Messerschmitt Me 163B V13: Abandoned in Pölzen

Source: U.S. Army Signal Corps

     Found by troops of Combat Command A, 9th. Armored Division, 1st. U.S. Army in April 1945 was the remains of Messerschmitt Me 163B V13, Werk Nummer (W.Nr.) 10022, fuselage code VD+EV. The location was a airfield hangar in Pölzen, Germany located to the northeast of Leipzig. While the men of Combat Command A likely did not know it at the time they came across the ruins of the aircraft, the V13 had been the start of the further development of the Me 163 rocket fighter that ultimately culminated in the Messerschmitt Me 263 (also designated as the Junkers Ju 248).

     One of the most serious problems with the Me 163B rocket interceptor was the ravenous consumption the Walther HWK 509 A-2 bi-fuel rocket motor had for the reactant propellants, T-Stoff and C-Stoff. Once the Me 163B achieved operating altitude, the aircraft had only 2.5 minutes worth of powered flight left before the tanks ran dry. Typically, given the volatile and explosive nature of the fuels, pilots would often exhaust the entire fuel supply rather than risk having fuel onboard while in combat, let alone coming to a landing which risked causing a detonation if the touchdown was rough. In combat operations, it meant that the range of the Me 163B was severely restricted and unless airfields operating the rocket fighter were near known bomber routes, the Me 163B was more or less impotent. In fact, when U.S. Intelligence determined an airfield was housing a Me 163 unit, they advised U.S. Army Air Force bomber units to simply plot bombing strike avenues to avoid the airfield. Another problem with the Me 163B was that is had no landing gear outside of a central skid. It took off atop a two-wheeled dolly which was then jettisoned once the plane was airborne. Upon landing, it had to be recovered by a special trailer pulled by a three-wheeled tractor called a Scheuschlepper. The V13 was the first step in overcoming the first of these two main concerns with the fighter.

     The V13 was the first to trial a new Walther rocket engine, the HWK 509 C. While the fuels were the same, the biggest difference was the addition of a cruise chamber. The HWK 509 C's main chamber produced 3,750 pounds of thrust but the cruise chamber only provided 660 pounds of thrust. The idea was that for take-off, both chambers would be engaged for a total of 4,410 pounds of thrust. Once the aircraft was at operational altitude, the main chamber would be shut off and the aircraft would fly only on the cruise chamber. As such, the new engine provided up to 6.5 minutes of powered flight before the fuel ran out. The V13 was much the same as the standard Me 163B except that the tail was modified to accommodate the cruise chamber which was to be used in the new development of the aircraft which was then called the Me 163D. The first flight of the V13 took place in December 1943 and the last known flight occurred on May 14, 1944. Two other Me 163B aircraft were part of the Me 163D project and these were the V10 (W.Nr. 10019, fuselage code VD+ES) and the V18 (W.Nr. 10027, fuselage code VA+SP). The V10, having originally been used to test a BMW rocket motor and a revised fuel tank system, was repurposed to trial the tricycle landing gear that was to be used on the Me 163D. The V18 was also refitted with a HWK 509 C engine and on July 6, 1944, pilot Rudolf Opitz took the aircraft up for a calibration flight and the engine was at maximum thrust and as it accelerated, the critical Mach number was exceeded. Opitz cut fuel to the engine which put the V18 into a steep dive Optiz was only able to recover feet from the waters of the Baltic Sea. After landing, the entire rudder was missing and readings taken during the flight showed the V18 had attained a speed of 702mph.

     The results of testing with the V10, V13, and V18 culminated in the Ju 248 which was a nearly complete redesign of the Me 163 fighter. The designation Junkers Ju 248 came into play as work on the project was shifted to Junkers in the spring of 1944 in light of the Messerschmitt company's other development work and production obligations. The name would revert to Me 263 by August of 1944. The new aircraft utilized a new fuselage that incorporated a bubble canopy, retractable landing gear, and a HWK 509 C-4 bi-fuel engine which it was estimated would give the Ju 248 a maximum powered endurance of between 9 to 15 minutes altitude depending. While better than the maximum 7.5 minutes of total powered endurance with the Me 163B, it was not a significant increase overall though the ability to be more mobile on the ground lowered the time it took to for ground crews to turn the aircraft around for another sortie. 

