Single seat single engined biplane with two-axis control. Wings have swept back leading and trailing edges, and constant chord; no tail, canard wing. Pitch control by fully flying canard; yaw control by tip rudders between wings; no separate roll control; control inputs through stick for pitch and pedals for yaw. Wings braced by struts and transverse X cables; wing profile; double surface. Undercarriage has three wheels in tricycle formation; glass fibre suspension on main wheels. Push-right go left nosewheel steering independent from yaw control. Brake on nosewheel. Aluminium tube framework, without pod. Engine mounted between wings driving pusher propeller.
Shown at Sun ‘n’ Fun in March 1983 at Lakeland, Florida, the Viking is a variation on the famous Easy Riser theme.Whereas UFM of Kentucky has fitted the Easy Riser with a conventional tail giving rise to the Aeroplane (a 1983 model), Northstar had preferred a canard of variable incidence, thus acting as an elevator, for its Viking.
Designed for cross countries, it gives its pilot comfort and a large speed range. Its Kawasaki TA440 is equipped with an electric start, making it necessary to have a 12 V battery on board. The fuel tank is moulded into the seat back, whose structure is of glass fibre, and other nice touches include a twin blade ground adjustable variable-pitch propeller and a rudder bar which is adjustable according to the height of the pilot. Northstar supplies its Viking in kit form requiring 75 100 h for assembly at an introductory price (March 1983) of $5395. The kit does not require any special tools, assembly being largely with pop rivets.
Engine: Kawasaki TA440, 38.5hp at 6000rpm Propeller 60 in / 1.52 m ground adjustable) inch Micro V belt reduction, ratio 2.25/1 Max static thrust 235 lb, 107 kg Power per unit area 0.22 hp/sq.ft, 2.4 hp/sq.m Fuel capacity 5.0 US gal, 4.2 Imp gal, 18.9 litre Wing span 32.0 ft, 9.75 m Total area of main wings 170 sq.ft, 15.8 sq.m Nosewheel diameter overall 16 inch, 41 cm Main wheels diameter overall 20 inch, 51 cm Empty weight 244 lb, 11.1kg Max take off weight 502 lb, 228 kg Payload 258 lb, 117 kg Max wing loading 2.95 lb/sq.ft, 14.4 kg/sq.m Max power loading 13.0 lb/hp, 5.9kg/hp Load factors +5.0, 3.0 design Max level speed 54 mph, 87 kph Never exceed speed 55 mph, 88 kph Max cruising speed 45 mph, 72 kph Stalling speed 23 mph, 37 kph Max climb rate at sea level 800 ft/min, 4.1 m/s Best glide ratio with power off 7/1
The Northern Aeroplane Workshops F.1 Camel The project was started around 2001, after the construction of the Sopwith Triplane and Bristol M.1C.
Eric Barraclough was the mainstay and inspiration behind the NAW. Having worked for Comper, Heston Aircraft and Auster, he was steeped in aviation. “When the Bristol M1C was coming to completion, we were looking at another project”, recalls Robert Richardson, another NAW lynchpin. “Eric had the idea of building the first Blackburn aircraft, which was an abomination, it really was. None of us were interested in it at all. Then he suddenly turned round and said, ‘I’ve got some Camel drawings in my loft’. He seemed to have forgotten about them.
The first metal was cut when they were still on with the Bristol, in December 1995. That was at the Mirfield workshop, at Butt End Mills, but shortly after that they moved to the workshop at the Skopos Motor Museum in Batley. Once the Bristol was delivered, they started full-time on the Camel.
Eric Barraclough died in November 1997, but the standards he had always desired in NAW’s projects set the tone. Adherence to the original remained to the fore.
They built the fuselage sides first. All the sub-assemblies like the wings and fuselage were done in jigs.
The fuselage in build at the Northern Aeroplane Workshops’ premises at Alexandra Mills, Batley, in February 1999.
Most of the airframe is spruce, but the longerons are ash. They had woodworkers Chris Lawson, who had his own woodworking company in Skipton. They ordered the streamlined wires from Bruntons, who were making these wires during the First World War.
Tube left over from the Triplane for the undercarriage was utilised. It had been specially drawn by a firm called T. I. Reynolds in Sheffield. There were parts coming from all over the place, apart from what they were making in the workshops. The cockpit instruments were sourced by Shuttleworth.
