilt aircraft proved to be feasible and so the work on a fully built prototype began in earnest.

Name

The Me 163D project, due to Messerschmitt being simply overburdened with the Me 262 production, would instead be given to Junkers company. Once in their hands, the project was renamed Ju 248. The Me 163D obviously had an identity crisis as in late 1944 it was once again given back to Messerschmitt. Once back to its original designers, the project once again changed its name, this time to Me 263. As all three designations are basically correct for this aircraft, this article will use the original Me 163D designation for the sake of simplicity and to avoid any possible confusion.

First Prototype

Despite being originally designed by Messerschmitt, it was actually assembled in Junkers factories sometime during August 1944 or in early 1945 (the sources are not clear here). After that it would be returned to Messerschmitt where it was planned to examine and test its overall performance. While it was intended to have an increase in fuel capacity and an improved engine, the first prototype had actually no engine installed at that time. The Me 163D V1 (DV-PA) prototype was also provided with a new retractable tricycle landing gear which was to help with the mobility during the ground drive.

Given that no engine was fitted to the Me 163D, first flight testing was done as a glider, in late 1944. After these were conducted the prototype was in a series of wind-tunnel testings. The results of these two test trials (flight and wind tunnel) showed that the Me 163D was not capable of safely achieving dive speeds that were greater than its normal flight speed. In this regard, it was inferior to the original Me 163 aircraft which could achieve extensive dive speed but still managed to preserve good flight controls. The Messerschmitt engineers at this phase even considered redesigning the rear tail unit, but nothing came of it. The tricycle landing gear units did not offer good mobility on the ground, this was mainly due to it being too narrow. The Germans had plans to test using a parachute that was to be released during landing to help reduce the need for a long airfield. If this was tested or even installed on a Me 163D is unknown.

Technical characteristics

The Me 163D like its predecessor was designed as a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing tailless aircraft. Given its experimental nature and its late development into the war, not much is known about its precise technical characteristics. Its overall construction would probably be similar to the previous versions, with a fuselage being built of metal and wooden wings.

The semi-monocoque construction fuselage was longer and was now 7.88 m ( 25 ft 10 in) compared to the original 5.84 m (9 ft 2 in) length. It had a good overall aerodynamic shape. The wings were swept to the back at a 19° angle, compared to the Me 163B 23.3° angle.

The Me 163D like its predecessor had wings that were swept to the back at a 19° angle. The fuselage had an excellent aerodynamic shape. [forum.warthunder.com]
The pilot cockpit received a new ‘bubble-shaped canopy. This provided the pilot with a much greater field of view. Given that it was intended to operate at great heights, the Me 163 D cockpit was to be pressurized and for this was bolted to the fuselage.

The Me 163D received a much better canopy which offered a much better all-around view. It was also completely pressurized so that the pilot could effectively fly it, on great heights. [forum.warthunder.com]
Interior of the Me 163D pilot cockpit. [forum.warthunder.com]
The Me 163D was to be powered by an improved Walter 109-509C rocket engine. It was provided by two combustion chambers.  While the sources are not clear if this engine was ever installed in the Me 163D, the estimated maximum speed was noted to be 950 km/h (590 mph) or up to 1,000 km/h (620 mph) depending on the source. It should also provide more economical consumption of fuel providing an operational range of some 160-220 km (100-140 mile) once again depending on the source. The operational flight endurance was increased from 7 minutes and 30 seconds to 15 minutes.

To overcome the previous Me 163B version’s lack of proper landing gear, the Me 163D was provided with the retractable tricycle landing gear. It consisted of a forward smaller and two larger wheels in the rear, just below the wing roots. All three of these retracted to the rear into the fuselage.

The fuel load consisted of 1040 liters (229 gallons) of T-Stoff and 492 liters of C-Stoff. The Me 163 was notorious for having only a limited endurance flight ofOnce the fuel was spent the pilots were to simply glide the aircraft back to the base.

The armament consisted of two 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons, which were placed in the wing roots. Depending on the source the ammunition storage for each cannon ranged between 40 to 75 rounds.

Production

It is often mentioned in the sources that one complete and one partially complete prototype were built, by the war’s end. According to M. Griehl (Jet Planes of the Third Reich)  on the other hand, mentioned that at least three prototypes were built with less than 20 aircraft being in various states of construction when these were captured by the Allies in 1945.

Service

The limited operational test use of the Me 163D  and the German plans for it is not clear. Once again depending on the sources, there are mostly two versions. It appears that despite some faults in its design the Germans were willing to proceed with its further development. Given the end of the war, it should not be surprising that this was ever achieved. In another version, the work on the Me163D after some testing flight in February 1945 was officially terminated by the Luftwaffe officials. Mostly due to the fact that production of its unique and dangerous fuel is no longer possible.

The fate of these aircraft is not clear, given either information that these were either destroyed or captured by the Soviets. The latter option seems more likely as some sources suggest that the Soviets based on the Me 163D after the war developed their own version of it, the I-270. The project led nowhere and it would be abandoned.

    • Me 163D V1 – Completed prototype
    • Me 163D V2 –  Incomplete second prototype
    • Me 163D V3 –  Possible third prototype being built with additional 18 airframes

Conclusion

Given its experimental nature and its late introduction, it is quite difficult to make the final decision on the general properties of this aircraft. While it introduced some improvements in comparison to the previous version it also had issues regarding its reaching speed during dive flights. Despite offering the Germans a relatively cheap aircraft the whole Me 163 project by 1945 was essentially over given the general impossibility of production of its unique fuel. Nevertheless despite its downsides, the Me 163 whole series was certainly an interesting concept that had some merits that unfortunately for the Germans were never completely implemented.

Me 163D V1 Specifications

Wingspans 31 ft 2 in / 9.5 m
Length 25 ft 10 in / 7.88m
Height ft  in  /  3.17 m
Wing Area 192.6 ft² /  17.91 m²
Engine HWL 509  rocket engine
Empty Weight 4,400 lbs / 2,000 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 11,660 lbs / 5.300 kg
Maximum Speed 590 mph / 950 km/h
Operational range 100 mil / 160 km
Engine endurance 15 minutes
Maximum Service Ceiling 52,480 ft /  16,000 m
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Two 30 mm MK108 cannons

Gallery

Artist Conception of the Me 163C – by Carpaticus

Artist Conception of the Me 263 – by Carpaticus

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

Source:

  • D. Nešić (2008)  Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
  • E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
  • M. Emmerling and J. Dressel  (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
  • J.R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German AIrcraft of the Second World War, Putham
  • http://www.walterwerke.co.uk/walter/me163d.htm
  • W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet , Profile Publications
  • M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
  • D. SHarp (2015) Luftwaffe secret jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
  • M. Griehl (1998) Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Monogram Aviation Publication

Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1944)
Rocket Powered Fighter – Around 370 Built

The Me 163B in standard camouflage. Note the brightly colored nose. [militaryimages.net]
Following the successful testing of the previous Me 163A series, the Germans began developing a new improved version that was intended for operational use. This would lead to the Me 163B series, which was the first, and last, operational rocket-powered aircraft to be used in active combat. In comparison to its predecessor, the Me 163B offered a number of improvements to its design and shape. By the war’s end, less than 400 aircraft of this type would be built.

History

Work on the second series of the Me 163, which would be built in greater numbers than the experimental A-series, began at the start of September 1941. In comparison to the predecessor, the B-version had a number of modifications. The most obvious change was the completely redesigned fuselage, which was larger and had an overall more aerodynamic shape. Its armament was installed in the wing roots, the engine was replaced with an improved version, and the pilot cockpit was enlarged.

The differences between the Me 163A (on the left) and the main production version are clearly evident here. [acesflyhigh.wordpress.com]

Initial plans for this aircraft were quite ambitious, as Messerschmitt had predicted that the production of four operational prototype aircraft with additional airframes should commence in October 1941. Once the first few prototypes were completed, a small series of 66 aircraft were to follow. The actual responsibility of building these was given to Messerschmitt production plants at Regensburg with assembly at Obertraubling. It was estimated by RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium – Ministry of Aviation) officials that, after the first batch of 70 aircraft was built, it would take some 7 months to actually begin mass production of fully operational aircraft.

One of the first few Me 163B prototypes built. [luftwaffephotos.com]
As was the case with many German wartime projects, it suffered from delays due to a lack of resources. The work on the initial group of prototypes started only at the end of 1941. Once again, further delays due to the slow delivery of engines postponed production until March of 1942. At this stage, the Germans were replacing the R II 209 rocket engines with the modified RII 211. The new engine used different types of fuel tanks which necessitated the redesign of the fuselage interior. This engine used a combination of T-Stoff and C-Stoff (a mixture of hydrazine hydrate, water, and methanol). As the construction of the Me 163B V1 prototype was approaching completion, it was proposed to switch to the older R II 203 engine to save development time, but this modification was not carried out. The development of the rocket engines was very slow and plagued with many setbacks, especially the limited production of fuel, which eventually led to huge delays in the Me 163 production. Finally, for the Me 163 production aircraft, the improved HWK-509 engine was chosen.

In May 1942, Me 163 B-0 V1 (KE+SX) was completed, minus the engine, and was tested as an unpowered glider. By 1943, it was obvious that Messerschmitt alone could not cope with the wartime demands, so RLM officials decided to bring aboard another aircraft manufacturer. They chose Klemm’s Stuttgart-Boeblingen factory, with a monthly goal of some 30 Me 163 aircraft. Klemm was also tasked with providing additional workers for Messerschmitt. Delays in delivering essential parts, such as weapons, caused setbacks in the Klemm Me 163 production.

Despite the problems with the Me 163 production, a small number of available aircraft were allocated to the Erprobungkommando (EKdo) 16 unit from April 1942 onward.

First Flights by EKdo 16

Once the first prototype was available, it was flight-tested as a glider by Heini Dittmar in late June, or May of 1942, depending on the source. Heini Dittmar had plenty of experience as a test pilot flying the Me 163A aircraft. The BV1 prototype would be, from this point on, mainly used as a training glider aircraft. From this point forward all aircraft built would be transported to Bad Zwischenahn near Oldenburg. Once there, they would be flight-tested by a number of pilots under the command of Karl Voy from EKdo16. This unit, which was formed in April of 1942, had the primary function of testing and evaluating the newly built Me 163 and helping in the development and improvement of its overall design. Another purpose that this unit had to fulfill was the training of new pilots for the Me 163.

An interesting episode in EKdo 16’s history is connected to the well-known German test pilot Hanna Reitsch. After a number of attempts to get permission to flight test the Me 163, she was finally allowed to do so at the end of 1942. Shortly after she took off, the jettisonable takeoff dolly refused to successfully detach from the aircraft, preventing it from using the landing skid. She managed to land the aircraft but was badly wounded and was placed in a hospital for some time. She later requested permission to fly the Me 163 again, but was explicitly rejected and was forbidden from flying it.

In early 1943, this unit was also tasked with testing jet-powered aircraft that were currently in development. These included the Me 262 and the He 280. EKdo 16 began receiving the first operational Me 163Bs only in July, or February of 1943. Due to extensive Allied Air Force activity near EKdo 16’s base of operation, the unit began the process of relocating its aircraft to Anklam. By this time, the unit had some 7 Me 163A and 1 of the B version. Due to poor ground conditions for Me 163 operations, the aircraft was relocated back to Bad Zwischenahn in late August. The delays with the construction of auxiliary support buildings on this airfield meant that crew training could not begin until October 1943. These initial training flights were carried out using two-seater gliders. Due to a lack of C-Stoff fuel, another series of delays impacted progress on training. In November, the Me 163As were used for crew training. In November and later in December, two aircraft were lost in accidents with the loss of life of both pilots.

In the following months, due to a number of factors like slow production, bad weather, and Allied activity, the Me 163 training program progressed at a slow pace. By May 1944, only a small group of fewer than 50 pilots had a chance to fly either the powered or towed versions of the Me 163. Once these were successfully tested, they would be then allocated to the 1./J.G. 400. unit.

The first combat action of the Me 163 was conducted on 14th May 1944, piloted by Major Spate. Amusingly, just prior to the first flight, his Me 163 BV 41 (PK-QL) aircraft was painted in red. This was done by the unit mechanics, who wanted with this small gesture to bring good luck to their pilots. Seeing no harm in it, Major Spate gave instruction that his aircraft be fully fueled and armed. During his flight, he attempted twice to attack Allied bombers but failed to properly engage them. It seems the red paint did not help with the luck.