     As it was, the Ju 248 V1 was completed and performed well in unpowered, towed testing but it was never flown under power and ended up captured by the Soviets who shipped it back to Russia for study. The Mikoyan-Gurevich I-270 rocket interceptor, first flown in 1946, drew heavily from the Me 263 but the entire concept of a rocket powered, point interceptor was flawed and the I-270 was abandoned.

Russo-Ukrainian War: The General Dynamics F-16AM Fighting Falcon

Source: inukraine_official on Instagram

     The road to Ukraine receiving the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is a story all to itself, mainly in the politics that held up the process. Ukraine formally requested the F-16 in late February 2022 in order to quickly update the Ukrainian Air Force's (UAF) air defense capability. Although the F-16 entered service in 1980, three years before the Mikoyan MiG-29, the F-16 has been in continual improvement cycles since its introduction which have allowed it to surpass the abilities of the MiG-29s of the UAF. Former President Joe Biden finally approved the supply of the F-16 to Ukraine in August 2023 but the UAF would not receive its first jets until July 2024. The specific model of F-16 the UAF is using is the F-16 Block 15 MLU (Mid-Life Update), designated the F-16AM, and they are not coming from the United States but from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. The pledges include thirty aircraft from Belgium (none delivered yet), nineteen from Denmark (none delivered yet), twenty-four from the Netherlands (a portion have been delivered), and twelve (plus 10 more for parts) from Norway. To date, only seven F-16s are operational with the UAF.

     The F-16AM is powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbojet that can generate 23,830 pounds of thrust when on full afterburner. This provides for a maximum speed of 1,345 miles per hour and a cruise speed of 577 miles per hour. The service ceiling is 55,000 feet and a operational range of 1,407 miles.

     The majority of the MLU improvements are in the avionics. The biggest of these was upgrading the radar to the AN/APG-66(V)2 model. The AN/APG-66, designed by Westinghouse, first appeared in the 1970s and is the primary fire-control radar system for the F-16. The radar is of the X-band, pulse-Doppler type and uses a planar array, consisting of six LRUs (Line Replaceable Units) to ease repair/maintenance. Operating frequency range is between 6.2 to 10.9 gigahertz. The (V)2 variant boosts the detection range to 52 miles by incorporating enhancements that help in filtering out the effects of chaff, ground clutter, and jamming. The AN/APG-66 is a look down/shoot down system which means it uses a PRF (Pulse-Repetition Frequency) which allows the radar to sift through ground clutter, locate targets, and enable the engagement of targets below the F-16AM. Likewise, the radar has look up/shoot up capability. The search cone is 120 degrees by 120 degrees.

     Other updates included an improved IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) which permits the F-16 to utilize BVR (Beyond Visual Range) munitions that exceed the onboard radar's range. Additional changes include redesigned cockpit displays, updated EW (Electronic Warfare) systems, new communication sets, updated flight controls to improve low-altitude handling, and the ability to integrate with U.S. AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN (Low Altitude Navigation & Targeting Infrared for Night) and AN/AAQ-28 Litening targeting pods. Ukrainian pilots are equipped with the JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System)

     The only built-in armament of the F-16AM is the General Electric M61A1 Vulcan 20mm, 6-barrel rotary cannon. A total of 511 rounds is carried. Hydraulically operated and electrically fired, the M61A1 can spit out 6,000 rounds per minute. The typical ammunition load is the reliable M56A3/A4 HEI (High-Explosive Incendiary) round. The M56 can create a blast radius against ground targets out to 6.6 feet with a shrapnel hazard out to 66 feet. Against armor, the round can penetrate 13mm of rolled homogeneous armor at 0 degrees slope at a range of 341 feet. The effective range of the M61A1 is 1.9 miles.