Of the metal fittings made in-house, CAD [computer-aided design] was available, but no one had the expertise to use it, or CNC [computer numerical control] machines and so on. So, it was done the old way. Sopwith would have stamped these fittings out, but they drew them out on a piece of metal, cut them out with a saw, filed them up and bent them as appropriate.
The engine was Shuttleworth’s. All they had was a crankshaft, which was used to set various things up. When they first approached Shuttleworth about the Camel project, one of the things that came to the fore very quickly was a suitable engine. The then chief engineer, Chris Morris, had another Clerget — it’s turned out to be a 9Bf 140hp long-stroke. They thought they could get that airworthy, which they’ve been able to do. It took a lot of work; it needed new pistons, new cylinders, and parts of the tappets as well. Shuttleworth engine specialist Phil Norris is an absolute wizard on rotaries.
February 2007: in the Batley assembly jig with wings attached, but before the flying and landing wires were fitted.
The first two NAW aircraft were done under CAA auspices, but the Camel was done under the LAA [Light Aircraft Association]. That worked out very well. One of the pilots down at Shuttleworth, Rob Millinship, was the LAA inspector.
Having proved ideal for so long, conditions in the Batley premises deteriorated when they were sold off. Then in 2013 the lease was due for renewal, and Shuttleworth weren’t prepared to renew it. About six NAW members were working on the Camel when it left in August 2013.
At that point, the undercarriage needed final welding. The cables were in, but they weren’t spliced. The systems weren’t in, like the air, fuel and oil systems, so that was all done at Old Warden. That’s probably a good thing, because they’ve got to maintain it. They’ve had to put a small access panel on the port side, which isn’t authentic, but they weren’t able to get to the fuel filter, even going upside-down in the cockpit.
The big things as far as modern standards were concerned were that a four-point harness was put in for the pilot, rather than a lap strap, and obviously the glue. The old casein glue or pot glue that they used in the First World War is not a good idea, so they used Aerodux 500, a very good modern glue.
Now overseen by the Shuttleworth chief engineer Jean-Michel Munn, at Old Warden the Camel made visible progress towards completion. The plywood cockpit and side panels, which proved troublesome, were completed before the airframe was taken down to be covered, using synthetic materials rather than linen. The chosen colour scheme was that of a Ruston Proctor-built example operated by No 70 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps, the first front-line unit to receive the type. It carries the serial D1851 and is named Ikanopit (‘I can hop it’).
Members of the Shuttleworth engineering team refitting the wings in February 2015. From left to right in the foreground are Andy Preslent, Gareth Rutt and Rory Cook, while Phil Norris stands by the aircraft’s nose.
Engine runs began in August 2016, leading up to the following May’s successful maiden flight.
Roger ‘Dodge’ Bailey flies the reproduction Camel near Old Warden August 2017.
When ‘Dodge’ Bailey, the Shuttleworth Collection’s chief pilot, took Sopwith F1 Camel reproduction ‘D1851’/ G BZSC into the air for the first time at Old Warden on 18 May 2017, it brought one of the historic aviation scene’s most compelling stories to a close. The West Yorkshire-based Northern Aeroplane Workshops, established back in 1973, shut up shop when the Camel was moved to Old Warden for completion during the summer of 2013, but the machine’s maiden flight marked the very end of the group’s final project.
Robert Richardson describes the Camel project as “a great marriage between NAW and Shuttleworth”, members of whose teams gathered for this photograph. Back row, left to right: David Barraclough (Eric Barraclough’s son), Rory Cook, Robert Richardson, ‘Dodge’ Bailey, Phil Norris and Gareth Rutt. Front row, left to right: John Thompson, Geoff Kilner, Rod Elliott, Andy Preslent, Jean-Michel Munn, Horace Darlington and Ian Whitwan.
