Indigenous Danish Fighter?

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Does anyone have any details about an indigenous Danish fighter just before WWII? On the Axis History forum, a brief mention is made of a Danish fighter project.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9118&start=30&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

From the context, this would seem to be a fighter design for the Marinens Flyvevæsen rather than the Hærens Flyvertropper. This is rather puzzling since orders were about to be signed for 12 Macchi C.200s (rather than the MF's preferred Fokker D.XXIs) when the Germans invaded.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,121
Reaction score
5,629
My dear Apophenia,

the MF.9 fighter was actually built,and the company was from Norway ,
not Danish.
http://www.aviastar.org/air/norway/marinens_mf-9.php
 

Attachments

  • marinens_mf-9.jpg
    marinens_mf-9.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 918

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Thanks Hesham. There is supposed to be a booklet on the Høver M.F.9 coming from Profiles in Norway. http://www.proinor.no/ (They also have a profile of the unique Hønningstad C5 Polar.)

The fighter that I was enquiring about was an unbuilt, indigenous Danish design. This is probably from 1939/1940 and may have been a rival to the Macchi MC.200. Alternatively, the fighter may have been an intended replacement for locally-made Fokker D.XXIs (possibly a Madsen design?).
 

mat

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
6
The danish fighter was the OV-J-1 marinefighter project from 1940. OV means OrlogsVaerftet (Naval Shipyard) and J stands for Jaeger (Fighter). The 1 means that it was their first (and only) attempt. The project was ended by the german invasion. I am at this moment trying to hunt down a drawing. I know a have som notes somewhere.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Tak for det!

Any details on this OV-J-1 project would be most welcome, Mat. A drawing would be fantastic.

If this fighter was a OrlogsVæftet design, does that mean that the finished product was to be a replacement for the MF's anticipated Macchi MC.200s?
 

mat

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
6
I believe that the OV-J-1 project were seen as a attempt to play it safe. Remember the Macchi-contract were not yet signed when the germans invaded. And even a signed contract were not a sure thing. Sweden had signed contracts for 144 Vultee Vanguard 48C (None arrived) and 52 Republic Guardsman (Only 2 arrived).
By the way I have found som of the notes I was looking for. They are from a research I made som years ago into the number of old aircraftdrawings, that are in the danish national archive (Rigsarkivet). And I found 2 drawings of the J-1 project. One is af 3-view drawing in scale 1:25 and the other is a detaildrawing of the wing. The last note also gives the wingspan: 8,75 meters. So it seems to have been smaller than the Fokker D.XXI of the army. Now I just have to find the drawings.
Marinens Flyvevæsen (Naval Air Arm) were not just in desperate need of new fighters (the navy-fighterforce were made up of 8 Hawker Nimrods bi-planes). Their floatplanes were Heinkel H.E. 8. The first H.E. 8 (Or H.M.II as they were called by the navy. Meaning Hydroplan Monoplane II) arrived in 1928 and in 1940 13 were still active. So in 1938 Orlogsværftet began the work of finding a successor. First project were to put floats on a Heinkel He 70 and re-engine it with a Armstrong Siddeley Tiger IX. Second attempt were to put a much larger engine on the old H.E. 8. And finally a new floatplane were created: The H.M.III. The wingspan were 18,4 meters and length 12,4 meters. The engine were a 820 H.P. Amstrong Siddeley Tiger VI. But the navy changed mind and gave up floatplanes. So in november 1938 a licensecontract were signed with Fairey, and the construction of 12 P.4/34 began at Orlogsværftet. But time had run out, and none flew before the german invasion.
 

Attachments

  • HM3.jpg
    HM3.jpg
    411.3 KB · Views: 1,016

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
114
This is already an excellent piece of research...
Thanks Mat.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Excellent stuff, thank you Mat!

Any drawings of the OV-J-1 would be most appreciated. Your point about contracts signed versus Macchi fighters actually delivered is well taken. As it turned out, Italy itself was only months away from war.

The history of the He-8/HM II replacement was an unexpected bonus. All three options are intriguing. Can we assume that the upgraded HM II would replace its Jaguar with a Tiger like the other two options?