     For hardpoints, the F-16AM has two wing-tip rails, a total of six under-wing hardpoints, and three centerline hardpoints for a total war load capacity of 17,000 pounds. The F-16 can utilize a whole host of ordnance and so to go through all of them would make for a short novel. As such, ordnance seen in use by the UAF's F-16AM jets include: AIM-9 Sidewinder (infrared guided, short range AAM [Air-to-Air Missile]), AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile), and the GBU-39 250 pound glide SDB (Small Diameter Bomb). Other equipment seen on hardpoints include the AN/ALQ-131 ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) pod, Sargent Fletcher manufactured 370 gallon drop tanks, and Terma (a Danish company) built PIDS+ (Pylon Integrated Dispensing System Plus) and ECIPS+ (Electronic Combat Integrated Pylon System Plus). The latter two systems are defensive packages that include MAWS (Missile Approach Warning System), chaff dispensers, flare dispensers, radar warning system (alerting the pilot when his aircraft is “painted” by a radar system), and a homing receiver warning system (again, alerting the pilot when his aircraft is being targeted by a homing radar). As a note, the specific models of the Sidewinder seen include the AIM-9L, AIM-9M and AIM-9X while the AMRAAM has been seen in the AIM-120B and AIM-120C variants.

     In the photograph, visible are AIM-120C missiles on the wing-tip rails and AIM-9M on a wing hardpoints along with what appears to be a Terma ECIPS+ on the plane nearest the viewer. The aircraft also have drop tanks. Also, at least two of the F-16AMs retain their Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) paint and on the furthest F-16AM, the rectangle on the vertical stabilizer is the painted over RNLAF tail code. The same plane shows a lot of carbon scoring around the gun port for the M61A1.

     So far, the UAF has primarily deployed their F-16AM fighters in the air defense role, combating Russian cruise missiles and the 9K720 Iskander (NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) short-range ballistic missiles. More rarely, the F-16AM is sortied for ground attack missions due to not having air superiority and the risk to the pilot and plane from anti-aircraft fire (MANPADS, mobile SAM systems, and the like).

     To date, the UAF has lost one F-16AM along with its pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Oleksii Mes, call sign Moonfish. He was killed on August 26, 2024 during a mission to combat a Russian mass aerial attack consisting of some 120 missiles and over 100 drones. According to Ukrainian sources, Mes destroyed three cruise missiles and one drone before being downed and killed. How he was downed was initially unknown. A U.S. official said it was pilot error, something that the UAF refuted. Ultimately, it was found that Mes was shot down by friendly ground fire during the attack, the weapon having been a MIM-104 Patriot missile.

Russo-Ukrainian War: The Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum

Source: Reddit

     A Mikoyan MiG-29 (NATO reporting name Fulcrum) of the 40th. Tactical Aviation Brigade “Ghost of Kyiv” sporting an impressive tally of bombing missions, 69 in all. The MiG-29 is the most numerous fighter in the Ukrainian Air Force and the majority of them are operated by the 40th. The most numerous version in Ukrainian service is the MiG-29 (Product 9.13) Fulcrum C which appeared in 1989.

     The MiG-29 is powered by two Klimov RD-33 turbofan engines fitted with afterburners and each engine is capable of 11,110 pounds of thrust without afterburner and 18,340 pounds of thrust at full afterburner. This provides for a maximum speed of 1,520 miles per hour (just at Mach 2). The airframe is rated for +9 g forces. With 998 gallons of onboard fuel (excluding drop tanks), the MiG-29 has a maximum combat range of 560 miles when loaded out with six AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles). With just internal fuel and no munitions, the range is 890 miles. Ferry range, with three drop tanks, is 1,802 miles. Rate of climb is 1,082 feet per second which means the MiG-29 can attain it's 60,000 foot service ceiling in a little under a minute.