In preparation for that, ‘Dodge’ Bailey did a great amount of homework. He used three-view diagrams of different Sopwith types, all to the same scale, on acetate sheets that could be laid over one another to afford the most direct comparison: they depict the Camel, 1½ Strutter, Pup, Triplane and Snipe. Amongst other things, they showed that the Camel’s tailplane is about 60 per cent of the size of the Pup’s, and that the fin is smaller too. The tail arm is longer on the Triplane, making the tail more effective. They both preceded the Camel; its Snipe successor, meanwhile, saw the tail going back to the sizes of the previous aeroplanes, and the fin and rudder made significantly larger. “That tells you a lot about what the aeroplane’s probably going to be like”, says ‘Dodge’. “A very simple technique, but quite illuminating.” Then there were period scientific and technical papers to read, drawings made by the Germans of a captured Camel and reproduced in Flugsport to examine, and numerous references to study. In his weighty tome Flying Qualities and Flight-Testing of the Aeroplane, former CAA test pilot Darrol Stinton described flighttesting a Clerget-engined Camel. A May 1968 issue of Flight International includes a piece by six-victory Royal Naval Air Service pilot Capt Ronald Sykes on flying a Bentley BR1-powered example. Best of all, ‘Dodge’ feels, are the writings of Wg Cdr Norman Macmillan, who was operational on RFC/RAF Camels on the Western Front and in Italy, and subsequently flew the type while instructing at a fighter school back home in the UK. Apart from several books, Macmillan wrote an article on his Camel experiences that, some years after his death, appeared in the October 1984 Aeroplane Monthly; it was called ‘A Fierce Little Beast’. In that feature, says ‘Dodge’, “There’s some really good advice, and counterintuitive advice: for example, to start the take-off with the stick on the carburettor intake tubes. Because the Camel cockpit is set more forward, the carburettor is closer to the pilot than in earlier types. To start the takeoff with the stick on the intake tubes means the stick is fully forward. It’s pretty unusual to do that. On most taildraggers you would start with the stick back, and some you would start with the stick kind of neutral. What I had to think when I read that was, ‘why on earth is he telling ab initio students to do that?’ “This is one of the bits that I don’t understand about the thinking at Sopwith at the time. If we overlay the Camel and the Pup in side view, you can see that the cockpit has moved from the trailing edge to under the centre-section, so the distance from the cockpit to the engine has changed; they moved the pilot forward. In the Pup, the area under the guns, pretty much where the centre of gravity is, is where the fuel tank is. Any aircraft designer will tell you to put the fuel tank on the centre of gravity; then, as the fuel burns, it doesn’t change the CG. Whatever made them move the cockpit forward means that the fuel tank can no longer go there so it goes behind the cockpit, well aft of the CG. When the fuel tank is full of fuel, the CG is a long way aft. That’s a clue to why the guy is saying, ‘stick fully forward’. It means that when the aeroplane is in flight it is not in trim.
Airborne Old Warden Park.
It was one of its Camels, B7270, that was officially credited with the shooting-down of Manfred von Richthofen before evidence came to light that the ‘Red Baron’ probably fell victim to ground fire. Clayton & Shuttleworth employees were given a speciallyprinted leaflet commemorating their product’s feat. “Now, you have to be a bit careful about the term ‘in trim’ because it means different things to different people. To pilots, ‘in trim’ means, ‘I have trimmed the aeroplane; I can take my hands off and it flies straight, it doesn’t pitch up or pitch down’. That is, if you like, ‘controls-free in-trim’… To a flight dynamicist, ‘in-trim’ means that the sum of the moments is zero; in other words, that the aeroplane isn’t pitching, but the pilot might be holding a huge control deflection and/or force to hold it in that condition. If he lets go of the stick it wouldn’t be in trim at all; it would pitch. The Camel is like that. In order to stop the aeroplane pitching you need a relatively large stick force. What the aeroplane wants to do when you’re taking off with a full fuel tank is pitch up. “Imagine that a student used to taking off in an aeroplane with the stick back takes off in a Camel — it’s got twice as much power, maybe three times as much, as he’s used to. It’s very lightly wing-loaded and it’ll be airborne in no time. If the stick is back and the aeroplane is ‘out of trim’ it will just pitch up as it leaves the ground, and he will just stall and crash straight away. “By putting the stick forward Macmillan knows there is no chance of the pilot putting the aeroplane on its nose, because the CG is so far aft. The first thing that happens is that he’ll see the tail coming up once the take-off starts, and then he can adjust the stick position. If he’s late, if