With the work done on the HM III, I'm surprised that a landplane version was not considered. Of course such an aircraft would not have rivaled the Merlin-engined P.4/34 but might have been faster to build?
 

mat

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
6
I have not yet had the time to visit the Rigsarkivet, but in a old issue of the magazine "Flyvehistorisk Tidsskrift" I found an article and a sketch of the OV-J-1 fighter. The author writes that the sketch were handmade without any technical means, so I guess that it is not all that exact. The original project did have a W-wing ala Stuka. But it was chanced in 1941. The engine seems to be an inverted v. Maybe a Merlin as in the Fairey P.4/34. Armament was 4 8 mm MGs.
 

Attachments

  • OV-J-1.jpg
    OV-J-1.jpg
    208.6 KB · Views: 1,023

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Very nice -- thank you Mat!

The final version is a handsome aircraft. And the Merlin makes sense (although the two-bladed propeller is a surprise).

It appears that the lines of the Fairey P.4/34 were a strong influence. Maybe some D.XXI hang-overs in structure (steel-tube truss in the cockpit area)?

Many thanks.
 

Pepe Rezende

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
Apophenia said:
Very nice -- thank you Mat!

The final version is a handsome aircraft. And the Merlin makes sense (although the two-bladed propeller is a surprise).

It appears that the lines of the Fairey P.4/34 were a strong influence. Maybe some D.XXI hang-overs in structure (steel-tube truss in the cockpit area)?

Many thanks.

It seems to use a Czech Walther Sagitta engine or a Isotta-Fraschini Delta engine, nor a Merlin... Look the similar VEF I-16 mounting:

http://latvianaviation.com/VEF_I-16.html

Pepe
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Pepe Rezende said:
It seems to use a Czech Walther Sagitta engine or a Isotta-Fraschini Delta engine, nor a Merlin... Look the similar VEF I-16 mounting:

Pepe, I think you're right. The spinner looks too small for a Merlin. Interest in the Delta may fit in with the planned Macchi purchase.

An overview of Danish activities at the time from "Danske Militærfly: De danske militære flyverstyrkers udvikling 1910-1940" by Niels Jensen, Clausen Bøger, København, 1978 (ISBN 87-11-03877-2).

"H.M.III - Den 31/3-38 blev et skitseprojekt til et hydromonoplan forelagt chefen for flyvevæsenet. H.M.III vat et tresædet, lavvinget monoplan med pontonunderstel or lukket cockpit. Flyet skulle anvendes til både torpedokast og recognoscering. H.M.III projektet kom dog aldrig til udførelse, da man nåede til den konklusion, at recognosceringsfly ikke behøvede at være søfly.

Marinejager - Det sidste selvstændige flyprojekt på Orlogsvæftet var et udkast til en ny marinejager. Kroppen lignede Spitfire en del, vingerne var af mågevingetypen meget lig Stuka, men grundet besættelsen blev projectet ikke til noget.

Heinkel He 114 - Den 2/4-40 blev der underskrevet kontract med Heinkelfabrikkerne om levering af fire He 114 søfly, men grundet besættelsen blev de aldrig leverset.

Macchi C.200 - Forhandlingerne med Macchifabrikkerne ir Italien var i foråret 1940 inde i en detailleret fase angående en hurtig levering af tolv C.200 jagerfly. Kontrakten blev udarbejdet og forelå klar til underskrift, men besættelsen satte en stopper for sagens gennemførelse."

My rough translations (corrections welcomed):

H.M.III - A 31 March 1938 float monoplane concept presented to the chief of the air service. The H.M.III concept was for a three-seat, low-winged monoplane with pontoons and an enclosed cockpit. The plane was to be used for both torpedo launching and reconnaissance. However, the H.M.III project was never executed, when the conclusion was reached that reconnaissance aircraft didn't need to be seaplanes.

Marinejager - Orlogsvæft's last independent aircraft project was the design of a new naval fighter. The fuselage resembled that of the Spitfire, the wings were cranked like those of the Stuka. Because of the German occupation of Denmark, this project came to nothing.

Heinkel He-114 - On 2 April 1940, a contract was signed with Heinkel for the delivery of four He-114s floatplanes. Because of the occupation, these aircraft were never delivered.