     The only onboard armament is a single Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 30mm autocannon which is provided with 150 rounds. A short recoil operated weapon, the GSh-30-1 has a maximum rate of fire of 1,800 rounds per minute with an effective range of 1.1 miles. The autocannon can fire ammunition to allow the pilot to engage ground targets but in the Russo-Ukrainian War, such an attack is too great a risk with the prevalence of MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Systems) and other anti-air weapons. As such, it is likely Ukrainian MiG-29s carry ammunition suitable for air combat and such rounds have distance-armed, delayed action fuzes.

     The MiG-29 has seven hardpoints, one underneath the fuselage and three per wing. All together, the MiG-29 can carry 8,818 pounds of war load. Common AAMs used by Ukraine include the Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name AA-11 Archer) and the older Vympel R-27 (NATO reporting name AA-10 Alamo). Interestingly, because of the lack of air-to-air combat between Ukrainian and Russian fighter jets, many R-73 missiles are being repurposed as SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles) for use by air defense ground forces. Befitting the bomber role, the MiG-29 can carry four of the common Soviet-era FAB-250 550 pound bomb or the larger FAB-500 1,100 pound bomb. Likewise, Russia is making heavy use of both types of bombs against Ukrainian targets. In some instances, the Russians have created wing packages that allow the bombs to glide, extending their range. However, the Ukrainians are using primarily non-Soviet munitions but offering similar glide capacity. The first is the JDAM-ER fitted to GBU-62 bombs. The Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range is a kit that turns a regular free-fall 1,000 pound GBU-62 bomb into a guided weapon. The kit consists of a tail unit affixed to the rear of the bomb that contains an inertial navigation system, GPS module, steerable fins, and a autopilot. Around the bomb's body is a series of strakes that provide a measure of lift to extend the glide range. At a optimal release altitude, the JDAM-ER can attain a range of 46 miles. Another tool in the Ukrainian Air Force's arsenal is the similar French AASM 250 HAMMER (see the link below for more information).

     Other systems of the MiG-29 include a Phazotron NO19E Rubin airborne radar for target tracking and engagement (maximum search range of 93 miles), OEPrNK-29 series optronic Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system (9 mile range), digital fly-by-wire flight controls, SPO-15LM Beryoza RWR (Rear Warning Radar), Gardeniya-F1U jammer, SRZP-1 IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe), SRO-1P transponder, SN-29 navigation system, SUO-29M weapon selector, ILS-31 HUD (Heads-Up Display), FKP-EU gun camera, and the Schchel-3UM-1 helmet-mounted target designator.

As a side note, the MiG-29 Fulcrum C is nicknamed the “Gorbatov”, or “Hunchback”, due to the expanded and extended spine of the airframe to accommodate additional fuel capacity. It is also sometimes called the “Fatback”.

     From the opening of the Russo-Ukrainian War in February 2022 to date, the 40th. Tactical Aviation Brigade has lost ten MiG-29 fighters during combat sorties at the cost of eight pilots. The most notable non-combat unit loss was Major Andrii Pilshchykov, call sign “Juice”, who was killed during a mid-air collision with another jet during training on August 25, 2023. He was flying a Aero L-39M1 Albatross trainer. Pilshchykov was a very public advocate for the push for Ukraine to receive General Dynamics F-16 fighters and he was also a philanthropist in obtaining equipment to outfit Ukrainian pilots.

For more information on the AASM 250 HAMMER, visit:

https://photosofmilitaryhistory.blogspot.com/2025/01/russo-ukrainian-war-aasm-250-hammer-asm.html

Polikarpov I-16 "Red 64": Crash-Landed on Lake Ladoga

     The Finnish, despite being outmanned and outgunned, managed to severely bloody the nose of the invading Soviets during the Winter War which took place between November 30, 1939 and March 13, 1940. The peace, however, would be short lived and once more, the Finnish went to war against the Soviets in the Continuation War which commenced on June 25, 1941. Typically flying aircraft considered obsolete, the Finnish Air Force downed 360 Soviet aircraft of various types by the close of 1941 with the loss of 54 of their own. 