he holds the stick back and doesn’t get it forward early enough, the aeroplane’s going to pitch up. It’s all about anticipating the reaction of the aeroplane when it gets airborne. You don’t actually leave the ground with the stick fully forward; like I say, as soon as the aeroplane’s rolling and the tail comes up you can move the stick to hold the normal take-off attitude for a taildragger. When you get airborne you’re pushing on the stick all the time to stop the aeroplane pitching up. “I am told that if you run the aeroplane right out of fuel, like they would have done, by the time it’s empty the CG has moved pretty much on to the forward limit, and now you’re pulling all the time to the point where it became quite difficult to do three-point landings. The pull force needed to get to that position was quite a lot, and you might run out of elevator before achieving the three-point attitude. We never fly it that short of fuel, so we’ve not been there. “So, the Camel is, if you like, ‘out of trim’ with any sort of fuel in it at all, and under that ‘out-of-trim-ness’ it is also unstable. You’re dealing with an aeroplane that requires a force to maintain its attitude, but the force changes after a disturbance will likely be unpredictable. “One of the mitigations we came up with was to only use a half-tank of fuel… the other thing was that, because [this Clerget] is a really nice engine, to throttle up relatively steadily. That made the take-off a little bit more manageable. I really anticipated the aeroplane to be unpleasant in pitch, because every bit of evidence suggested it would be, and it didn’t disappoint in that regard. “I also expected turns, particularly to the right, to be compromised by the gyroscopic precession. I found on first acquaintance that even left turns were pretty unusual. These were climbing turns, because I was climbing out. I continued to climb until 3,000ft or so and then throttled back, and as soon as the power came back below about 1,000rpm the aeroplane started to get a bit more pleasant — or less unpleasant. The pitch deficiency is at its worst at high power, and pretty much has gone away by the time you’re gliding, so you don’t really notice it when you’re coming in to land. One of the things you tuck away in your head is, ‘if it all gets too much, throttle back’, which might be counter-intuitive to some people. “What was more of a surprise was how directionally sensitive the aeroplane was. There are very few aeroplanes that I have flown that behave like this; I think the Comper Swift is similar, but not as bad. Most aeroplanes you want to fly in balance, so you put the slip indicator in the centre — using the rudder, normally. Once you have put the rudder in that place, and your feet hold the rudder in that place, things won’t change unless you change the power or the speed or aileron. That’s not the case in the Camel. Having put the aeroplane in balance it doesn’t stay that way. It’s the directional equivalent of the pitch handling characteristics, in the sense that it will diverge from that condition you thought you had sorted out, and you have to put it right again. Darrol Stinton refers to that as, ‘there is no stability, it’s all control’. You not only have to control the pitch, which you were kind of expecting, but the yaw as well… ”I expected turns, particularly to the right, to be compromised by the gyroscopic precession. I found on first acquaintance that even left turns were pretty unusual”
Sopwith F1 Camel reproduction ‘D1851’/G-BZSC Shuttleworth Collection
“What it boils down to is that you have to be actively in the control loop all the time. Reputedly the only time a Camel will fly hands-off in-trim is when it’s inverted. I think if you were to fly it enough you would get to love it, and in one of Macmillan’s books he reckons it’s maybe 15 hours on the Camel and then you’ve adapted to the aeroplane. I haven’t got 15 hours on the Camel; I’ve probably got three, so what I’ve been relating are first impressions of a strange aeroplane.” In combat, flown by someone with the requisite experience, ‘Dodge’ says the Camel, “could be manoeuvred in a very unpredictable way, so it would be a very difficult target. Equally, they could get on the tail of a more predictable aeroplane, which couldn’t manoeuvre anywhere near as aggressively as the Camel. What the Camel couldn’t do was go fast; it couldn’t run away or chase, it just had to fight, and it did that very well in a tight dogfight. “One of the things you notice when you’re flying tight turns is that the gyroscopics of the engine start to dominate things. If the aeroplane pitches up, the gyroscopic precession causes it to yaw to the right. Whenever you’re turning steeply, as far as the aeroplane is concerned it is pitching up to go round the turn. If you’re making a left turn, the aeroplane is pitching up so it’ll yaw right. To stop it yawing right you need to apply left rudder. When you enter the turn you use some left rudder and left stick; then, having got the bank on, the nose is pitching up and so that left rudder needs to stay on — and