Macchi C.200 - Negotiations with Macchi in Italy were in the final purchasing phase for the quick delivery of twelve C.200 fighters in the spring of 1940. The contract was prepared and was ready for signature, but the occupation put a stop to its completion.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,121
Reaction score
5,629
mat said:
I have not yet had the time to visit the Rigsarkivet, but in a old issue of the magazine "Flyvehistorisk Tidsskrift" I found an article and a sketch of the OV-J-1 fighter. The author writes that the sketch were handmade without any technical means, so I guess that it is not all that exact. The original project did have a W-wing ala Stuka. But it was chanced in 1941. The engine seems to be an inverted v. Maybe a Merlin as in the Fairey P.4/34. Armament was 4 8 mm MGs.


A more info about OV J.1 naval fighter and dive bomber,it was designed in two
versions;
http://www.natureandtech.com/?cat=39
 

Attachments

  • J.1Side.jpg
    J.1Side.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 624
  • J.1 naval fighter.jpg
    J.1 naval fighter.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 571
  • J.1 dive bomber.jpg
    J.1 dive bomber.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 148

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,378
Good find hesham !

BTW, the site mentions a "belly-mounted radiator and the side-view actually shows a detail,
that looks like one. To my opinion, that isn't the radiator, but the inner wheel well doors. In the
front views, there's no radiator under the belly. And in the other drawing, there's neither, too.
Attached the side view of the dive bomber.
 

Attachments

  • OV-J-1_DB.gif
    OV-J-1_DB.gif
    38 KB · Views: 126

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
It is! And I agree on your assessment of those wheelwell doors.

However, I believe it to have been pure speculation (on the part of the Nature and Technology author) that "the aircraft would have been ideal for a light (dive) bomber." As Mat said, the gull-winged arrangment was simply an earlier stage in the evolution of the OV-J-1 Jager which was just that -- a fighter.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,378
You may be right, the gull wing in itself isn't a prove for the use as a dive bomber at all.
This type of wing can be used for increasing ground clearance, without a too long landing
gear, but here it wouldn't have been necessary, as long, as no larger bombs, than 250 kg
types would have been carried on the centreline (I used a German type as pattern).
Maybe the gull wing was just too much of a symbol for a "Stuka", due to its use in the Ju 87.
 

Attachments

  • OV-J-1_250kg-bomb.gif
    OV-J-1_250kg-bomb.gif
    71.6 KB · Views: 663

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,503
Jemiba said:
Maybe the gull wing was just too much of a symbol for a "Stuka", due to its use in the Ju 87.

On the other hand, switching from the gull wing might just have been a measure to speed up development and/or simplify production, with advancing the projected delivery schedule as the primary goal.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,378
You're right, I just meant it as agreement to Apophenias supposition, that the dive bomber
idea was "pure speculation (on the part of the Nature and Technology author)". ;)
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Excellent work Jens! Other than torpedo bombers, most Marinens Flyvevæsen combat types seem to have carried 12.5 kg bombs (RAF 25 lb light bombs). But the MF's P.4/34 were to carry 250 kg bombs. Would these have also been RAF-type 500 lb GPs, I wonder?

Anyone have access to back issues of Flyvehistorisk Tidsskrift from Dansk Flyvehistorisk Forening (the Danish Aviation Historical Society)? Their article list shows "OV-J-1 dansk Marinejagerprojekt 1940" by Gunner Larsen in Vol 3, 1993. http://www.danfly.dk/flyvehistorisk-tidsskrift/artikelregister-1967-2007/
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,378
When the Danish Airforce was using british bomb types then, it would have certainly a british
500 lb type, I think. Didn't knew about this british "connection", that's why I just used the German type.
Have searched the States Library catalogue for the Flyvehistorisk Tidsskrift, but in vain. Seems,
that it isn't available by interlibrary loan, either. :(
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Thanks for checking Jens. Just in case anyone from Dansk Flyvehistorisk Forening is a member here ... if you want to popularized Danish aviation history, it's time to get at least the older back issues of Flyvehistorisk Tidsskrift mounted on the web guys ;)
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,121
Reaction score
5,629
Hi,

I want to ask,if those companies are the same,or different,the Orlogsværftet and
the OV-flyvebåde ?.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Hesham: Orlogsværftet was the Danish naval shipyard ... which also built the Danish navy's aircraft.