During May, a number of unsuccessful combat flights with the Me 163 were undertaken. At the end of May, the airfield at Bad Zwischenahn was heavily bombed. During this attack, several Me 163s were damaged. This attack left the airfield at Bad Zwischenahn unusable for some time. To continue the training of pilots, the whole operation was temporarily moved to Brieg on the Oder. As this airfield lacked any proper workshops, the dismantled aircraft could not be assembled again and, for this reason, no test flights were ever carried out from Brieg.

Interestingly, on the 12th and 13th June 1944, three Me 163s from the EKdo 16 were demonstrated to the Japanese and Italian military delegations. As, at that time, EKdo 16 could not provide a fully operational Me 163, these were instead taken from 1./J.G. 400.

On 15th June 1944, the unit was once again back to Bad Zwischenahn. At their disposal, there were 2 prototypes, 7 gliders and 11 fully operational Me 163 aircraft. A few days later, another accident occurred when the towing aircraft lost power to one of its engines. The towed Me 163 was released at some 50 meters of altitude and the pilot was forced to land at a nearby lake. While the aircraft was heavily damaged, the pilot managed to survive.

In July 1944, a second auxiliary unit (Erganzumgsstaffel) was formed. It was also subordinated to the 1./J.G. 400. It had 6 Me 163s, of which only one was equipped with a rocket engine. It was intended to supplement the training of pilots for 1./J.G. 400.

In mid-August 1944, the airfield was once again attacked by Allied bombers. This caused further delays in training operations, until August 23rd. On that day, another accident led to the death of a pilot and the loss of yet another aircraft. Not wanting to waste the parts of the destroyed Me 163, these were collected and then sent to the training school at Fassberg.

At the start of September, Luftwaffe Generalmajor Adolf Galland told EKdo 16’s Commander Hauptmann Thaler, that the unit was to be disbanded and all personnel and equipment were to be relocated to Brandis. While the commanders of EKdo 16 were against such a decision, there was little they could do and, by the end of September, the unit was on its way to Brandis.

An Me 163 from EKdo 16. While some combat flights were undertaken, the primary purpose of this unit was to provide necessary pilot training. [aviationshoppe.com]

Technical Characteristics

The Me 163 was a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing tailless aircraft. Its fuselage was constructed of metal, while the wings were wood. The fuselage could be divided into three sections, the cockpit, the central fuel tanks, and the rear engine compartment. In order to help the ground crew with repairs, the fuselage was specially designed to contain a large number of removable panels. Thanks to this, the replacement of damaged parts or even the whole engine could be done relatively quickly.

The wings were quite simple in design, consisting of two spars covered in 8 mm thick fabric. The Me 163 wings were swept to the rear at a 23.3° angle. At the wing’s trailing edges, ailerons were placed, which the pilot used for pitch and roll. For landings, large hydraulically operated flaps were added on the wings.

In order for the pilot to enter the cockpit, a ladder was placed on the left side of the aircraft. While the cockpit was not pressurized, it could be jettisoned to help the pilot escape the aircraft in case of emergency. Being unpressurized actually placed time limits for how long the pilot could endure without losing consciousness at altitude and during high-speed maneuvers. For this reason, the pilot had to endure altitude chamber training and had a specially designed diet. Despite attempts to improve visibility compared to the previous version, the Me 163B suffered from poor visibility, especially to the rear and in front of the aircraft’s nose.

In order to enter his flight position, the pilot used a small ladder placed on the left side of the aircraft. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
Close-up view of the Me 163 cockpit and instruments. [luftwaffephotos.com]
The Me 163 was equipped with various onboard equipment, including a FuG 16 ZE radio transmitter and receiver. In addition, a FuG 25 IFF (identification friend or foe) transmitter and receiver was installed. Given its small size and limited overall weight, the onboard batteries had a limited capacity. In order to provide the necessary power, the Germans simply added a small windmill generator which was placed on the nose of the fuselage.

During its development, the Me 163B was tested with a series of different rocket engines. Ultimately, for the main production version, the HWK (Helmuth Walter Kiel) 109-509A rocket engine was chosen. This had a thrust power ranging from 100 kg (220 lbs) to 1,500 kg (3,300 lbs) or 1,700 kg (3,750 lbs), depending on the source.

The Me 163 initially used a fuel mixture of the T and Z-Stoff. T-Stoff consisted of a mix of hydrogen peroxide with oxyquinoline or phosphate. Z-Stoff was an aqueous solution of calcium permanganate. Z-Stoff would later be replaced with C-Stoff, which was a mix of methyl alcohol, hydrazine hydrate, and water. T-Stoff was stored in one main and two smaller auxiliary tanks. The smaller tanks were placed on both sides of the cockpit. The C-Stoff fuel tanks were placed in the Me 163’s wings. In order to help circulate the fuel, two centrifugal pumps were placed inside the Me 163.

These chemicals were extremely flammable and dangerous to handle and thus required safety procedures to be used properly. Before each flight, the fuel tanks had to be thoroughly washed with water. During refueling, the ground and the aircraft had to be sprayed with large amounts of water. If the safety procedures were not followed, there was a great risk of explosion, which happened on occasion. Due to the volatile nature of the fuel, any harsh landing with fuel still onboard offered a great chance of explosion as well, which led to a number of pilots being lost. Being highly corrosive and deadly to the touch, the maintenance crews and pilots had to wear specially designed protective clothing and gloves. Preserved photographs seem to indicate that these precautions were not always strictly adhered to. Given that the Me 163 operated in late 1944 were shortages of all kinds of equipment and materials were common, this should not come as a surprise. Still, handling the Me 163 fuel without this kind of protection was highly dangerous for the ground maintenance crews.

This Me 163 is in the process of being refueled. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
The fuel load consisted of 1040 liters (229 gallons) of T-Stoff and 492 liters of C-Stoff. The Me 163 was notorious for having only a limited powered flight endurance of 7 minutes and 30 seconds before its fuel reserve was spent. The actual flight could be much longer, however, since at sufficient altitude, the pilot could switch off the engine, and reactivate it as needed. After all rocket fuel had been spent, the pilot would then use the Me 163 as a glider to fly back to its base, or to any nearby German airfield.

The initial armament consisted of two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons, which were positioned in the wing roots. To increase the firepower these would be replaced with the stronger 30 mm MK 108 cannons. The Me 163B-0 series was armed with the weaker 20mm cannon while the Me 163 B-1 with the stronger 30mm cannon. While the Mk 108 had sufficient firepower to outright destroy or heavily damage enemy aircraft, it was plagued with low velocity. This combined with the extraordinary speed of the Me 163 made engaging targets difficult. For this reason, the Me 163 was tested with some experimental weapon systems. These include the 5.5 cm R4M air-to-air rocket, and the more revolutionary SG 500 Jagdfaust. This weapon consisted of five rockets usually placed under each wing, but on the Me 163 it was actually mounted vertically in the wings. It was provided with an optical sensor that activated its weapon load once it detected shadow, in theory, a shadow of an enemy plane. This was an automated weapon firing mechanism capable of friendly fire if not managed properly. But this situation would be rare given the fact that Me 163 was a short-range and unique interceptor that operated on its own without support from other aircraft.

The Me 163 was armed initially with two MG 151 and later with MK 108 cannons which were placed in the wing roots. The left-wing cannon muzzle brake is visible in this picture. The pilot in this picture is Heini Dittmar was a vital test pilot for the whole Me 163 project. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
The Me 163 utilized an auxiliary landing gear unit. This was mainly done to reduce the overall weight of the aircraft. Take-offs and landings were divided into two phases. For take-off, the Me 163 sat on a simple two-wheel dolly unit. Once at sufficient altitude the dolly was jettisoned from the bottom of the aircraft. On occasion, there were accidents involving this system, when, for example, the dolly refused to release from the aircraft, or even worse, it could bounce off the ground and strike the aircraft from below. Therefore the Germans worked on developing safer types of dollies. On landing, the Me 163 were to use a simple retractable landing skid, placed beneath the fuselage. In addition, to the rear of the aircraft, a small steerable tail wheel was added to help during take-off and landing.

Close-up view of the Me 163 landing skid. [Wiki]
The rear wheel was completely steerable and was added to help during take-off and landing. [warbirdphotographs.com]
 

Once at a sufficient height, the two-wheel dolly would jettison from the aircraft (in the left corner). While in theory, this should work without any issue, in some cases the dolly would simply bounce off the ground and hit the aircraft from below potentially causing damage to it. [luftwaffephotos.com]
While this takeoff and landing system offered the desired reduction in weight, it was not without its problems. Besides the issues previously mentioned, after a successful landing, the Me 163 was immobile and vulnerable to possible enemy attacks. To move it across the airfield the Germans designed and built a small specialized aircraft tug, called the Scheuchschlepper, especially for this task.

The Scheuchschlepper is specially designed to either tow or lift the Me 163 aircraft. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The Scheuchschlepper essentially fulfilled two roles. Initially, in the three-wheel configuration, it was to tow the Me 163 along the airfield, using its own dolly, to a designated takeoff position on the airfield (upper picture). After the Me 163 returned from a sortie, the Scheuchschlepper rear wheel would be replaced with a tracked platform which supported a cradle that fully supported the entire aircraft at its wing roots, to move the Me 163 for refueling and to be refitted on a takeoff dolly for the next flight. [wiki]

Operational Combat Use

The first operational unit that was to be equipped with the Me 163 was the Staffel of Jagdgeschwader 20./JG 1 located at Bad Zwischenahn. According to initial plans, this unit was to be formed at least by the end of 1943 or in early 1944 depending on the sources. In its inventory, there were some 12 fully operational Me 163 available. In addition, the Germans planned for the Me 163 to be positioned at a series of auxiliary airfields along Allied bomber routes. These would be fully equipped with spare parts, ammunition, and fuel, and positioned close to each other. This way, after an attack run, the Me 163 pilots could simply choose on which airfield to land, knowing that they could resupply without any problems.

But in reality, it took a few more months before the unit was actually officially formed at the start of March 1944. The development of a network of supporting airfields for the Me 163 was also never completed. The unit was by that time being renamed to Jagdgeschwader 1./JG 400 and stationed at Deelen. The commander of the unit was Oberleunant Rober Olejnik. They were relocated to Wittmundhafen as the airfield at Deelen proved unfit for the Me 163 aircraft’s operation.

The unit received its first operational Me 163 on the 10th of March, and seven more were to arrive by late April 1944. Concurrently, pilots were beginning to arrive from the EKdo 16 training unit. More test flights were carried out until mid-March 1944 when they had to be temporarily stopped. The reason for this was the lack of sufficient water supply which was essential for flushing the Me 163 fuel tanks in order to avoid any accidental explosion. To resolve this issue the unit personnel began drilling wells to collect water.

1./JG 400 was at this stage prohibited from making combat flights in order to avoid the attention of the Allies. However, the unit was permitted to conduct live firing trials during flights in order to test the Me 163 weapons systems. While generally successful, during sharp maneuvers at a speed of some 800 km/h, the ammunition belts proved prone to malfunction. While Olejnik suggested using a drum magazine, which was even tested successfully, his idea would not be adopted. On the 21st of April Olejnik had an accident during a forced landing where he spent some time in hospital thereafter.

In April and May, 1./JG 400 took delivery of a group of 10 aircraft, but one had to be returned to Klemm for modifications. That particular aircraft would be destroyed in an Allied bombing raid on Klemm. These were still prototype aircraft of the B pre-production version. The first Me 163B-0 series aircraft began to arrive from May 1944. At this time the Luftwaffe officials were determined to introduce the Me 163 to service. For this reason, the work on testing and experimenting with the Me 163 was stopped in favor of increasing the overall production of the Me 163 B-1.

With the expected increase in production, another unit, 2./J.G.400, was to be formed in May 1944. It was initially to be involved with crucial crew training. At that time, the size of both units was to be increased to 14 instead of 12 operational aircraft.

In July 1944, 1./JG 400 received permission to make combat flights. The Me 163 were then used in several failed attempts to intercept the Allied reconnaissance aircraft that made frequent flights over the base. At the same time, 1./JG 400 and other available Me 163 were being relocated to new positions at Brandis. The original plans to build numerous connected airfields were abandoned in favor of concentrating all available Me 163 in a few selected airfields. For this reason, Brandis would become the main key point for the Me 163 combat operations. It is from there that the Me 163s attempted to intercept a huge Allied air formation of some 766 bombers, supported with over 14 groups of cover fighters. The Me 163 did not engage the Allies probably due to the small number of available aircraft and the heavy fighter cover. By the end of July, the 1./JG 400 had only four operational aircraft out of 16 available.