even a bit more. In a left turn it does not feel particularly odd. Now, in a right turn, you might need a little bit of right rudder as you start to roll in to balance, but as soon as a pitch rate appears that right rudder is no longer appropriate. You need left rudder now. In a steep right turn, if you don’t apply left rudder the nose will yaw down towards the ground. The tightness of the right turn is limited by how much left rudder you can get on. You can end up in a tight right turn, going round apparently on a sixpence, probably only just getting rid of the push force — so you’re not pulling particularly, you’re just relaxing the push force — with nearly full left rudder on, and the aeroplane is perfectly in balance. That does feel odd”. On other Sopwiths, he continues, “the gyroscopics are there, but they are less intrusive because the tail volumes are greater.” Power is, of course, a factor. “This Camel has the 140hp, long-stroke Clerget engine. Somewhere in the documentation for that engine it says you must not use full throttle at sea level. Effectively it gives you a bit of enhanced performance at altitude that you’re not allowed to use low down. Full rpm would be 1,200- 1,250, and at that setting, with nearly full power on, the aeroplane is at its most cantankerous. But for what we need to do, we don’t ever need to apply that amount of power. What I’ve found is that if we take off with maybe 1,100rpm and get the climb to display height out of the way, as soon as you’re high enough come back to 1,000rpm, and then you’ve got a less challenging aeroplane.” It had been hoped to display the Camel at both of the last two Shuttleworth shows of 2017, but conditions were too windy. With all the usual provisos, it should make its public flying debut at a very appropriate occasion: the 2018 Season Premiere event on Sunday 6 May, marking the RAF’s centenary. There the fruits of so many labours will hopefully be airborne for all to see, and the exploits of one of the greatest British fighters recalled. When Sir Thomas Sopwith saw the Northern Aeroplane Workshops-built reproduction Triplane, he thought it so good that he famously declared it a ‘late-production’ example. Were the great man still alive, he would surely consider just the same to be true of this Camel.
The Camel demands notably careful handling in many areas of its flight envelope, but the rewards are there for the seasoned pilot. ”You have to be in the control loop all the time. Reputedly the only time a Camel will fly hands-off in trim is when it’s inverted”
Fred North’s motorcycle business suffered when the depression came so he began to build the Tui. He used Lincoln Standard Sportsplane plans from the USA adapting them for New Zealand regulations. The modifications classed the Tui as a different model to the parent.
He intended it to be the prototype for a New Zealand aircraft manufacturing business. “I thought that if a fellow could build something like that there might be a market for it.” Unfortunately the outbreak of war in 1939 halted the venture.
The fuselage sat in the window of Mr. North’s motorcycle garage and passersby watched the progress. When Mr North moved to Dannevirke he took the Tui with him. He later moved back to Auckland after spending little time on the Tui, but much time repairing aircraft which flew into Dannevirke, and learning about aircraft design.
Mr. North wanted to see the plane in flight so Alan McGruer performed the test flight on 4 January 1934 at Hobsonville. Its top speed was 100 mph, and it stalled at 45 mph. Later, the Tui was used by men wanting to get experience to gain commercial pilots’ licenses. The Tui was cheap to fly at 30 miles to the gallon (10.7 km to the litre).
In 1934 Charles Kingsford Smith flew it from the Auckland aerodrome and, impressed with the construction, declared “You’ll never break her in the air”.
Registered ZK-ADV, after a 1941 crash it was not repaired by the owner.
Manufacturer: Fred A.N. North Type: One-Seat Acrobatic Sportsplane Engine: 1 three cylinder radial Szekeley SR3 Weight: 450lb (empty), 750lb (fuelled) Top Speed: 100mph (160.93km) Wingspan: 6.09m (20 ft) Length: 4.87m (16 ft) Accommodation: Pilot in open cockpit
N.T.4 and 4A four-seat anti-submarine and training flying-boats. The N.T.4s were similar to Curtiss H.4s and known as Americas, but there was no connection between the two companies.
1911 (Petaluma) = A second Hall-Scott-powered aircraft was built in 1911, practically a duplicate of the first, for use by “Wiseman the Fearless” in exhibition flights throughout the West, as well as for the first Post Office-sanctioned air mail flight, on 17 February 1911, from Petaluma to Santa Rosa.
The names Wiseman-Cooke and Noonan-Wiseman often appear in conjunctive reports—Ben Noonan, a Santa Rosa butcher, supplied finances for Wiseman’s projects; Weldon B Cooke (an aircraft builder in his own right) purchased Wiseman’s 1911 machine, thought to have been repowered with 75hp Roberts, to fly in exhibitions after his Black Diamond was retired.
Restored in 1985 for the Smithsonian’s Postal Museum.