Flyvebåd is Danish for flying boat (and hydrofoil). So OV-flyvebåde just means flying boats built by the Orlogsværftet. These mostly Donnet-Lévêque inspired boats were also given FB designations. See: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6401.0
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,121
Reaction score
5,629
Thank you my dear Apophenia,

but as you see in Wikipedia,they were more than FB series;

Orlogsværftet / Flyvetroppernes Værksteder[edit]
(Orlogsværftet / Flyvetroppernes Værksteder - Naval dockyard / Flying Corps’ workshops)

Orlogsvaerftet HM.II[19]
Orlogsvaerftet H.B.I[20]
Orlogsvaerftet H.B.II[20]
Orlogsvaerftet L.B.I[20]
Orlogsvaerftet L.B.II[20]
Orlogsvaerftet L.B.IV[20]
Orlogsvaerftet L.B.V[20]
Orlogsvaerftet L.M.I[20]
Orlogsvaerftet Mågen 17[20]
Orlogsvaerftet F.B.II[20]
Orlogsvaerftet F.B.III[20]
Orlogsvaerftet F.B.IV[20]
Orlogsvaerftet F.B.V[20]
Tøjhusværkstederne- Orlogsværftet H-Maskine[20]
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Hesham: Yes. To clarify, OV-flyvebåde just mean flying boats in Danish. Orlogsværftet (Danish Naval Dockyard) is the 'manufacturer' of the OV-flyvebåde FB series and - as you note - other aircraft designs.
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
196
Reaction score
105
Since the design was made to be a modern fighter plane and would have netered service around 1942 ish i think it would have used 4x 11.35 mm madsen mg's instead of the often mentioned smaller 8mm madsens. Denmark was not afraid to put larger caliber guns in planes. Their ordered Fokker G1's was to use madsen 23 mms.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
blockhaj said:
... i think it would have used 4x 11.35 mm madsen mg's instead of the often mentioned smaller 8mm madsens...

Was the 11.35mm Madsen ever adopted for Danish service? I thought only the Argentine employed it ... or its 11.35 x 62mm cartridge. *

In any case, the gun's performance may not have warranted the switch from Denmark's standard 8 mm round.
-- https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1939/1939-1-%20-%201605.PDF
________________________

* At least as an aircraft armament. Madsen also offered the 11.35 mm as an anti-aircraft gun in the early-mid '30s ... does anyone know if the 11.35 mm was ever adopted in that role?
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
196
Reaction score
105
Justo Miranda said:
and also adopted by the Thai Curtiss Hawk 75 N and Chinese Curtiss CW-21
What i never heard that? The 75N used the 23 mm gunpods though.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Are you sure Justo? I've never heard of Chinese CW-21s fitted with Madsens. AFAIK, none of the CW-21 at Loi Wing were ever completed. That leaves the prototype CW-21 demonstrator. Is it possible that some source has confused the CW-21's main undercarriage pods with gun mounts?

BTW, the CW-21 prototype was flown in China alongside a Curtiss Hawk 75Q demonstrator that was fitted with twin podded Madsens. But those guns were 23 mm cannons (as trialled on XP-36F 38-172) intended for use against Japanese riverboats on the Yangtze.

According to some sources, half of the Thai Hawk 75Ns had podded Madsens ... but, again, those were 23 mm cannons not 11.35mm machine guns.
-- http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qsDJUjMZMAA/UVv1Bl6_3YI/AAAAAAAAFKY/X0Sao6RNTcQ/s1600/a-04_PNG.png
 

blockhaj

Swedish "want to be" aviation specialist
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
196
Reaction score
105
0952776.jpg