In mid-August, Me 163s from this unit attacked an Allied B-17 bomber formation. While evading the fighter cover, they managed to heavily damage at least one bomber, killing two crew members. On the 16th of August, five Me 163 attacked a group of B-17s, and even managed to shoot down two of the bombers. The Germans lost one Me 163 during this engagement being hit by an Allied P-51. On the 24th of August, eight Me 163 managed to shoot down three more bombers while successfully evading enemy fighter cover.

While this aircraft managed to fly back to Allied Air Bases in England, the damage inflicted by the Me 163 cannons is evident here. The rear gunner position was completely destroyed while the right tail unit was heavily damaged. [. Ransom and H.H. Cammann Jagdgeschwader 400]
On the 8th of September, the Me 163 were officially taken into service. Given the previous success, of destroying 5 enemy bombers with a limited number of available Me 163, attempts were made to increase the number of squadrons with 20 aircraft. This was never achieved, as the Allies destroyed the vital C-Stoff fuel production facility at Kiel in August. On the 11th of September, a single Me 163 attacked and destroyed a lone B-17.

During these initial combat engagements with the Allied bombers, German pilots noticed that the Me 163s armament had a huge flaw. The weapons were difficult to use with the standard attack tactics of the aircraft. This involved getting the Me 163 high above the Allied bombers and then plunging down at them with a dive speed of 885-930 km/h (550-580 mph). Due to its main cannon’s low velocity, and in order to avoid collision with the target, the pilot had only a few seconds available to engage the enemy. This meant that only the highly experienced Me 163 pilot had a chance of hitting the enemy aircraft. The Me 163 also had another flaw, as it could be only used when the weather was clear.

At the end of September 1944, II./JG400 was formed, under the command of Lieutenant Peter Gerth (3/JG 400) and Oberleutnant Franz Woidich (4/JG 400). These units were renamed in November or December 1944 to 5. and 6./JG 400. During this time the 7/JG 400 was also formed, which was stationed at Stettin-Altdamm. In late 1944 II./JG400 was repositioned at Stargard. Few sorties were carried out mostly due to lack of fuel. In November 1944 a Me 163 engaged a British Mosquito, damaging it and forcing its crew to abandon the aircraft.

An Me 163B is engaging Allied B-17 bombers. The Me 163, despite its small number, proved to be a shock to the Allies pilots. Given that they could do little against it when the Me 163 was in its dive attack. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
Bad weather, lack of fuel and the rapid Allied advance on the West and East temporarily stopped all Me 163 combat operations. Combat operations began again in March of 1945. For example on the 16th March, an Me 163 managed to damage another Mosquito on a reconnaissance mission. While the Mosquito pilot managed to fly back to France, he was forced to crash land. A quite interesting Me 163 air victory was achieved on the 10th April 1945 while piloted by Leutnant Fritz Kelb. This aircraft was equipped with the experimental SG 500 Jagdfaust and managed to shoot down a British Lancaster bomber.

In late April I/.J.G.400 would be disbanded and its remaining few operational Me 163 were allocated to the J.G 7. The former I/.J.G.400 commander Wolfgang Spate, flying one of the remaining operational Me 163, managed to destroy 5 additional Allied bombers by the end of the war. The remaining ground personnel from the I/.J.G.400 were dispatched to the East to fight as infantry in Bavaria. There, they allegedly managed to destroy a Soviet tank using a MK 108 cannon removed from an Me 163, which was placed on makeshift undercarriage wheels, also taken from a Me 163. Given the chaotic state of Germany in 1945, it’s conceivable that the crew operating this gun may have found a way to make it work.

After the War

In May 1945 the Allied forces were rapidly advancing into Germany, capturing many airfields in the process. The crews of the Me 163 were often instructed to destroy their own aircraft to prevent them from falling into the enemy’s hands, but despite this, the Allies managed to capture a number of intact Me 163. This was the case of the II./J.G.400, which surrendered its 48 aircraft to the Allies on the 8th of MAy 1945. Of these, some 25 were transported back to the UK to be properly examined. The Americans also managed to capture a number of Me 163 in various working conditions across occupied Germany. The French Air Force received at least 4 Me 163 from the British after the war. The Soviets were not idle either as they also managed to acquire unknown numbers of the Me 163 including the rare two-seater trainer version Me 163S.

One of the 25 aircraft that were shipped to the UK by the English after the war. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]

Me-163C

In an attempt to increase the Me 163’s performance, Junkers cooperated with Dr. Lippisch. This resulted in the development of a modified Me 163 (based on the BV6 prototype) which was slightly larger, had greater fuel capacity and had two engines. In theory, during take-off, both engines would be activated until a certain altitude was reached. This project would eventually evolve into Me 163C. This aircraft was to have a redesigned fuselage and cockpit. It was to be powered by HWK 109-509A-2 and HWK 509C engines. By the end of the war, only a few incomplete airframes were built.

The Me 163B V6 was tested with two engine configurations It was to serve as the basis for the planned Me 163C version which was never completed, aside from a few airframes. [E. T. Maloney and U. Feist Messerschmitt Me 163]
An Me 163C illustration of how it may have looked given that only few uncompleted airframes were built. [walterwerke.co.uk]

Japanese Me-163B

In 1944, on Adolf Hitler’s instructions, a number of previously secret projects were to be shared with the Japanese. For this reason, several submarines were to transport parts of a disassembled Me 163B to Japan. While the one carrying the aircraft parts was sunk, the others that were carrying technical manuals managed to reach the German ally. Based on these, the Japanese managed to build a slightly modified copy of the Me 163. It was known in Japan as J8M1 Shuri (Rigorous Sword). During the first test flight, there was an accident in which the prototype was lost.

During negotiations between Japanese and German military officials, it was agreed to hand over to Japan a production license for many weapons including the Me 163 and Me 262. It was named Mitsubishi Ki-200, for the army, and J8M1 for the navy. The first Me 163B flew in July 1945 but was lost in an accident. Several more were built but the end of the war led to the end of the project.

While the Japanese experimented with their own copy of the Me 163, they did not manage to put it into production. [Wiki]

Production

The production of Me 163 was initially allocated to the Messerschmitt Regensburg factory. As it was overburdened with other projects, it would then be allocated to a much smaller Klemm factory where less than 60 aircraft were built in total. Some sources also mentioned that the production was carried out at the Dornier factory in Oberpfaffenhofen and the Bachmann von Blumenthal factory in Fürth. On the 1st of September 1944, the production of the Me 163 was officially handed over to Junkers. To avoid concentrating the production in one location, given the Allied bombing campaign, Junkers dispersed it across numerous smaller companies. Each of these was tasked with the delivery and production of parts before being finally assembled at Brandenburg-Briest. This, in theory, would increase the overall production and avoid potentially being targeted by Allied bombers. In reality, this backfired, as it caused huge confusion and chaos with the delivery of parts, and poor quality in production. Junkers managed to produce around 299 aircraft of this type by the end of the war.

The question of how many Me 163B were produced during the war is difficult to pinpoint precisely. The sources give different numbers, for example, most state around 400 of all models, of which some 370 were estimated to be of B-version, were built by the war’s end.

  • Me 163B-0 – Pre-production aircraft
  • Me 163B-1 – Main production aircraft
  • Me 163C – Experimental twin-engine modifications of the Me 163B aircraft but only few incomplete airframes were ever built

Operators

  • Germany – Built less than 400 aircraft of which only a smaller number were ever used in combat
  • Japan – Built a small number of slightly modified Me 163B by the end of the war.
  • Soviet Union – Several Me 163B and one Me 163S, captured, were used for many different tests after the war. The results of these tests will lead to the development and creation of several different projects (The Lavochkin I-162 and Mikoyan-Gurevich I-270).
  • UK – Managed to capture some 48 or so Me 163 aircraft of which 25 were sent to the UK for testing and evaluation.
  • France – Received four aircraft from the British after the war.
  • USA – Acquired an unknown number of Me 163 at the war’s end.
  • Australia and Canada – Both received one aircraft from the British after the war.

Surviving Aircraft

Today at least several Me 163 are known to still exist. One could be found in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, and one in the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa. Two are located in German museums: Luftwaffenmuseum at Berlin-Gatow and Deutsches Museum in Munich. Few more are in the USA Flying Heritage Collection, National Museum of the USAF, and Smithsonian National Air and Space Museums. And in the UK, RAF, Science and National Museum of Flight. The one captured by the Soviets existence is currently unclear.

Luftwaffe Museum at Berlin-Gatow [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]

Conclusion

The Me 163 was designed to be light and relatively cheap to build. This was certainly a strength if we take into account the huge shortage of resources and materials that the Germans endured during the later stages of the war. It also used special fuel that was specially designed for it, and thus there was no need for allocating the vital German fuel reserves to it.

With the two MK 108 cannons, the Me 163 was formidably armed given its small size. Just a few rounds of this cannon was enough to destroy or heavily damage an enemy target. Given its phenomenal speed during dive attack at the enemy formation, the Me 163 was essentially immune to enemy fighter cover and was unable to do much against it. That is until it ran out of fuel, at that point it was completely helpless and could only glide back to base.

On the other hand, it was overshadowed by a number of critical faults that were never corrected. For example, while the Me 163 was cheap, due to many reasons it was never produced in any sufficient numbers to cause any serious threat to the Allies. While the number of some 400 aircraft built seems significant, in reality only a dozen or so aircraft were ever used at any given time in combat. Most were used for training, either as gliders, or with an operational engine. Not all built aircraft would be delivered to the operational units, given the great confusion and chaos that the Germans were surrounded with from 1944 on. The fuel could never be produced in sufficient quantities. The problem with fuel was even complicated by the increase in production of the Me 163. Because of this the Germans simply had to reduce the number of aircraft that they used for combat, as there wasn’t enough fuel for all of them. The volatile nature of its fuel, occasionally lead to accidents and explosions, losing aircraft in the process, but more importantly the vital pilots. While its speed was great, its maximum burn time for the engine was only slightly longer than 7 minutes, however this capability could be stretched by the pilot’s ability to switch the engine on and off throughout the flight. Once the engine consumed all the fuel reserves, the aircraft essentially became a simple glider that was vulnerable to enemy fighter cover.

In the final analysis, the Me 163 theoretically possessed great potential for a rocket-powered aircraft. In reality, due to many delays, lack of unity in German aviation circles, and problems with its design and production, the Me 163 never managed to fulfill the role that its designer had intended for it. Its achilles heel was its dangerous and volatile fuel from which a number of planes and pilot lives were lost. Probably its greatest contribution was that it provided a good experimental platform for flight tests at transonic speeds. But due to its unusual design the Me 163 certainly deserves a great place in the history of the development of aviation.

Me 163B Specifications

Wingspans 30 ft 7 in / 9.32 m
Length 19 ft 2 in / 5.84 m
Height 9 ft 1 in / 2.77 m
Wing Area 199.4 ft² / 18.5 m²
Engine One HWL 509A rocket engine
Empty Weight 4,200 lbs / 1,900 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 9.060 lbs / 4.110 kg
Fuel Capacity 1,530 liters / 400 US gallons
Maximum Speed 600 mph / 960 km/h
Engine endurance 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Maximum Service Ceiling 39,700 ft / 12,100 m
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Two 20 mmMG 151
  • Or two 30 mm MK108 cannons

Gallery

Me 163BV 41 PK+QL 1./J.G. 400. This aircraft, painted in red and piloted by Major Wolfgang Spate, flew its first combat mission on May 14th, 1944.
Me 163B V45 PK+QP Erpobungskommando 16 at Bad Zwischenahn, May 1944
Me 163B V52 GH+UI ‘Yellow 1’ 7./JG 400, Stettin-Altdamm, October 1944
Me 163B
Me 163B

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed Jackson
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

SourcesMe

  • D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
  • W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet , Profile Publications
  • M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
  • M. Emmerling and J. Dressel (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
  • E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
  • S. Ransom and H.H. Cammann (2010) Jagdgeschwader 400, Osprey publishing.
  • D. Donald (1990) German aircraft of the WWII, Brown Packaging books ltd
  • D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • D. SHarp (2015) Luftwaffe secret jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
  • H. Morgan and J. Weal (1998) German Jet Aces of the World War 2 , Osprey Aerospace

Messerschmitt Me 163A Komet

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1943)
Rocket Powered Fighter – 10 Built

The first operational Me 163 prototype. [luftwaffephotos.com]
During the Second World War, the Luftwaffe experimented with a number of unorthodox designs. This included a handful of rocket-powered aircraft, like the Me 163. This particular aircraft was created thanks to the somewhat unexpected combination of two different projects. One was the airframe designed by Alexander Martin Lippisch, and the second was the rocket engine developed by Helmuth Walter. Following the testing of the first prototypes, a small series of some 10 aircraft were built that were mainly used for testing and training.