     Heavily reliant on imported combat aircraft due to having little indigenous aircraft production capability, the Finnish made much use of captured Soviet aircraft. One such aircraft was this Soviet Polikarpov I-16 fighter (“Red 64”) that made a crash landing on the frozen, snow covered Lake Ladoga and was captured by the Finnish on December 10, 1941. The I-16 was the primary Soviet fighter in 1941 and would soldier on into 1943 before being completely replaced by more modern designs. This particular I-16 was equipped with four underwing rails, two per wing, which carried the RS-82 air-to-surface rocket. The Finnish recovered “Red 64” and sent it to the State Aircraft Factory where it was given the Finnish code IR-104 but it was not able to be returned to a flyable state. In fact, only one captured I-16 (IR-101) was ever deployed starting with 3./Le.Lv.6 (3rd. Flight/Flying Squadron 6) and later 2./Le.Lv.30 and even then, it was not used in combat and instead served as a test plane and aerial aggressor for pilots to train against.

The Silvansky I-220 IS: How Not to Design a Fighter Aircraft

     In the annals of aviation history, there have been some questionable aircraft designs that, in hindsight, one wonders how they ever managed to get built. This applied to civilian aircraft as well as military aircraft. The disaster of the British Tarrant Tabor bomber (1919), the horror show that was the American Cantilever Aero Bullet (1918), and the fatal failure of the Soviet Kalinin K-7 bomber (1933) are all examples of extremely flawed aircraft that got from the drawing board, to prototype, and in many cases, a disastrous end. The Soviet Silvansky I-220 IS (Iosef Stalin) was one such plane that history has added to this list and some consider the IS the worst warplane ever to be designed.

     The man behind the IS was Alexander Vasilievich Silvansky. Silvansky was a graduate of the Moscow Aviation Institute and although he had the degree in his hand and actually had practical experience working in aircraft manufacturing plants, historians are clear to say that Silvansky nary knew the difference between a aileron and a wing spar. In fact, noted Soviet aviation historian Vadim Borisovich Shavrov compared Silvansky to the fictional con man Ostap Bender created by the Soviet authors Ilya Ilf and Yevgeni Petrov. The story of the IS begins in 1937 when Mikhail Moiseyevich Kaganovich, the People’s Commissar of Defense Industry, gave Silvansky the task of designing a new, single-engine fighter. This task came to Silvansky because Silvansky had a connection within the elite circles. Silvansky, having no concept of how to design an aircraft, sought out anyone who did understand aircraft and he ran into Ivan Lemishev, a 1922 graduate of the Aviation Engineers School located in Kiev, Russia. As Silvansky had his own design bureau which was funded, stocked with the needed equipment, and housed in a section of the Novosibirsk Aviation Factory №153, Lemishev signed on in February 1938. Lemishev was joined by a number of employees from the former Kalinin, Grigorovich, and Nazarov aircraft design bureaus. In short order, work began on the IS but when the majority of the members of the design bureau were more technically inclined rather than aeronautical inclined, the IS was off to a poor start. Silvansky spent his time trying to get his design bureau moved closer to Moscow and hyped the IS as the best fighter in the world. In the meantime, Lemishev and the others did the best they could and when the initial design was nearly completed, only then did Silvansky step in to “fix mistakes”. A mock-up of the IS was constructed and presented and against all logic, after the mock-up and design drafts were reviewed, the IS was approved to proceed. Silvansky’s IS hype included a heavy armament of two cannons, four machine-guns, and a bomb load while boasting the IS would best the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Polikarpov I-180, then under development, could simply be canceled as the IS would best it. The fact that Silvansky’s claims swayed the men who witnessed the mock-up points to Shavrov’s con-man comparison.