The thai hawk 75N is confirmed to have the 23mm's.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,893
Reaction score
3,807
Website
www.amazon.com
I am not sure. My sources about the CW-21 of Loi Wing are not reliable.
It seems to exist certain confusion between the Danish Madsen 11.35 x 62 and the Belgian FN-Browning 13.20 x 99 machine guns that were expected to be used by the CW-21 B of the ML-KNIL.
It is possible that the Chinese, after suffering bad experiences with the Gloster Gladiator Mk.I armed with FN of 7.92 mm in 1938, decided to acquire Danish weapons.
I can confirm the use of the Madsen 11.35 x 62 in the Curtiss H-75 N of the Thai Air Force in 1938.
Source: DOCAVIA No. 22
 

Attachments

  • img265.jpg
    img265.jpg
    146.3 KB · Views: 259
  • img266.jpg
    img266.jpg
    463.1 KB · Views: 247
  • img267.jpg
    img267.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 257
Last edited:

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
1,354
Thanks for that Justo ... especially the Thai reference :)
 

Orla

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
25
Hi all, just stumpled over this thread and I can give some extra information on the Danish Marinens Flyvervæsen (Danish Naval Airforce) project.

The OV (Orlogs Værftet = Naval Shipyard) had started designs on a fighter project in late 1939 and based the inspiration from the inspection of a Messerschmitt BF 109D-1 (Werknummer 461) from 8. JG 126, Red 5, which crashed on October 26th. 1939 near Kragelund in Denmark. The plane was dismantled and transporteed to the OV for inspection prior to being handed over to the Luftwaffe in Germany.

On the Danish "Rigsarkivet" (Danish National Archive) you can find a folder with several drawings of the OV-J1 fighter. Only a few of the drawings are signed, with the earliest date being:

Date - Description - Scl. - Designer (Notes):
27/3-1940 - 1,2 TS jager - 1:25 - C.B. (Weight =1,2 Metric Tons fighter)
29/3-1940 - ? - 1:25 - C.B.
22/6-1940 - Longitudal cut - 1:10 - S.J.
24/6-1940 - OV-J1 Line drawing - 1:10 - E. Lakjer (Remarks: Fuselage changed)
1/7-1940 - Type drawing - 1:25 - ? (Later modified on 1/2-1941)

The measurement of the figther was:
Length = 7,755 Meter
Wing span = 8,750 Meter
Tail wing span = 3,0 Meter
Hight = 3,2 Meter (Propeller top position)
Track gauge = 2,4 Meter
Propeller diamater = 2,5 Meter

There was several different layouts, even one with a gulwing arrangement, but on 24/6-1940, the final layout of the fighter must have been decided as the fuselage was modified and the gulwing mainwing arrangement was rejected due to issues with the production strength of a wooden wing.
The construction was ment to be a steel tube designed forward fuselage with a wooden arrangement from the cockpit aftwards with the tail arrangement being a wooden construction. The main wing would be a wooden construction with two main spars with 20 ribs on each side of the centerline.
The undercarriage would have been retractable, including the tailwheel, but the retractable tailwheel was later rejected most likely due to the complexecity of the design.
Flaps would have been hydraulically operated, and would have included the ailerons to follow the flaps down when flaps were deploid.
Ailerons and rudder would have been operated by wire, and the elevator operated by a rod arrangement.
The desicion on the engine to be used must have been very clear as the tail fin and rudder was designed with an angel to the left of the trust line to be able to handle trust from the engine torque.
As the engine compartment was only 1,2 Meter in length, the choise of engine was limeted and would not have been a Rolls Royce Merlin engine, but rather a 240 HP Argus As 10 8 cylinder air-cooled V engine with hanging cylinder. There are no hint of any cooler arrangement on the drawings of the OV J-1 aircraft!
The measurement of the planes cocpit section would be approx 1,2 Meter from canopy to buttom floor, with the pilot sitting almost on the aft main spar and having the rudder control pedals positioned between the two main spars of the main wing.

Armamant:
There are some wery well documented drawings showing the armament to be two 8mm. Madsen machineguns positioned in each with with the amonition belts going from the guns outwards the wing end and back again. The design was bease on a amunition betl being fed into the main wing and with a wire system and a turning handle, to be draged from the gun position all the way to the end of the wing and back to the gun. This indicates an amount of rounds to be approx. 500 rounds for each machinegun.

There are no endications of any other ordonance, like bombs or rockets.