Alexander Martin Lippisch and Helmuth Walter

The history of Me 163 was closely related to the work and design of aircraft engineer Alexander Martin Lippisch and rocket development pioneer Helmuth Walter. Lippisch was somewhat unorthodox in his aircraft design work, to say the least. He was quite interested in the development of gliders and later aircraft that were either completely lacking a tail unit or of an all-wing configuration.

In 1921, Lippisch, together with a colleague, participated in the formation of the so-called Weltensegler GmbH (World Glider Ltd.) company. At that time, the Germans were prohibited from developing and building military aircraft. The Germans worked around this prohibition by instead focusing on gliders and civilian aircraft which if needed would be quickly converted for military use, and conducted secret experiments. While glider development may seem like a waste of effort, it actually provided the Germans with an excellent foundation on which they managed to develop the Luftwaffe during the 1930s, becoming a formidable force at the start of the war. In 1925, Lippisch joined Rhön Rossitten Gesellschaft RRG, where he soon began working on his first glider. It was named Storch I, and incorporated his unusual all-wing design.

Over the years, Lippisch also became interested in rocket technology. With assistance from Fritz von Opel, Lippisch managed to build a rocket-assisted glider. This contraption was flight tested in June 1928. This was actually the first-ever rocket-assisted flight in the world. While initially successful, the glider crash-landed, and caught fire. The plane would be lost in the accident.

This accident did not prevent Lippisch from experimenting with rocket-powered all-wing gliders. He focused his work on a powered version of his Storch V glider. For this project, he used an 8 hp DKW engine. His work was successful and he managed to find investors who were willing to provide funds for the project. This led to the development of the Delta I all-wing aircraft during the late 1920s, and it was followed by Delta II, III, and IV.

Lippisch Delta I prototype. [aviastar.org]
Following this, Lippisch joined the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut DFS, where he worked as an engineer. There, he developed a series of new glider designs, like the DFS 40. In 1938, the work of Helmuth Walter came to his attention. Walter was a young scientist who was highly interested in rocket propulsion. He managed to gain military funding, which greatly helped in his work. In 1937, he even managed to gain attention from the Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM (German Air Ministry). The RLM formed a Sondertriebwerke (Special Propulsion System Department) with the aim of experimenting with rocket engines in the aircraft industry. While this department was mainly focused on developing rocket engines for short take-off assistance, Walter desired a more prominent role in rocket propulsion. He intended to develop a rocket engine that could replace standard piston engines. Walter managed to develop such an engine, named Walter TP-1, which was fueled by the so-called ‘T-Stoff’ (hydrogen peroxide) and ‘Z-Stoff’ (water solution of either calcium or sodium permanganate). His engine design would be tested in 1939 on the He 176. However, the final results were disappointing and the engine did not go into production.

The DFS 194 predecessor

Lippisch and his design team began working on a new project incorporating the Walter rocket engine. Initially, the project was designated simply as Entwurf X (Design X), before being changed to 8-194 and finally DFS 194. Work on the prototype came to a temporary halt as the DFS lacked proper production capabilities to finish the aircraft. To keep the project going, the RLM instructed Messerschmitt to provide the necessary manpower and production support.

Given the small chance of progression in the DFS and in order to increase the speed of the project, Lippisch and his team moved to Messerschmitt’s base at Augsburg at the start of 1939. He also tried to negotiate with Heinkel for the production and development of the DFS 194 project, but nothing came of this. At Augsburg, Lippisch and his team worked in Messerschmitt’s newly formed Department L (which stands for Lippisch).

The DFS 194 prototype served as the base for the future Me 163. [nevingtonwarmuseum.com]
The first calculations were promising, as the plane would be able to reach a speed of 550 km/h (342 mph). Once completed the DFS 194, was transported to the secret German rocket test center at Peenemunde-West Airfield during the summer of 1939. During ground tests, it was noted that the engine installation was poorly designed and too dangerous to be actually flight tested. Instead, it was decided to use the design as a glider. Surprisingly, despite this huge setback, production orders for three prototypes were given. Initially, these were designated simply as Lippisch V1, V2, and V3, but would be renamed to Me 163A V1 to V3. This was mainly done to mask the true purpose of this aircraft, as this was the name given to an older, rejected Bf 163 Messerschmitt reconnaissance aircraft project.

The Me 163A Prototype Series

The RLM was not satisfied with the general design of the engine compartment initially tested on the DFS 194. They requested that for further Me 163 development, it would need to be substantially changed. In addition, the engine was to be replaced with the Walter R II-203 engine. This engine was to have a manually regulated thrust ranging from 150-750 kg of thrust (330-1,650 lbs). The engine compartment was also to be completely redesigned in order to have easy access to the main components for maintenance.

Following the start of the Second World War in September 1939, the work on the Me 163 slowed down but still went on. The first unpowered flight by the Me 163 V1 prototype, in some sources marked as V4, (KE + SW) was carried out during early 1941. This prototype was towed by a Bf 110 heavy fighter. Once at a sufficient altitude, the V1 was released. During the test flight, the pilot, Heini Dittmar, managed to reach a speed of some 850 km/h (528 mph) during a dive. While this was a great starting point for the project, Hitler, following military victories in Poland and in the West, ordered that funds for such projects be reduced. In the case of the Me 163, this meant that only two more additional prototypes were to be built.

Side view of the Me 163 V1 (V4).[luftwaffephotos.com]
In May 1941, a wooden mock-up of a Me 163 was completed, which was then transported to the Walter Werke. Once there, it was to be equipped with the R II-203 engine. Once the first prototype was fully completed and equipped with this engine, the first tests were carried out at Peenemunde-West in August 1941. The test pilot was once again Heini Dittmar. After a series of test flights that lasted from August to September 1941, the Me 163 prototype showed promising results. The pilot managed to reach top speeds of 800 km/h (500 mph). At this time, the second V2 prototype was also equipped with a rocket engine and used in various test flights. Ernst Udet, Director-General of the Luftwaffe, was highly impressed with its performance. He even gave orders that an additional 8 prototypes were to be built, bringing the total to 13 at this time.

Once the prototype was equipped with the R II-203 engine, the first tests were carried out in August 1941. These proved to be highly successful, which led to an increase in interest for the Me 163 project. [Spate & Bateson]
At the start of October, Heini Dittmar said that, in order to fully test the Me 163’s flying performance, the fuel load had to be increased. On his personal insistence, the V3 (CD + IM) prototype, was fully fueled. This is according to W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet). Other sources like M. Griehl (X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945) this aircraft was described as being the V8 prototype instead. On the 2nd of October 1941, he took to the sky, initially towed by a Bf 110. At an altitude of 3,960 meters (13,000 ft), Dittmar activated the engine. After reaching a speed of 965 km/h (600 mph), he lost control of the aircraft as the result of compressibility effects. The prototype began a rapid descent toward the ground. He then switched off the engine, which enabled him to regain control, after which he landed safely on the ground. Later analysis of the flight indicated that Dittmar managed to reach a speed of 1002 km/h (623 mph). As the whole project was undertaken under great secrecy, this success was not published at the time.

The Me 163 in the middle was the aircraft that Heini Dittmar flew when he reached a speed of 1002 km/h (623 mph). [Spate & Bateson]
Following these events, the Me 163 project got a temporary boost in prominence, with Herman Goring himself placing great interest in it. Ernst Udet additionally placed an order for 70 new Me 163 airframes together with engines for the B version in October 1941. A month later, things changed dramatically for Me 163 after Udet committed suicide. His replacement, Erhard Milch, was less interested in unconventional aircraft designs, like the Me 163. Work on the project nevertheless continued.

A breakup with Messerschmitt

While the Me 163 project was underway, relations soured between Willy Messerschmitt and Lippisch. Messerschmitt personally disliked the Me 163, partly due to its unique overall design, but also given that he was not involved in its development. By 1943, Lippisch left Augsburg and moved to Vienna. While not physically present in the design bureau, he tried to maintain contact with the Me 163 development team at a distance.

In the meantime, Messerschmitt was unwilling to be involved in the Me 163 project, under the excuse that his company was already overburdened with the production of other aircraft. For this reason, the production of further Me 163 aircraft was instead given to Klemm Leichtflugzeugbau, a relatively small aircraft company owned by Hans Klemm.

Production of the A-0 series

While the V1 prototype was mainly used for initial testing, the V2 would serve as a base for the A-0 series. An initial order for ten A-0 aircraft was previously given to Messerschmitt, but only seven were completed. The remaining three aircraft were actually completed by the Klemm factory. These were all completed from 1941 to 1942. The number of prototypes built is not clear in the sources. The numbers range from 1 to 8 prototype aircraft. According to S. Ransom and H.H. Cammann (Jagdgeschwader 400), while three prototypes were meant to be built initially, not all met the requested specifications, except one, which received the V4 designation. Author M. Griehl (Jet Planes of the Third Reich) on the other hand noted that the V4 was the first prototype. He explained that the previous three prototypes were actually related to the initial Bf 163 reconnaissance project that was rejected.

In-Service

Of the 10 built Me 163 A-0 planes, not all were equipped with fully operational engines. A number of them were instead operated as unpowered gliders. This version was not intended for combat operations and was mainly used for crew training and further experimentation.

At the end of November 1943, the V6 aircraft was lost in an accident with the loss of the pilot. In another accident at the end of 1943, another pilot died when the engine stopped working during a takeoff. While the pilot tried to turn back for a landing, having limited control, the aircraft hit a ground station radio antenna before hitting the ground and exploding. It was discovered in an investigation that the undercarriage dolly bounced off the ground much higher than usual, and struck the aircraft, damaging the rocket engine. Some prominent pilots, like Hanna Reitsch, actually had the chance to flight-test the Me 163 aircraft. At least one aircraft was still operational by February 1945 and was used for testing the 55 mm R4M rockets by Erprobungkommando 16.

Me 163A at Peenemunde, 1943. [Ransom & Cammann]
At least one Me 163A survived up to February 1945. It was used by Erprobungkommando 16 (Eng. testing or evaluation-coomand) in Silesia to test the 55 mm R4M rockets. This unit had the primary function of testing and examining the newly built Me 163 and helping in the development and improvement of its overall design. Besides these, no other armament was installed on the Me 163 A series. Source Source: W. Spate and R. P. Bateson Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet

Technical Characteristics

The Me 163A was a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing, short fuselage, mixed-construction tailless aircraft. The Me 163A fuselage was built using metal, divided into three sections, the front cockpit, central fuel tank, and the aft engine compartment.

The wooden wings had a very simple design consisting of two spars covered in thick fabric. If needed, the wings could be detached from the fuselage for transport. At the wings’ trailing edges ailerons were placed, which the pilot during flight used for pitch and roll. The wing area was 17.5 m² (57.4 ft²). The tail did not have the standard horizontal stabilizers, instead of having a single large vertical stabilizer. Despite this, no major problems during flights were ever noted on the Me 163A.

For the pilot to enter the cockpit he was provided with a ladder placed on the left side of the aircraft. The cockpit canopy opened upwards. Overall visibility was poor, and later versions would have an improved canopy. While it did offer some improvements for the pilot’s line of sight, it would not resolve the overall poor visibility of the aircraft. Given that the Me 163A was based on a DFS 194 glider, it was equipped with minimal instrumentation needed for the aircraft to be flown.

View of the Me 163A’s cockpit interior. [Spate & Bateson]
The Me 163A was powered by a single HWK R II 203 rocket engine, which gave 750 kg (1,650 lb) of thrust. The main fuel consisted of a mix of T and Z Stoff. These two chemicals were highly reactive, volatile, and prone to explosion. To avoid this, extensive preparation and security measures were necessary. The maximum speed this engine achieved was some 850 km/h (530 mph). This high speed was achieved to some extent thanks to the aircraft’s low weight. The empty weight was 1,140 kg (2,513 lbs) while the maximum takeoff weight was 2,200 kg (4,850 lbs).

Interestingly, in order to save weight, the Me 163 did not have a conventional landing gear unit. Instead, during take-off, it was provided with a specially designed two-wheel dolly. It would be jettisoned upon take-off. When landing on the airfield, the Me 163 used a retractable skid located beneath the fuselage.

Despite the A series having not been designed to have any weapon systems, at least one Me 163A was tested with the installation of the 5.5 cm (2.16 in) R4M air-to-air rockets.

Production Versions

  • DSF 194 – Prototype whose further development led to the creation of the Me 163
  • Me 163 Prototype Series– Prototype aircraft
  • Me 163A-0 – 10 Pre-production aircraft built

Conclusion

The Me 163A series, despite its unusual appearance and overall design, proved to be a rather successful aircraft. It had some shortcomings, mostly regarding its dangerous fuel load. Upon completion of successful testing, order for the Me 163B version was given.