The first aeroplane designed by Louis Noel (sometimes mistakenly called Paul Noel) appeared in 1911. It was completed in April in France and flew in June. It was an unequal-span biplane with an all-tubing airframe for disassembly. The box fuselage was uncovered with a rudder hinged at the tail and a huge tail plane set ahead of it. After brief testing at the end of June, the Anzani was replaced with a Viale, itself an Anzani copy, and the balance was changed. Later a Gnome was installed.
The last of the NV family of trainers was the NV-6 (UTI-6) (Russian: Никитин НВ-6 (УТИ-6)) designed as an advanced aerobatic trainer.
The NV-6 had a biplane configuration with a straight lower wing and an 8º raked upper wing and a slightly larger wingspan. Both wings were braced by a single I-pillar and tension cables. Ailerons were only included on the lower wing.
The construction was mixed. The fuselage featured a welded JMA tube structure, while the wings were made of wood with fabric covering. The center section of the fuselage and the wing of the NV-1 were used, which in this case was installed as the lower wing.
The tail unit was of the monoplane type with the stabilizers constructed of fabric-wrapped duralumin.
The landing gear was of the conventional type, with a tail wheel. The cantilever main landers featured simple balloon wheels with teardrop-shaped streamlined fairings.
The power plant consisted of an MG-11F engine with a special carburettor designed by MA Kossov to be able to perform inverted flight and a two-blade propeller.
The NV-6 was built at the request of the OSOVIAJIM at the OKB-30 facilities during 1939, but it would not be until December 1940 that an engine could be obtained. In that winter several flights were carried out by Nikitin and the pilot VV Shevchenko, which demonstrated good behavior of the aircraft. Unfortunately, the static resistance tests had not been carried out and the TsAGI, under these conditions, did not give authorization for the development of official flights. This problem lasted until the start of the war and from then on it became impossible to pursue further development.
Powerplant: One 165 hp MG-11F Wingspan: 7.0m Wing area: 14.0m² Length: 5.8m Empty weight: 560 kg Loaded weight: 750 kg Wing loading: 53.6 kg/m² Power Load: 4.5kg/hp Fuel and oil capacity: 80+20 kg Speed at sea level: 270 km/h Landing speed: 75 km/h Landing run: 170 m Take-off run: 50 m Endurance: 2.5 hours Ceiling: 4500m Accommodation: 1
The central direction of the OSOVIAJIM and the Technical Scientific Society of Aviation (Aviavnito) presented a joint contest in 1934 for a training aircraft. Among all the designs submitted, the proposal by VV Nikitin with a scheme similar to that of Polikarpov ‘s classic U-2 was selected as the winner, although with only ¾ wingspan and improved aerodynamics. This model received the designation NV-5 (Russian: Никитин НВ-5).
The NV-5 had a structure very similar to the Polikarpov U-2 and was basically built in wood with fabric covering.
The wings on the biplane wingbox were attached by I-stanchions with cable turnbuckles. On the NV-5 prototype the ailerons were designed similar to those on the U-2, but were later replaced by louvered ones.
The landing gear, with a conventional structure, had a tail skid in its initial version, soon being replaced by a tail wheel. The main landers featured 500 mm diameter balloon wheels, but with the possibility of substituting them for the nominal ones used on the U-2.
The prototype was developed using MA Kossov’s MG-40 engine and a propeller designed by Kuznietsov for use in light aircraft, which proved highly effective. The engine featured a mount with rubber damping.
The NV-5 was designed as a primary training aircraft and the first example saw the light of day only in 1937. The aircraft passed flight tests without difficulties, which were carried out by 15 different pilots, covering a total of 250 flights, in which landings were made with both wheels and skis. As a conclusion, it was determined that the aircraft responded to all flight safety requirements, also presenting a simple construction.
The biggest problem was related to the engine. The MG-40 did not go beyond being an experimental example because it was decided not to produce it. Under these conditions, the determination was made in 1938 to test the 165 hp MG-11F engine, with which the characteristics of the device showed a noticeable increase. This version was called NV-5bis and after the tests the Osoaaviajim request for its serial production was received and later also that of the UVVS.
The only example built was disassembled with the objective of preparing the plans for the series production of the training model that was renamed U-5.
Overall the U-5 was a development of the NV-5bis primary trainer with a new metal blade, simplified fuselage structure, and TsAGI-876 profiled wings instead of the earlier Hettingen-476. The ailerons and tail control surfaces featured duralumin structures with a new rigid control system.