     Work on the first prototype commenced and was completed in 1939 and already, Lemishev and many of the other bureau employees saw the IS was a disaster. Construction issues included miscalculating the length of the landing gear to the point that they would not fit into the wheel wells. After shortening the landing gear, they then found out that the wheel wells were too shallow to allow the wheels to be fully withdrawn (this was never corrected). This was not helped by Silvansky himself who decided to fix some of the issues with the IS his way. Following the landing gear fiasco, the propeller blades were too close to the ground and Silvansky literally took a hacksaw and sawed four inches off the end of each blade. In addition, any engine component that poked up and ruined the contours of the cowling, Silvansky’s solution was to take a hammer and beat them down. The IS commenced taxi trials on September 24, 1939 without, apparently, too much mishap. Silvansky’s constant needling to get his design bureau moved finally paid off when it was shifted to Kimry, some 100 miles from Moscow in February 1940. Perhaps not surprisingly, Silvansky spent more time in Moscow than at his design bureau. By this time, personnel of the Silvansky Design Bureau started to find any reason to leave, not wanting to be anywhere around when the IS failed. The first flight occurred on February 17, 1940 and it was a colossal failure. The test pilot managed to get the IS off the ground but the altitude never exceeded 492 feet and so horrid was the control that it took everything the test pilot had to land the IS. In total, only three test flights were made, none of the flights lasting longer than a few minutes. Worse, in order to even get the IS off the ground required all of the armaments to be removed in order to lighten the aircraft. The IS was not helped by having to use an under-powered engine (see below) and the aerodynamics of the wings was spoiled by the protruding wheels. One of the test pilots was quoted as calling the IS “bad shit” and all of the test pilots unanimously said the IS was all but unflyable. Following the horrible showing of the IS, the People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry Alexey Ivanovich Shakhurin ordered the Silvansky Design Bureau dissolved, the personnel dispersed, and Silvansky himself held liable for the utter disaster. A second prototype of the IS had been under construction but this was halted and presumably, it was scrapped. The first prototype IS was seized and shipped to the Moscow Aviation Institute where it was put on display as an illustration of how not to design an aircraft. Silvansky was banned from further involvement in aviation and, amazingly, escaped both prosecution and persecution but Lemishev was not so lucky when, on February 15, 1941, he disappeared in Baltimore, Maryland and was never heard from again.

     The IS, in appearance, oddly (or not surprisingly) bore a resemblance to the successful Polikarpov I-16 fighter. For an engine, the IS was to use the Tumansky M-88A 14-cylinder, air-cooled, twin-row radial engine that developed 1,085 horsepower at 15,584 feet. However, the IS was actually fitted with the 950 horsepower M-87A engine as the M-88A was not yet available. The ZSMV-2 propeller was a three-bladed, variable-pitch type. Total fuel carried was 79 gallons and if required, a total of 52 gallons of extra fuel could be carried in two under wing drop tanks. For weapons, two 12.7mm ShVAK machine-guns were fitted, one in each wing. Two 7.62mm ShKAS machine-guns were fitted, one in each wing root, while another two ShKAS machine-guns were fitted into the nose, between the engine cylinders. A single 110 pound bomb could be carried under each wing. The IS was 21.9 feet long, 9.1 feet high, had a 29.6 wingspan, and a 150.7 square foot wing area with a wing loading of 35.8 pounds per square foot. Because the IS never was put through its paces, performance was never validated. It was estimated that the top speed with the M-88A engine was 364mph at 15,584 feet with an estimated 6 minute climb to 16,404 feet. Operational ceiling was estimated to be 35,597 feet with a maximum range of 357 miles with an operational range of 270 miles.

     As a note, the Silvansky I-220 should not be confused with the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-220 high-altitude interceptor project which commenced in 1942.