Me 163A Specifications

Wingspans 8.85 m / 29 ft 3 in
Length 5.25 m / 17 ft 2 in
Height 2.16 m / 7 ft 8 in
Wing Area 17.5 m² / 57.4 ft²
Engine One HWK R II 203 rocket engine with 750 kg (1,650 lbs) of thrust
Empty Weight 1,140 kg / 2,513 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight 2,200 kg / 4,850 lbs
Maximum Speed 850 km/h / 530 mph
Crew 1 pilot

Gallery

Me 163A – Illustrated by Carpaticus

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Carpaticus

Sources

  • D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
  • W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet , Profile Publications
  • M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
  • M. Emmerling and J. Dressel (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
  • E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
  • S. Ransom and H.H. Cammann (2010) Jagdgeschwader 400, Osprey publishing.
  • D. Donald (1990) German aircraft of the WWII, Brown Packaging books ltd
  • D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • M. Griehl (1998) Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Monogram Aviation Publication
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book

Heinkel He 112

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1935)
Fighter – 66 to 100 Built

He 112 the unsuccessful competitor of the Bf 109. [luftwaffephotos.com]
Prior to the Second World War, the German Luftwaffe was in need of a new and modern fighter that was to replace the older biplane fighters that were in service. While four companies responded to this request, only the designs from Heinkel and Messerschmitt were deemed sufficient. The Heinkel He 112 was an especially good design that offered generally acceptable flight characteristics and possessed a good basis for further improvements. While it was in some regards superior to the Messerschmitt, ultimately it would not be accepted for service, and only 100 or so aircraft would be built. These would be mainly sold abroad, with those remaining in Germany used for various testing and evaluation purposes.

History

By the early 1930s the Heinkel company was a well-established aircraft manufacturer. It was rapidly expanding, mostly thanks to the export of some of its aircraft designs. The Heinkel company also had a good relationship with the German Air Ministry RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM), which entered a series of different aircraft production contracts with Heinkel.

At this time the German Air Force was in the process of a huge reorganization, and the development of new military aircraft. Quite of interest was the development of a new fighter aircraft that would replace older Arado Ar 68 and Heinkel He 51 biplanes that were in service. For this reason, in May 1934 the RLM issued a competition for a new and modern fighter plane that could reach speeds of 400 km/h (250 mph) at an altitude of 4,000 meters (19,685 feet). Initially, three companies were contacted, including Arado, Focke-Wulf, and Heinkel. Interestingly, and somewhat ironically as it later turned out, Messerschmitt, a relatively small company at that time, was also contacted by the RLM.. All four companies were to build three prototypes of their design, which were to be tested before a final decision was to be made.

Arado and Focke-Wulf completed their prototypes, the Ar 80 and Fw 159 respectively, by the end of 1934. The Heinkel He 112 and Messerschmitt Bf 109 prototypes took a bit longer to complete, which was completed in September 1935. The He 112’s design was greatly inspired by the He 70 passenger plane, which would later be modified for military purposes. Heinkel engineers used the He 70’s the overall design as the basis for the He 112, mainly regarding its wings and the fuselage construction.

The inspiration for the He 112 was the He 70. While the He 70 had good general performance it would not be employed by the German in any major military role. [Wik]
Once all four companies submitted their designs, evaluation trials were carried out at the German test centers located at Rechlin and Travemunde starting in October of 1935. After some initial testing, both the Ar 80 and Fw 159 experienced too many mechanical breakdowns and even crashes, which ultimately led to both being rejected. The He 112 and Bf 109 on the other hand proved to be more promising designs. Interestingly due to shortages of domestically built engines, both aircraft were initially powered by Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines.

The He 112 V1 (D-IADO) was powered by a 695 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel Mk. II engine during trials. Once the aircraft was completed, it was first flight-tested by Heinkel’s own test pilot Gerhard Nitschke. While he gave a generally positive review of its performance, he also noted the aircraft’s drag was a bit higher than expected. However, given that its overall performance was deemed sufficient for the competition, Heinkel decided to proceed with the project. This prototype arrived at the designated test center of Travemunde by the end of 1935. During a series of flight tests, the maximum speed achieved was 466 km/h (290 mph).

The He 112 V1 first prototype, used for the trials held at Rechlin and Travemunde. [luftwaffephotos.com]
It was clear that the RLM would never accept an aircraft powered by a foreign engine. The Heinkel engineers began working on the second prototype that was to be equipped with a domestically built engine. The V2 (D-IHGE) was powered by a 640 hp Junkers Jumo 210C liquid cooled engine. The first test flight was made in November 1935 by another Heinkel test pilot Kurt Heinrich. The V2 was more or less just a copy of the first prototype.

Construction of Additional Prototypes

During the series of test flights, the performance of the two competitors was quite similar, with some minor advantages between them. In the case of the Bf 109, it was slightly faster, while the He 112 had lower wing loading. In addition, the He 112 had a better design and safer landing gear unit.

As the V2 was flight tested at Heinkel, the initial results of the competition began to arrive. The Heinkel engineers were keen on finding a way to overcome the Bf 109’s slightly faster speed. So the Gunter brothers began to redesign the V2 wings. Walter and Siegfried were at that time, probably Heinkel aircraft designers (for example the He 51 biplane is one of their designs.). Their calculation showed that a reduction in the wing profile would provide an additional boost to the maximum speed by at least 24 to 29 km/h (15 to 18 mph). This modification reduced the overall size of the wings, but led to another problem. Namely, the wing loading exceeded that of the RLM commission requirement. Given that the aircraft speed was increased, Heinkel officials deemed that it was a necessary compromise that would not affect the general rating of the aircraft.

The V2 prototype reached the Travemunde test center sometime in early 1936. In February 1936 the V1 and V2 prototypes were moved to the Rechlin Testing Center. In early March, a series of dive tests were carried out. In one of these, the V2 was seriously damaged, luckily the pilot survived the crash. After a few weeks of repairs with Heinkel, the aircraft was quickly put back to use. But in another landing crash, it was completely destroyed and listed as irreparable. Once again the test pilot managed to escape without any injury. This accident, while it did not prevent Heinkel’s involvement in the new fighter competition, it certainly affected the commission’s opinion on the He 112 at least to some extent.

The last of the prototypes intended for the competition was the V3 (D-IDMO). While initially, it was more similar to the first prototype, it received the wing modification implemented on the V2. Additional changes include increasing the rear tail unit size, adding a new radiator, installation of three (or two depending on the source) 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns. In addition, it would later receive a new enclosed cockpit with a sliding canopy.

Side view of the V3 (D-IDMO) prototype. [luftwaffephotos.com]

Further Competition Developments

Despite the series of improvements to their He 112 design, the tide was slowly but surely turning toward the Bf 109. The RLM commission was getting somewhat frustrated with Heinkel’s constant changes to the design, and the previously mentioned crash did not help matters. In March, it was already being discussed to proclaim the Bf 109 as a winner. The Germans were also informed by the Abwehr intelligence service that the British were developing and preparing for the production of the new Spitfire. RLM officials were simply not willing to risk taking a chance on an aircraft design that could not quickly be put into production, as the Bf 109 was.

While the He 112 project would have ended there, thanks to Heinkel’s strong political connections, an extension of the trials was agreed to. Both companies were to build additional 15 0-series aircraft to be used for testing. The production was to commence in October 1936 with the last aircraft to be completed by May the following year.

Heinkel’s first completed aircraft, which was included in the previously mentioned contract, was actually a He 112 V4 (D-IDMY) prototype which was ready in June 1936. The V4 received a new and stronger 680 hp Jumo 210D that was equipped with a supercharger. In addition, it had an open cockpit, besides which it was in essence a copy of the V3. Possibly anticipating the contract for additional aircraft, Heinkel began working on additional airframes in advance. This led to the completion of the V5 (D-IIZO) and V6 (D-IQZE) prototypes in July of 1936. The V6 was intended as a replacement for the lost V2 aircraft. This aircraft was powered by a Jumo 210C engine. The last aircraft of the prototype series was the V8 (D-IRXO) powered by a Daimler DB 600A engine. It was primarily intended to serve as test aircraft. All of these previously mentioned prototypes were to serve as the forerunners of the He 112 A-0 series.

The V4 prototype before it received any markings. [luftwaffephotos.com]
Following more test flights by numerous Luftwaffe pilots, the Bf 109 was receiving more and more positive reviews from pilots that had the opportunity to fly them. The Bf 109, while proving to have excellent flying performance, was also cheaper and easier to build than the He 112. Given the fact that the Germans were attempting to accelerate the production of the new fighter, this was seen as a huge advantage over the He 112.

In late 1937 Ernst Udet, who was at that time the director of the RLM technical development sector, visited the Heinkel company Marienehe Test Site. There he informed Heinkel that his He 112 was rejected as a fighter. Possibly to compensate for the huge investment in the fighter project, Heinkel company was permitted to export the He 112.

Heavy Fighter Role

Parallel with the development of the first fighter aircraft, the RLM was also interested in the so-called Zerstorer (heavy fighter). This aircraft was to be armed with cannons and machine guns. Heinkel proposed that the V6 be armed with a 2 cm MG C/30L cannon placed in the centerline of the engine. According to D. Bernard the V6 was designated for further testing, under real combat conditions, and would be sent to Spain at the end of 1936. It would be lost there in a landing accident in July 1937. Ernst Heinkel was likely dissatisfied with this outcome, as Messerschmitt once again triumphed as its Bf 110 would be accepted for this role.

The A and B series

Despite being inferior to the Bf 109, the Heinkel company continued working on the He 112, improving its design, in the hopes of gaining the attention of the RLM. The construction of the limited production He 112 A-0 series was still underway, with a total of only six aircraft (D-ISJY, D-IXHU, D-IZMY, and D-IXEU) built. The last two aircraft of the A-0 series received no registration numbers, as they were intended to be sold to Japan. The remaining four aircraft were used for various proposals. For example, the A-01 aircraft was to be used as a base for the proposed He 112 C-0 aircraft carrier modification, which was never implemented. The A-02 and A-04 were used for further flight tests. The A-03 was mainly used as an exhibit aircraft for various European aviation exhibitions, which were quite common before the war.

The A-series was built in small numbers and mostly employed for testing various equipment and design changes. [luftwaffephotos.com]
The A-series was built in small numbers, as Heinkel’s attention moved to the B-0 series instead. The B-0 series was quite different from the previous version, as it introduced a number of changes and modifications. Some of which included a new cockpit design, more powerful armament, changes to the engine ventilation design, fuselage and engine cowling changes, and other modifications.. The forerunner of the B series was the He 112 V7 prototype, which included many modifications previously mentioned.

Following the unsuccessful attempt to gain the Luftwaffe’s attention Heinkel and his team of engineers began working on redesigning the He 112. The basis for the next version, the He 112B-0, the V7 (D-IKIK) was reused. It incorporated a newly redesigned wings and tail unit, and was to be powered by a 1,000 hp Daimler DB 600A engine. Heinkel officials and Hertel himself were hoping that this new version could potentially persuade RLM to reconsider the He 112. Following it was the V9 (D-IGSI), which was powered by a weaker 680 hp Jumo 210E engine. In the following months, work on the B-series was intensified with many different engines being tested (Jumo 210E, 210G etc). Ultimately meager export sales, and the RLM’s rejection of the He 112 by the start of 1939 forced Heinkel to finally terminate the project.

The B-series was in many aspects a complete redesign from the previous series. Including the introduction of a new tail unit, and part of the fuselage, to name a few [luftwaffephotos.com]

Rocket Engine Tests

Prior to the Second World War, the Germans were quite interested in the experimentation and the development of rocket technology. Various tests conducted by Dr. Wernher von Braun were carried out at the Kummersdorf-West test centers. While this research eventually led to the creation of the infamous V-2 rocket, the development of rocket engines that were intended to possibly be installed in aircraft is often overlooked. Ernst Heinkel was quite a supporter of this project and even donated a number of aircraft to be used as testbeds for the potential new engine. He even donated a few pre-production series He 112 for this research.

A rocket engine was installed in the rear of the fuselage, with the engine nozzle being placed just beneath the tail unit. During the first ground test, the engine exploded, destroying the aircraft (He 112 A-01) in the process. Another He 112 V3 aircraft was outfitted with the rocket engine and was being prepared to conduct its first test flight. As the pilot was approaching this aircraft, the rocket engine exploded again. Somewhat miraculously the pilot survived with no major injuries. While again the aircraft was lost, another aircraft that was built as a replacement would receive the same markings.