Nikitin U-5 two-seater trainer
In 1937 the first machine, named U-5, began tests, which fully confirmed the builders’ calculations. In both factory and state tests, more than 60 people participated and all expressed positive opinions about the new aircraft.
Series production of the model was planned with a 100 hp M-11 powerplant, but only three prototypes were developed in 1938, which were followed by four pre-production aircraft between 1938 and 1939, some of which used the improved M-11 powerplant. 120hp 11G.
One example of the U-5, used as a transitional trainer, featured a fixed ShKAS machine gun located on the intrados of the lower right wing, firing forwards outside the propeller disc and the capacity to carry four RS non-guided reactive rockets. This allowed the pilots, in addition to the development of the piloting technique, to practice aerial fire.
The U-5bis was generally similar to the U-5 but with a 165-180 hp MG-11F powerplant. At the request of the UVVS, a prototype and four pre-series examples were produced in 1939, which also passed the tests successfully.
In general, 12 examples of the U-5 were built at OKB-30 between the prototypes and the series heads. The planned serial production was never executed because despite the excellent performance obtained, the U-5 could not displace the U-2 and UT-2 that were already in full production process.
A special version of the U-5 was built in 1942 at the request of the Moscow Air Defense Command (MVO). The modification was carried out in the MVO system repair shops, where VV Nikitin had started working as the main builder and technologist.
U-5 LSh – MG-31F engine
The main difference consisted in the installation of a 330 hp MG-31F engine, which brought with it the need to reinforce the entire structure. The upper wing was taken from a Polikarpov I-153 fighter, which was trimmed at its base to achieve the same wingspan as the original U-5s. The fuselage in this version was conceived in skeletal form using welded ZOXGSA steel tubes and covered with plywood.
The only LSh built saw active use during the war
The new model known as LSh according to the initials of L ioxki Shtabnoi or Light for staffs (in the literature the name U-5 MG-31F is commonly used), was conceived as a three-seater liaison aircraft with a fully glazed closed cockpit. The pilot was located in front with the two passengers located on a board in the form of a longitudinal bench behind.
The weight of this empty version reached 800 kg with a takeoff weight of 1400 kg. Cruising speed was around 240 km/h with a top speed of 272 km/h. The range with reserves for 4.5 hours was about 1000 km.
The LSh was an excellent aircraft that was widely used in the period 1942-1945, making more than 600 flights on the Leningrad to Stalingrad fronts. During this period, it carried out operations in the midst of combat situations, receiving direct bullet hits, which caused it to have to be repaired several times, but the engine never stopped responding.
NV-5 Powerplant: One 140 hp Kossov MG-40 Wingspan: 9.82 m Wing area: 25.0 sq.m Length: 7.7m Empty weight: 612 kg Loaded weight: 850 kg Wing loading: 34 kg/sq.m Power load: 6.1 kg/hp Fuel and oil capacity: 75+12 kg Speed at sea level: 202 km/h Landing speed: 60 km/h Landing run: 110 m Take-off run: 120 m Endurance: 5.5h Ceiling: 6000m Time to 1000m: 3min Time to 3000m: 12min Accommodation: 2
NV-5bis Powerplant: One 165 hp MG-11F Wingspan: 9.82 m Wing area: 25.0 sq.m Length: 7.7m Speed at sea level: 220 km/h Landing speed: 60 km/h Endurance: 4 hours Time to 1000m: 3min Time to 3000m:11min Fuel and oil capacity: 75+12 kg Accommodation: 2
U-5 prototype Powerplant: One 100 hp M-11 Wingspan: 9.84 m Wing area: 25.53 sq.m Length: 7.62m Empty weight: 700 kg Speed at sea level: 170 km/h Landing speed: 60 km/h Fuel and oil capacity: 75+12 kg Accommodation: 2
Pre-production U-5 Powerplant: One 120 hp M-11G Wingspan: 9.84 m Wing area: 25.53 sq.m Length: 7.62m Empty weight: 711 kg Loaded weight: 974 kg Wing loading: 37.8 kg/sq.m Power load: 8.7 kg/hp Fuel and oil capacity: 75+12 kg Speed at sea level: 170 km/h Maximum speed on the road: 181 km/h Landing speed: 65 km/h Landing run: 65 m (10 s) Take-off run: 70 m (9 s) Endurance: 3.0h Ceiling: 3750m Time to 1000 m: 5 min Accommodation: 2