All in all, this was a very small fighter and should it have been build it would have bene very similar to the Skoda-Kauba SK 257 V-1 prototype developed in 1942 as a fighter trainer.

Nothing came of the project as the occupation of Denmark also ment that the Luftwaffe took over the facilities and the Danes has to evacuate their facilities. The only remnants of this project are the drawings left in a folder in the National Archive.



Regards
Orla
 

Attachments

  • OV-J1.jpg
    OV-J1.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 130

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,893
Reaction score
3,807
Website
www.amazon.com
From
Enemy at the Gates

Panic Fighters of the Second World War

Denmark (9 April 1940)​



After the declaration of war carried out by France and Britain on 3 September 1939, the Germans were forced to invade Norway to secure the iron ore shipping from Narvik.

The plan Operation Weserübung Süd, included the capture on 9 April of the Danish Aalborg airfield in northern Jutland, for refuelling the Messerschmitt Bf 110 fighters. At that time the Danish Naval Flying Service did not have a single modern aircraft to its disposition and had only nine Hawker Nimrod L.B.V. biplane fighters at the Avnø Naval Air Station.

On the invasion day the entire four squadron-strong of the Danish Army Air Service consisted of 45 aircraft based in Copenhagen-Værløse airfield: thirteen Gloster Gauntlet II J biplane fighters, eight Fokker D.XXI monoplane fighters, twenty-two Fokker CV reconnaissance/light bomber biplanes, one de Havilland Dragonfly transport and one Cierva C.30 autogyro.

The main action took place in Aalborg with launch of paratroopers from Junkers Ju 52/3m aircraft, but large formations of Heinkel He 111 from Kampgeschwader 4, escorted by Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-1, also flew over the capital, dropping leaflets to secure the quick surrender of the Danish authorities. After the air show, entirely psychological, the Bf 110 of the ZG.1 and ZG.76 carried out a mission of strafing over Værløse destroying three D.XXI and one Gauntlet and damaging three D.XXI and several Gauntlets.

The Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OKL) had overestimated the danger of the D.XXI because of the publicity given to the experimental installation of two 23 mm Madsen cannons on the J-42 plane in May 1939. The Madsen 23x106 had a rate of fire superior to the 20 mm Ikaria MG-FF cannon used by the Bf 110 and to the Hispano-Suiza H.S. 404 cannon used by the Morane MS 406, but its powerful recoil was considered excessive to install it on the wings of a single engine fighter.

The Danish D.XXI were armed with just two 7.9 mm Madsen machine guns that fired, synchronized with the propeller, through blast tubes located between the lower cylinders of the engine, in four and eight o'clock positions. At the outbreak of war, the Danish armed forces were partly mobilised and their aircraft received camouflage painting.

The manufacture of a new series of Fokker D.XXI was considered and negotiations started with the Italian government for the acquisition of twelve Macchi M.C.200 fighters in April 1940. The construction under licence of twelve Fairey P4/34 and twelve Fokker G.1 heavy fighters in Flyvertroppernes Vaerksteder-Klovermarken facilities started, but none entered service before the German invasion.

In anticipation of political circumstances prevented the import of the Italian fighters, the Naval Shipyard Orlogs Vaerftet began working on the design of the OV-J-1 Marinejager. It was a single-seat light fighter powered by an inverted-Vee, air-cooled engine, of the type Walter Sagitta or Isotta Fraschini Delta. It would have been completely manufactured in metal, with retractable landing gear and four 7.92mm Madsen machine guns. There was also to be a fighter-bomber version, with inverted gull-wing and ventral bomb-rack.
 

Attachments

  • 016.jpeg
    016.jpeg
    410 KB · Views: 131
  • 017.jpeg
    017.jpeg
    432.4 KB · Views: 134
  • 018.jpeg
    018.jpeg
    282.1 KB · Views: 137

Orla

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
25
From
Enemy at the Gates

Panic Fighters of the Second World War

Denmark (9 April 1940)​



After the declaration of war carried out by France and Britain on 3 September 1939, the Germans were forced to invade Norway to secure the iron ore shipping from Narvik.