The V3 prior to the start of testing. Which would spectacularly explode shortly after the picture was taken. [luft46.com]
Von Braun requested another aircraft which Henkel provided, this was the He 112 V8. During these trials it received a slightly altered designation V8/U. The plane was to ascend on its own piston engine. Then at a certain height, it was to fire the rocket engine wich was placed to the rear of the fuselage for a 30-second burst. This flight test was carried out in April 1937 and was more than successful. During the short burst, the plane reached a speed of 460 km/h (286 mph). The He 112 V8 was returned to Heinkel but two more aircraft (H7/U and A-03) would be donated for the rocket research program. The V8 would be eventually sent to Spain in 1937 and its final fate is unknown. Thanks to the He 112, the German rocket engine program gained a huge boost, which would eventually lead to the He 176 and later Me 163.

Technical Characteristics

The He 112 was an all-metal single-engine fighter. The monocoque fuselage consisted of a metal base covered by riveted stress metal sheets. The wing was slightly gulled, with the wingtips bending upward, had the same construction as the fuselage with a combination of the metal construction covered in stressed metal sheets.

During its development life, a great number of different types of engines were tested on the He 112. For the main production version, He 112 B-2, the 700 hp Jumo 210G liquid-cooled engine was used. With this engine the maximum speed achieved was 510 km/h (317 mph). For the Jumo engine, an all-metal three blade variable pitch propeller was used. The He 112 had a fuel capacity of 101 liters in two wing mounted tanks, with a third 115 liter tank placed under the pilot seat

The landing gear were more or less standard in design. They consisted of two larger landing wheels that retracted into the wings, and one smaller wheel placed at the rear. The He 112 landing gear was wide enough to provide good ground handling and stability during take-off or landing.

The pilot cockpit received a number of modifications. Initially, it was open with a simple windshield placed in front of the pilot. Later models had a sliding canopy that was either partially or fully glazed.

While the armament was changed during the He 112’s production, the last series was equipped with two 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns and two 2 cm Oerlikon MG FF cannons. The ammunition load for each machine gun was 500, with 60 rounds each for the cannons. If needed, two bomb racks could be placed under the wings, with one per side. Each could carry one 10 kg anti-personnel bomb. For the acquisition of targets, the pilot used the Revi 3b gun sight.

Brief Service with the Luftwaffe

Despite losing to the Bf 109, Heinkel was permitted, after some lobbying from Ernst Heinkel himself, to send one He 112 to Spain for combat evaluation. Once it reached Spain during the end of 1936, the He 112 was allocated to the Experimental Fighter Unit 88 which was part of the Condor Legion. In Spain, it was mostly used against ground targets. One of its greatest successes happened during an attack on the Republican-held Cesena train station. The pilot, Obereutnant Balthasar, made three attack runs in which he managed to destroy an armored car and a tank. The aircraft would be lost in a landing accident that happened in July 1937. Two more prototypes would be sent to Spain during 1938, the V8 and V9. The V8 was heavily damaged during initial trials and spent some four months in repairs. The V9 had a better service life, as it was used in a number of ground attacks. Both aircraft would be returned to Germany by the end of 1938.

Only a small number of He 112 (less than 20) saw limited service with the Luftwaffe in 1938 [luftwaffephotos.com]
In 1938 a possible conflict with Czechoslovakia and the Western Allies, France, and the United Kingdom over the dispute caused huge concern in the RLM. The Luftwaffe was simply not ready for open war, as it was not yet fully equipped. For this Reason, the RLM instructed that all available aircraft be relocated to the Luftwaffe to temporarily boost their readiness numbers. An unknown number of He 112 B, taken from the Japanese purchase order, were temporarily pressed into service. These were allocated to the IV./JG 132 station at Oschatz. In November they relocated to Mahrish-Trubau. Once the crisis was over, the aircraft were replaced with the Bf 109. The pilots that had the chance to fly them gave a generally positive review of their flying performance.

Export Attempts

As mentioned earlier, the He 112 was permitted to be exported abroad if there were any interested customers. This order was officially given at the end of January 1938. A number of countries such as Austria, Japan, Romania, and Finland showed interest, but only a few actually managed to procure aircraft.

Negotiation with Austria

During November 1937 an Austrian delegation visited Heinkel with a desire to enter into a purchase agreement for acquiring 42 He 112B aircraft. Due to lack of funds, this order was reduced to 36 at the start of 1938. Eventually, nothing came of this as the Germans simply took over Austria in March 1938.

In Japanese Hands

At the end of 1937, a Japanese delegation made a contract with Heinkel for purchasing 30 He 112B’s. If these proved to be satisfactory, an additional order for 100 would be placed. This order included 2 He 112 A-0, 6 B-0, and 21 B-1 and the V11 prototype. After a series of tests, the Japanese were not impressed with the He 112 and did not accept it for service. The experimental He 112 C aircraft carrier version was also sold to Japan, according to D. Bernard.

J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay provide a completely different story. According to them, Japan expressed an interest in buying 30 He 112B-0 aircraft, with the first group of 12 aircraft arriving in Japan in 1938. While the remaining 18 were to arrive soon after, the Sudeten crisis changed the plan. The Germans were preparing for a potential war with Czechoslovakia and needed every possible aircraft. So they requisitioned the aircraft intended for Japan. Once the crisis was over, Heinkel offered to ship these delayed aircraft to Japan, which rejected the offer. The Japanese were disappointed with the He 112 B-0 performance and decided to cancel the purchase. The sources also conflicted with each other if the He 112 in Japanese service ever saw action.

In Spain

Some three He 112 were tested during the Spanish civil war. Thanks to this, Francisco Franco’s forces had some insight into the He 112’s performance. Based on this, Spain initially asked for 12 aircraft. The order would be eventually increased to 18 aircraft. Interestingly, Spanish pilots managed to shoot down an Allied P-38 that likely accidentally entered the Spanish air space while flying the He-112B-0 in 1943.

He 112 in Spain’s service. [luftwaffephotos.com]

In Romania

Romania initially asked for 24 aircraft, with the order later increased to 30 He 112 aircraft. These arrived from June to October (or September) 1939. The Romanian He 112 would be used during 1941 against the Soviet Union. The following year, all would be allocated for pilot training.

Romanian He 112 even saw service against the Soviet Forces during 1941. [luftwaffephotos.com]

Hungary

The last nation that operated the He 112 was Hungary. In September 1937 a delegation from Hungary visited Heinkel where they inspected the He 112. This delegation was satisfied with what they saw and ordered 36 aircraft, but also showed interest in a licensed production. Ultimately the RLM rejected this offer and only one aircraft ever reached Hungary.

Other Unsuccessful Negotiations

Prior to the war, Heinkel organized a series of demonstrations of the He 112B to various interested European air forces. These include Yugoslavia, The Netherlands, Finland, Turkey, and Switzerland. While many of these parties were interested, for various reasons, chiefly budget constraints, nothing came of these negotiations.

Production

The production numbers of the He 112 are not clear and vary widely depending on the source. According to F.A.Vajda and P. Dancey the production run was as follows with 3 in 1935, 11 in 1936, 13 in 1937, 30 in 1938, and 46 in 1939 for a total of 103 aircraft. Author D. Berliner mentioned a number of 66 aircraft being built. Author Duško N. gave a number of 68 aircraft of all versions being built. D. Bernard gave us a number of 98 aircraft. While C. Chants mentioned a number of 110 aircraft.

Prototype and Production Versions

  • He 112 V1-V – Prototype series used for testing of various engines and overall design
  • He 112 A – Planed main production version, which was not adopted
  • He 112 B – Extensively modified versions of preceding models
    • He 112 B-1 – Equipped with a Jumo 210E engine
    • He 112 B-2 – Equipped with a Jumo 210G engine
    • He 112 B-3 – Proposed version powered by a Daimler DB 601A engine, none built
  • He 112 C – A proposed aircraft carrier version, only one prototype was built and sold to Japan
  • He 112 E – Intended as an export version, based on the B series
  • He 112 U – Propaganda aircraft, which was actually based on the He 100

Operators

  • Germany – Briefly operated a small number of the He 112
  • Japan – Operated some 12 to 30 aircraft mainly for testing
  • Spain – Operated less than 20 He 112 aircraft
  • Romania – Purchased some 24 to 30 He 112, which saw combat action against the Soviet Union
  • Hungary – Purchased one He 112
  • Austria – Planned to acquire 42 He 112, but nothing came from this as it was annexed by Germany.

Conclusion

The He 112 during its brief service life was shown to be a good fighter aircraft. It proved to be a worthy competitor to the Bf 109. It’s quite difficult to pinpoint the exact circumstances that ultimately led to its downfall. Sources often mention that one of the main reasons was political involvement, which favored Messerschmitt. Political quarrels in Germany often influenced decision to adopt aircraft during the war. This factor was surely at play when the fate of the He 112 was decided. But a more practical answer was simply that the Bf 109, while shown to have good flying performance, was also cheaper and easier to build than the He 112. Given that at that time, the Luftwaffe was in the middle of a huge reorganization and rearmament effort, conditions certainly favored the Bf 109. The He 112’s constant design changes did not help either.

He 112B-2 Specifications

Wingspans 29 ft 10 in / 9.1 m
Length 30 ft 2 in / 9.22 m
Height 12 ft 7 in / 3.82 m
Wing Area 180 ft² / 17 m²
Engine One 700 hp Jumo 210G liquid-cooled engine
Empty Weight 3,570 lbs / 1,620 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 4,960 lbs / 2,250 kg
Climb Rate to 6 km In 10 minutes
Maximum Speed 317 mph / 510 km/h
Cruising speed 300 mph / 484 km/h
Range 715 miles / 1,150 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 31,170 ft / 9,500 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • Two 20 mm cannons and two machine guns 7.92 mm  machine guns

Illustrations by Godzilla

He 112 as seen during its brief service with the Luftwaffe
An alternate livery of the Luftwaffe He 112
He 112 in Romanian Service
He 112 in Romanian Service
He 112 v5 as it was tested by Japan

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Godzilla

Sources

  • Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemаčaka. Beograd.
  • D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • D. Berliner (2011) Surviving fighter aircraft of World War two, Pen and sword
  • F.A.Vajda and P. Dancey (1998) German aircraft industry and production 1933-1945, Airlife Publishing Ltd.
  • J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
  • D. Bernard (1996) Heinkel He 112 in Action, Signal Publication
  • R.S. Hirsch, U, Feist and H. J. Nowarra (1967) Heinkel 100, 112, Aero Publisher
  • C. Chants (2007) Aircraft of World War II, Grange Books.

 

Arado Ar 234A Blitz

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1940)
Jet Powered Bomber & Reconnaissance Aircraft – 8 Prototypes Built 

The Ar 234 A V6 (GK+IW) prototype. [Warbirdphotographs]

Following a request from the German Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium – RLM), in 1940, German aircraft manufacturer Arado began working on a new multi-purpose jet powered plane. Arado’s work would lead to the development of the advanced and sophisticated Ar 234 aircraft. During 1943, a small series of eight prototypes would be built and used mainly for testing, but some saw operational service.

History

During the spring of 1940, Arado was contacted by RLM officials with a request to design a completely new multi-purpose jet aircraft to be used for bombers and for reconnaissance duties. This aircraft was to be powered by new jet engines which were under development by Junkers and BMW. Interestingly, besides the request that it should be able to reach the British naval base at Scapa Flow in Northern Scotland, no other performance requirements were specified. The sources do not specify the precise base of operation for these reconnaissance missions. Geographically, the closest territories under German control were south Norway and Denmark, although it is possible that these aircraft would have had to operate from air bases in the occupied territories in Western Europe, either from France, the Netherlands or Belgium. This would require an estimated range of over 900 km. In essence, the RLM gave Arado free reign in terms of the overall design and its performance. If the prototypes built were satisfactory, an initial order for 50 aircraft was to be given.

Work on this new design was given to engineer Rüdiger Kosin, as Arado’s Technical Director, Walter Blume, was uninterested in this project. When work started, it received the Arado Erprobungs (experimental) 370 designation. During the initial phases, there were several different proposals about the number of crewmen, wing size, weapon configuration and the number of engines. After nearly a year, in October 1941, the first proper project, designated the E 370/IVa, was completed. This proposal was mainly intended to be used as a reconnaissance aircraft and was to be equipped with camera equipment. It was to be powered by two BMW P 3302 turbo jet engines. The armament was quite modest and consisted of only one 13 mm MG 131 machine gun. As this aircraft was to operate from short-length airfields, the designers came up with the idea to use a wooden retractable skid for landing, which was to be mounted beneath the fuselage.