U-5bis Powerplant: 180 hp MG-11F Wingspan of upper plane: 9.84 m Wingspan of lower plane: 9.24 m Wing area: 25.53 sq.m Length: 7.62m Empty weight: 773 kg Loaded weight: 1036 kg Wing loading: 40.6 kg/sq.m Power Load: 7.5kg/hp Fuel and oil capacity: 75+12 kg Speed at sea level: 205 km/h Landing speed: 70 km/h Landing run: 120 m (10 s) Take-off run: 70 m (7 s) Endurance: 2.5 hours Ceiling: 4500m Time to 1000 m: 3.8 min Time to 3000 m: 18.4 min Accommodation: 2
U-5 LSh Powerplant: One 330 hp MG-31F Wingspan: 9.84 m Wing area: 25.53 sq.m Length: 7.75m Empty weight: 880 kg Normal flight weight: 974 kg Maximum takeoff weight: 1400 kg Wing loading: 54.8 kg/sq.m Power load: 4.25 kg/hp Fuel and oil capacity: 250+30 kg Maximum speed at sea level: 272 km/h Cruising speed: 240 km/h Landing speed: 75 km/h Landing roll: 130m (11sec) Takeoff Run: 40m (6sec) Practical range: 1000 km Practical ceiling: 4500 m Crew: 1 Payload capacity: 2 passengers
In the middle of 1934 Nikitin proposed to build an amphibious aircraft with characteristics similar to those of the North American model Grumman G-15 Duck.
The Nikitin NV-4 (Russian: Никитин НВ-4) was designed as a two-seater biplane built of wood with a central float.
The double-spar wooden wings were rectangular in shape with rounded ends and were braced by N-studs and tension cables. The control planes and surfaces were covered with fabric. The upper plane was located in a sun visor configuration, resting on a structure fixed to the fuselage and had a split on the trailing edge to improve the pilot’s visibility from the cockpit. Each lower plane was attached to the sides of the fuselage junction structure with the central float. The upper wing featured ailerons and the lower landing flaps.
The fuselage was conceived with a semi-monocoque structure with a circular cross section. The rear region was conceived using glued sheets. The single-gear central float was inserted into the fuselage skin to form an integral whole. The plywood covering reached 5 mm in the redient area and 3 mm in the upper part.
The tail section featured an empennage constructed of fabric-wrapped duralumin. The tailplanes were braced to the empennage structure by means of rigid uprights.
The landing gear was of the conventional type. The main landers were retracted into cavities located in the sides of the floats. The tail wheel was located in the posterior region of the redient. The retraction system was manual, using a crank.
The two crew members were located in tandem in a closed cabin with ample glazing. The cabin presented equipment for carrying out night flights.
The selected power plant was the M-11 piston engine of only 100 hp, carefully faired and a two-blade propeller.
The construction was carried out in Moscow in 1936. The NV-4 prototype showed quite good results in flight, so it was decided to use the NV-4 as the basis for the development of a military model as a reconnaissance seaplane that unsuccessfully participated in the unofficial contest for embarked aircraft developed in 1939, which was won by the Beriev KOR-2.
Soon Nikitin would be assigned to fulfill new tasks, so the work on the NV-4 could not be continued.
NV-4 Powerplant: 1 × 100 hp M-11 Wingspan: 10.80 m Wing area: 28.50 m² Length: 8.70m Empty weight: 825 kg Normal takeoff weight: 1090 kh Power Load: 10.9 kg/hp Fuel and oil capacity: 90+15 kg Wing loading: 38.2 kg/m² Maximum speed at sea level: 160 km/h Landing speed: 65 km/h Accommodation: 2
After the IS-1 further improvements were made which led the IS-2. The IS-2 first flew in 1941 with a new M-88 radial engine, and although it produced the same power as the M-63 on the IS-1, it had a smaller diameter and was thus more aerodynamic giving it a top speed of 316mph. Armament was upgraded from four 7.62mm ShKAS MG’s firing at 1800rpm to two ShKAS and two 12.7mm DShK MG’s firing at 600rpm.
Ultimately, while the design proved its concept, the added weight from the actuating mechanism almost completely negated the added lift from the lower wing and left the IS-2 in a useless limbo where it was less maneuverable but faster than contemporary biplanes and more maneuverable but slower than contemporary monoplanes.
Development was cancelled to to these disappointing performance figures and the German invasion of Russia.