E 370/IVa drawings. [Smith & Creek, Arado 234 A]

The project was presented to RLM officials in late October of 1941. They were satisfied and gave permission for the production of 50 aircraft. During the evaluation, it received the 8-234 designation. Unfortunately for Arado, the head of the RLM Technical Department, Ernst Udet, committed suicide just a few weeks later. He was replaced by Erhard Milch, who was more interested in aircraft that were already being produced rather than the proposed Arado project. This without a doubt affected the earlier mentioned initial production order, as the initial order for 50 seems to disappear from record. Despite this setback, work on the E 370 continued. During early 1942, some modifications to the fuselage were made with the aim of increasing its size and strength. The unusual skid undercarriage was replaced by a retractable wheeled bogie system.

In February 1942, Erhard Milch visited the Arado company. He was presented with the drawings and calculations for the improved E 370 model. He was generally impressed with what he saw, and gave his permission for the construction of a wooden mockup. The order would be increased to six prototypes in the following month. The aircraft was to take off using a small three wheel dolly. After the aircraft was in the sky, the dolly was jettisoned and landed with the help of a parachute, meaning it could be used again. In addition, the idea of using a retractable skid undercarriage was reintroduced. If needed, jettisonable Walter HWK auxiliary rocket take-off engines could be attached under the wings. Throughout 1942, many additional modifications and changes were made to the design. Great attention was given to the testing of different engine types and configurations.

By the end of 1942, the number of prototypes to be built was once again increased to 20. The first seven aircraft were to be powered by Jumo 004 engines, with prototype V8 powered by four BMW 003 engines, and V9 through V14 with two BMW 003 engines. The remaining aircraft were to be powered by four BMW 003 engines. The first prototype was meant to be built by November 1943, with the last in October 1944. Surprisingly, these 1942 plans actually started to be completed early, with the first 3 prototypes ready by August 1943. Thanks to this, it was possible to run the first test trials even earlier than anticipated.

Work on the First Prototypes

Work on the construction of the first prototype began in late 1942. During this time, the name was changed to Ar 234. Progress was slow due to problems with the delivery of the Jumo 004 engines, which only arrived in February 1943. These engines were tested and immediately proved to be problematic, as they failed to achieve the promised 850 kg (1879 lbs) thrust. Once fitted with these engines, the first prototype, Ar 234 V1, was used for static ground testing and taxiing trials. No flight was initially accepted due to the short runway at Brandenburg, where the prototype was built. For this reason, the prototype was moved to a Luftwaffe airfield at Munster. During July 1943, this aircraft was mainly used for ground tests. In late July, there was an accident when one of the Jumo engines caught fire. The damage was minor and was quickly repaired. On 30th July, Ar 234 V1 made its first test flight piloted by Horst Selle. The flight was successful, with no problems with the aircraft. The dolly, on the other hand, was lost when the parachute failed to properly open. In early August, there were again problems with the same engine. To avoid any potential threat to the aircraft, it was simply replaced by an engine taken from Ar 234 V3, which was under construction. On 9th August, another test flight was undertaken. During this flight, Selle reached a speed of 650 km/h (400 mph) without any problems. The dolly was once again lost, similarly to the first one. Additional changes were made to the position of the parachute on the dolly, which proved to be the solution to this problem. The V1 prototype would be lost in an accident where the pilot overshot the landing field and crash landed on 29th August. While the aircraft was not repaired, parts of it were reused for testing other equipment.

The Arado 234 V1 first prototype. This particular aircraft would be lost in an accident where the pilot overshot the landing field and crash landed on 29th August 1943. [Warbirdphotographs]
V1 during the third test flight, during which the dolly parachute release system was successfully tested. [Luftwaffephotos]

The V2 prototype was completed in late August 1943. There were some issues with the engine, which had to be replaced. The aircraft was otherwise trouble-free. It was moved to Alt Lonnewitz, where it was mainly used for engine testing. In late September 1943, V3 made its first flight. While, initially, it was to be equipped with a pressurized cabin and an ejector seat, this was never implemented.

In early October 1943, the V2 prototype, with its pilot, Selle, were lost in a fire. This accident prompted the Germans to introduce automatic fire extinguishing systems on all of the Ar 234 prototypes, including later ones. Another change was introducing ejection seats to avoid any further pilot casualties. Due to this accident, there were some delays in the Ar 234 project. Testing continued in November, when V3 was piloted by Walter Kroger. On the 21st of November, the V3 aircraft was transferred to Insterburg to be presented to Adolf Hitler, together with other experimental jet aircraft, like the Me 262 and Me 163. Hitler was highly impressed and even gave orders that some 200 aircraft be built during 1944. During this time, V4 was also flight tested. Both V3 and V4 were used until June 1944 for various roles, including crew training, after which they were removed and replaced with later Ar 234 B versions. By the end of 1943, V5, fitted with Jumo 004 B-0 engines. was introduced.

During early 1944, two Arado 234 aircraft would be tested with a four engine configuration. The idea was that the use of four smaller engines would provide similar performance to the larger ones. V8 was powered by two pairs of BMW P.3302 engines. V6 (which was built later than V8) was tested with four BMW 003 engines placed in four separate wing-mounted nacelles. During a routine flight of V6 at the start of June 1944, all four engines stopped working only 17 minutes after take-off. The pilot was forced to conduct an emergency landing of the plane, after which it caught fire and was heavily damaged, rendering it a complete loss. After this accident, and due to many other engine problems with both versions, all further work on the multi-engined Ar 234 A was discontinued. These would later serve as the basis for the Ar 234 C version instead.

V6 powered by four BMW 003 engines placed in four separated wing cowlings. [Luftwaffephotos]
V6 after a forced landing in June 1944, shortly before the engines began to burn. This accident and problems with the engines put an end to the development of the multi-engined Ar 234 A version. [Warbirdphotographs]
V8 was powered by four BMW P.3302 engines placed in pairs. [Warbirdphotographs]

Technical Characteristics

The Arado Ar 234A (as they were designated later on) prototypes were designed as all metal, high-wing turbojet-powered experimental reconnaissance planes. Their fuselages had a semi-monocoque design with a flat top. The wings consisted of two main spars, each with 29 ribs. They were covered with metal stressed skin. Each wing was connected to the fuselage by four bolts. If needed, these could easily be taken off and removed. At the rear, there was a more or less conventional tail unit.

The Ar 234 was used to test a number of different engines. The first 4 prototypes were powered by two Jumo 004 A-0 engines, which had 840 kg (1,850 lbs) of thrust. V5 and V7 used Jumo 004 B-0 engines which provided 900 kg (1,980 lbs) of thrust. The 3.8 m (12 ft) long engines (both types had the same size) were attached to the wings using three bolts. V6 and V8 were powered by four engines which were able to achieve 800 kg (1,760 lbs) of thrust. As the Ar 234 was intended to be used for reconnaissance operations, a large fuel capacity was important. One 1,800 liter fuel tank was placed behind the cockpit, with a second 2,000 liter tank in the rear of the fuselage. With this fuel load the Ar 234 had an operational range of 1,500 km (930 miles). To assist with take-off, the Ar 234 could be equipped with small Walter 109-500 type rocket engines. These had a run time of 30 seconds and could generate 500 kg (1,100 lbs) of thrust. After the Ar 234 was in the air, the rocket motors would be jettisoned and would land on the ground using small parachutes.

The Ar 234 did not have conventional landing gear, but instead used a three wheel 640 kg (1,410 lbs) jettisonable take-off assist dolly. The Ar 234 pilot could control this dolly by using the rudder, which was connected to hydraulic brakes on the dolly. Once in flight, the dolly would detach and then fall back to Earth using a parachute, and could thereafter be reused. Initially, it was discarded during flight, but this proved to be problematic. After some redesign work, the moment of release was changed to just after take-off. There was no risk of the dolly impacting the fuselage in midair, as the parachute pulled it away from the aircraft. When the Ar 234 had to land, it would use the retractable hydraulically operated skid under the fuselage. The engine nacelles were also provided with smaller skids to avoid any damage to them and to provide better stability during landing. The V3 prototype tested in early 1944 used a drag parachute during landing. This proved to be successful and was later implemented as standard from the B series on.

The smaller front wheel on the jettisonable dolly was fully steerable to help during airfield taxiing and take-offs [Warbirdphotographs]
Close up view of the large sliding skid. [worldwarphotos.info]
Ar 234 during landing. A fuselage skid along with smaller skids placed under the engine nacelles were used instead of wheels. Later versions of the Ar 234 incorporated a conventional wheeled landing gear. [Warbirdphotographs]

The pilot’s cockpit was fully glazed, which provided excellent all around visibility. To enter the cockpit, the pilot used a small hatch placed atop the cockpit. This was not a great design feature as, in an emergency, the pilot could not easily escape the plane. In order to protect the pilot from enemy fire from the rear, a 15 mm thick armor plate was installed behind his seat. Behind this protective armor plate, three oxygen tanks were placed. The instruments were placed on two smaller panels to the left and right of the pilot.

A few Ar 234s were equipped with two Rb 50/30 cameras. These were placed behind the rear fuel tank. These could cover a wide area of 10 km (6 mile) at an altitude of 10 km (33,000 ft).

There were initial plans to arm the Ar 234 with a 13 mm machine gun for self defence. Due to the experimental nature of the Ar 234 A version, no actual armament would actually be installed.

Operational Service

In May 1944, Conny Noell of the Luftwaffe experimental Versuchsverband unit requested that at least two Ar 234 airframes be used for experimental reconnaissance operations after examining the prototypes. The request was accepted and the V5 and V7 aircraft were allocated for this task. Besides the camera equipment, virtually nothing else was changed on these two aircraft.

For the testing of these aircraft, two pilots were chosen, Horst Götz and Erich Sommer. At the start of June 1944, the V5 prototype was tested by Götz during a short 30 minute long flight. He later wrote, after the war “The take-off procedure was not very complicated. First, I engaged the starter, then fed petrol into the combustion chamber until, at approximately 6,000 rpm, I made the gradual change to J2 kerosene. The engines were then reved up to their maximum 9,000 revolutions. After take-off, I throttled the engine back to cruising speed. It was a completely new flying experience. Only a slight whistling noise in the cockpit could be heard. The take-off dolly had functioned quite normally. It was really wonderful”.

Four days later, Sommer also tested this aircraft and gave a similar positive assessment of its overall performance. More flights were undertaken in the following days without major problems. While piloting the V5 prototype during a routine take-off, Götz’ wheeled takeoff dolly release mechanism failed, with the assembly remaining stuck to the aircraft’s landing skids. He immediately tried to land back at the airfield. Despite the dangerous maneuver, he managed to land in a nearby potato field, with minimal damage to the plane.

Around this time, the two test pilots were informed that no prolonged or high-altitude flights had ever been attempted by the Ar 234 prototypes, mostly due to a lack of pressurized cockpit. For this reason, Sommer decided to personally test the Ar 234’s performance at altitude. In late June 1944, he made the first high altitude flight, which lasted over an hour and fifteen minutes at an altitude of 11 kilometers (36,000 ft). During a dive, he managed to reach a speed of 590 km/h (367 mph). A few days later, he made another similar flight that lasted over two hours, during which he managed to cover a distance of 1,435 km (890 miles). When the test flights were completed, both pilots gave positive feedback and evaluations about the performance of the planes and recommended their immediate production.

Following the Allied invasion of German occupied France in 1944, the experimental unit was ordered to move its two aircraft and equipment by train to Juvincourt, in France, by the end of July. Due to delays with the delivery of necessary parts, mostly due to Allied air raids, V7 was finally ready to take to the sky on the 2nd of August. V7’s first operational mission was to take photographs of the Allied landing beaches and the 10 km (6 mile) wide inland strip . The flight was a success, without any problems. The Ar 234’s cameras managed to take nearly 400 photographs of the Allied invasion force, which provided the Germans with vital information about the strength and numbers of the enemy. With this single flight, Sommer managed to achieve what the remaining Luftwaffe reconnaissance units failed to do in two months. During August, some 7 reconnaissance flights were undertaken by the two Ar 234 aircraft. Following the rapid Allied advance, they had to be relocated to Belgium. While V7, piloted by Sommer, arrived without any problems, Götz was less fortunate. During the flight, he was hit by friendly anti-aircraft fire. While damaged, Götz managed to fly up to Oranienburg. But his bad luck for that day was not yet over. His landed Ar 234 aircraft was struck from behind in a ground collision by a Focke Wulf Fw 190 which was attempting a take-off, completely destroying V5. Ironically, the first German operational jet powered aircraft, and the first in the world, was shot down by the Germans and then destroyed by a German fighter plane!

Sommer was stationed with his aircraft at Volkel in Holland until the 5th of September, when it was relocated to Rheine base. On the 10th, Sommer performed a reconnaissance flight over the Thames Estuary but, without direct orders, continued up to London. The next morning, he was informed that, due to this action, he was to be arrested and court martialed. Sommer immediately contacted Götz and explained the situation to him. Götz immediately took action and, after persuasions and threats, managed to get the charges against Sommer dropped. After the war, they both found out who demanded Sommer’s arrest. It was the chief of the V-2 program, Hans Kammler, who had feared that the pictures of London would prove the failure of his rocket program.

Part of the damage suffered by V5 during the forced landing and after being hit by ground anti-aircraft fire, shortly before being hit by an Fw 190 taking off. [Smith & Creek, Arado 234 A]

Sommer made at least four more reconnaissance flights with Ar 234 V7 before it was finally replaced with a B version, which was essentially just a copy of the previous version but with a wider fuselage and a more conventional completely retractable wheeled landing gear. After this, V7 was mainly used for crew training before being damaged during a take-off accident on 19th October 1944. After it was repaired, Götz made a flight to Oranienburg, where the plane was removed from service.

Production

Of the Arado 234 A series, only 8 aircraft were ever produced, as they were used for experimentation of various equipment and engine units.

  • V1 (TG+KB) – Badly damaged during a harsh landing.
  • V2 (DP+AW) – Was lost in a flight accident.
  • V3 (DP+AX) – Was presented to Hitler, who authorized the Ar 234 production. Used for various testing until July 1944.
  • V4 (DP+AY) – Similar to the V3 prototype, used up to June 1944 mainly for crew training, when it was removed from service.
  • V5 (GK+IV) – The first aircraft to be used operationally, but was lost when damaged by friendly ground-based anti-aircraft fire.
  • V6 (GK+IW) – Heavily damaged during a landing accident and caught fire soon after.
  • V7 (GK+IX/ T9+MH) – Used operationally until October 1944, when it was damaged in a take-off accident. Written off as a complete loss.
  • V8 (GK+IY) – Tested with a four engine configuration, but proved to be highly problematic.

Conclusion

While only a small number of Ar 234A planes were built, they proved to be successful designs. During the initial development phase and in their experimental use in service, no major issues were noted. The major drawback was the insufficient quality of the engines and the use of a jettisonable takeoff dolly. Following the success of the Ar 234 A, the development and production of the B and C versions was approved.

Ar 234 V4 Specifications

Wingspans 46 ft 7 in / 14.2 m
Length 38 ft 2 in / 11.65 m
Height 12 ft 6 in / 3.8 m
Wing Area 284 ft² / 26.4 m²
Engine Two Junkers 004 A-0 turbojet
Empty Weight 10,740 lbs / 4,250 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 19,180 lbs / 8,700 kg
Fuel Capacity 3,800 l
Maximum Speed 472 mph / 760 km/h
Range 930 miles / 1,500 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 36,090 ft / 11 km
Crew One Pilot
Armament
  • None

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

V1, the first prototype, made its first test flight piloted by Horst Selle at the end of July 1943. It would eventually be lost in an accident when the pilot overshot the landing field and crash landed on 29th August 1943.
Ar 234 V5 was the first aircraft of the small production series to be used operationally during the Allied Liberation of France in 1944. It would be lost after a series of unfortunate circumstances culminated with a ground collision with a Focke Wulf 190 which was attempting a take-off. Ironically, the first German operational jet powered aircraft, and the first in the world, was shot down by the Germans and then destroyed by a German fighter plane! V5 was fitted with Jumo 004 B-0 engines.
V6 was tested with four BMW 003 engines placed in four separate wing-mounted nacelles. During a routine flight at the start of June 1944, all four engines stopped working, forcing the pilot to conduct an emergency landing of the plane. After this, the plane caught fire and was heavily damaged, rendering it a complete loss.

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson
  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
  • D. Mondey (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • J. R. Smith and E. J. Creek (2006) Arado 234 A, Chevron Publishing
  • R. P. Bateson, Profile 215 ARADO Ar 234 Blitz
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book
  • Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company.
  • D. Donald (1998) German Aircraft Of World War II, Blitz Publisher

Sombold So 344

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1944)
Parasite Interceptor – None Built 

Artist’s depiction of the Sombold So 344 firing off its nose rocket. [Heinz Rodes]
The Sombold So 344 was a highly specialized interceptor designed by Heinz G. Sombold to attack Allied bomber formations over Germany in 1944. The way the aircraft would attack, however, would be extremely unconventional. Being deployed from a bomber mothership, the So 344 would fly towards an approaching bomber formation and launch its entire nose cone, which was a 400 kg (882 Ib) rocket, at the enemy bombers in an attempt to destroy as many as possible. From there, the So 344 could either attack the remaining bombers or return to base and land on a skid. Work went as far as wind tunnel models for the aircraft but none would be built.

History

Towards the end of the Second World War, Germany found itself at odds on an almost daily basis against the threat of Allied bombers. While pre-existing aircraft were used to defend Germany from this threat, more and more proposals for aircraft designed to deal with enemy bombers began to emerge. A number of these projects would use extremely unorthodox or downright strange methods to attempt to destroy enemy bombers. These ranged from carrying specialized weapons to even ramming the bomber. These projects were often small in design and were made of widely available materials, like wood, to save on production costs, reserving the more important material for mainline aircraft. An aircraft produced in small numbers that followed this formula was the Bachem Ba 349 “Natter”. Although not used operationally, the Ba 349 was a small bomber interceptor that would not require an airstrip to take off. Instead, it would be launched vertically from a launch rail. After taking off, the Ba 349 would approach the Allied bombers and attack them with a salvo of rockets in the nose. With its ammo depleted, the pilot would then eject from the aircraft, with the aircraft’s engine section parachuting down and being recovered for reuse. The nose would break off for the pilot to deploy the rockets under the cone. The Ba 349 is the most well known of these projects, but many would never leave the drawing board. Many of these aircraft designs were created by large companies but a handful came from individual engineers. One such design, the Sombold So 344, would approach the destruction of enemy bombers in an entirely different, almost ludicrous way.

3-way view of the So 344 [Luft46.com]
The Sombold So 344 was the idea of Heinz G. Sombold of the Bley Ingenieurbüro (Engineering Office). Bley Segelflugzeug was a sailplane manufacturer located in Naumburg, Germany. During the 1930s, they became popular for their various sailplane designs, like the Kormoran and Motor-Kondor designs. Heinz G. Sombold was an engineer at Bley. He began working on the So 344 in late 1943 and his aircraft incorporated many features of the sailplanes built by the company. At the time, the craft was only designed as a parasite escort fighter and armed with two machine guns. On January 22nd of 1944 however, Sombold would drastically change the design and purpose of the aircraft. From here, the aircraft would be designed for the destruction of enemy bombers. To fit this new role, it would use a very unorthodox weapon. The nosecone of the So 344 was a rocket filled with 400 kg (880 Ib) of explosives that could be launched by the pilot at enemy aircraft. Sombold envisioned his aircraft using its nosecone rocket against close formations of bombers, where multiple aircraft could be destroyed with one well placed explosive. American bombers would often fly in combat box formations, where the bombers would fly close together to maximize the defensive capabilities of their guns. This allowed the bombers to have ample protection from enemy interceptors, as the approaching craft would come under fire from most of the aircraft in said formation. There were earlier weapons deployed by the Germans to try and damage the closely packed formations, like the BR 21, but none would be as huge a payload as the Sombold’s nose rocket.

Rear view of the wind tunnel model

Design work on the So 344 continued through 1944, even going as far as having a ⅕ scale wind tunnel model being made and tested at the Bley facility. By 1945, work on the project was cut off, as the Bley facility had to be abandoned due to the encroaching warfront. No further work was done on the Sombold So 344 and Sombold’s fate is unknown. No other designs by Sombold are known to have existed. The 344 designation was later used for the Ruhrstahl X-4, or RK 344, air-to-air missile system.

At the top of this image is the photo of the claimed nosecone of a Sombold So 344. In actuality it is a nose section of a Wasserfall SAM. [Lower: Wiki][Upper: Luftwaffe Secret Projects 17]
A photo has circulated in several books, as well online, that claims a nosecone of the So 344 was built and discovered by the Allies at the end of the war. However, this photo actually depicts the nose section of a Wasserfall surface-to-air missile. The nose of the Wasserfall easily could be confused for that of the Sombold’s, as its shape is semi-similar and both have four stabilizing fins. No So 344 was built.

Design

Photo of the 1/5 wind tunnel model of the Sombold So 344

The Sombold So 344 was a single man special attack aircraft. It was to have a short, tubular body of wooden construction. For ease of transport, the aircraft could be split into two sections. The cockpit would be located at the rear of the body, directly in front of the vertical stabilizer. The aircraft would have conventional control surfaces on its wings and stabilizers. At the ends of the horizontal stabilizers were two angled vertical stabilizers. The wings would be mid-set. For its powerplant, the So 344 would use a Walter 509 bi-fuel rocket engine. To conserve fuel, the aircraft would be deployed via bomber mothership. Once deployed, it would have around 25 minutes of fuel. To land, the So 344 would have a rounded ski built into the body, similar to how the sailplanes Bley created would land.

For its main armament, the So 344 had a massive unguided rocket as its nose cone. The nose would contain 880 Ibs (400 kg) of explosive Acetol. The rocket was triggered via a proximity fuse. For stabilization, four fins would be placed on the nose. Additionally, the So 344 would have two forward machineguns to either defend itself or attack other bombers once its payload was released.

Operations

The So 344 would be carried to an approaching bomber formation via a modified bomber mothership. Once deployed, the aircraft would move in an arc towards the bombers, coming in downwards at them from at least 3,300 ft (1,000 m) above. This height would protect the So 344 from defensive fire during its dive. When the aircraft was lined up with a group of bombers, the pilot would launch the nosecone into the middle of the formation. Given the close proximity of the bombers in formation and the explosive threshold of the nosecone, it was predicted the resulting explosion would be able to take down several bombers in one attack. After launching its nosecone, the So 344 would have some fuel left and could continue to attack the remaining bombers with two machine guns on the aircraft. When fuel was low, the aircraft would return to base via gliding, like the Messerschmitt Me 163B rocket interceptor. Once near an airfield, it used a large ski to land.

Conclusion

The So 344 was a very strange way of approaching the bomber problem over Germany late in the war. The logic behind it was not too far fetched. The aforementioned Ba 349 Natter followed a similar attack plan, approaching the bombers and firing off a salvo of rockets before the pilot bailed from the craft. A project like the So 344 was not new to Germany by that point in the war and, like most of its contemporary designs, was not produced.

Had it been produced, the So 344 would have been a very niche aircraft. The fact that the aircraft had a single shot from its rocket payload made accuracy extremely important. The aircraft also would have been a prime target for Allied escort fighters once it ran out of fuel. A bomber would also need to be modified to carry the So 344 and would be a prime target for the escort fighters once the attacker was launched. The nature of the aircraft has led it to wrongly be named a “suicide attacker” by many postwar books on the subject. In some instances, the craft is also incorrectly listed as being a ramming aircraft. It is likely the aircraft would not have impacted the war very much.

Variants

  • Sombold So 344 (1943)– Original planned fighter version. Armed with two machine guns or heavier armament. None were built
  • Sombold So 344 (1944)– The Sombold So 344 attack aircraft. Armed with a nosecone rocket which would be fired at enemy bomber formations. None were built.

Operators

  • Nazi Germany – The Sombold So 344 was designed for the Luftwaffe to use against Allied bombers over Germany. None of the type would be built.

Sombold So 344 Specifications

Wingspan 18 ft 8 in / 5.7 m
Length 22 ft 11 in / 7 m
Height 7 ft 1 in / 2.2 m
Wing Area 64.58 ft² / 6 m²
Engine Walter 509 Bifuel rocket engine
Weight  2,976 Ib / 1,350 kg
Flight Time 25 minutes 
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • 2x machine guns 
  • 1x 880 Ib (400 kg) Nose Rocket

Gallery

Artist’s Concept of a completed So 344 with striped nosecone – By Ed Jackson

Video

Credits

  • Article by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. and Stan L.
  • Illustration by Ed Jackson
  • Herwig, D. & Rode, H. (2003). Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Ground Attack & Special Purpose Aircraft. Hinckley, England: Midland Pub.
  • http://www.luft46.com/misc/so344.html