The plan Operation Weserübung Süd, included the capture on 9 April of the Danish Aalborg airfield in northern Jutland, for refuelling the Messerschmitt Bf 110 fighters. At that time the Danish Naval Flying Service did not have a single modern aircraft to its disposition and had only nine Hawker Nimrod L.B.V. biplane fighters at the Avnø Naval Air Station.

On the invasion day the entire four squadron-strong of the Danish Army Air Service consisted of 45 aircraft based in Copenhagen-Værløse airfield: thirteen Gloster Gauntlet II J biplane fighters, eight Fokker D.XXI monoplane fighters, twenty-two Fokker CV reconnaissance/light bomber biplanes, one de Havilland Dragonfly transport and one Cierva C.30 autogyro.

The main action took place in Aalborg with launch of paratroopers from Junkers Ju 52/3m aircraft, but large formations of Heinkel He 111 from Kampgeschwader 4, escorted by Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-1, also flew over the capital, dropping leaflets to secure the quick surrender of the Danish authorities. After the air show, entirely psychological, the Bf 110 of the ZG.1 and ZG.76 carried out a mission of strafing over Værløse destroying three D.XXI and one Gauntlet and damaging three D.XXI and several Gauntlets.

The Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OKL) had overestimated the danger of the D.XXI because of the publicity given to the experimental installation of two 23 mm Madsen cannons on the J-42 plane in May 1939. The Madsen 23x106 had a rate of fire superior to the 20 mm Ikaria MG-FF cannon used by the Bf 110 and to the Hispano-Suiza H.S. 404 cannon used by the Morane MS 406, but its powerful recoil was considered excessive to install it on the wings of a single engine fighter.

The Danish D.XXI were armed with just two 7.9 mm Madsen machine guns that fired, synchronized with the propeller, through blast tubes located between the lower cylinders of the engine, in four and eight o'clock positions. At the outbreak of war, the Danish armed forces were partly mobilised and their aircraft received camouflage painting.

The manufacture of a new series of Fokker D.XXI was considered and negotiations started with the Italian government for the acquisition of twelve Macchi M.C.200 fighters in April 1940. The construction under licence of twelve Fairey P4/34 and twelve Fokker G.1 heavy fighters in Flyvertroppernes Vaerksteder-Klovermarken facilities started, but none entered service before the German invasion.

In anticipation of political circumstances prevented the import of the Italian fighters, the Naval Shipyard Orlogs Vaerftet began working on the design of the OV-J-1 Marinejager. It was a single-seat light fighter powered by an inverted-Vee, air-cooled engine, of the type Walter Sagitta or Isotta Fraschini Delta. It would have been completely manufactured in metal, with retractable landing gear and four 7.92mm Madsen machine guns. There was also to be a fighter-bomber version, with inverted gull-wing and ventral bomb-rack.
 

Orla

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
25
Hi Justo.

Thanks for your feedback, you seem to know very much of the danish situation these days, but unfortunately all is known facts to me, as I have been investigating into the Hærens Flyvertropper and Marinens Flyvervæsen for almost 30 years now.

A couple of updating facts.
There was 7 Fokker D.XXI ready for active service on April 9th. 1940. Two others was missing a tailwheel and a fueltank. The one with the lovest flying time had only 15 minutes in the log including testflight and transport from Kløvermarken to Værløse, so wery untested equipment.
D.XXI J-42 did not have two 23mm. Madsen macnine guns under its wings when testing, but one 20mm. and one 23mm. canon as the Hærens Flyvertropper wanted to test the reliability, functionality and service ability for each veapon. In the end, the 20mm. canon proved much more reliable than the 23mm. and thus was chosen for the task. For some reason, political I guess, the ordered 24 pcs. of 20mm. Madsen machine guns and ammunitions was never delivered from the factory. The D.XXI fighters was camouflaged, had 6 roundels (Danish markings) and 6 danish split flags on all surfaces on the tail to show neutrality.
So has all fighting aircraft, the Gloster Gauntletts, the Fokker C.V. as wel. The training and liason aircraft still was silver doped.

The Marinens Flyvervæsen had two torpedo amphibian planes, several Heinkel HE-8 and the Gloster Gauntlet fighters on strength.
The P4/34 project was planned and production started (beginning) and 12 Rolls Rouce engines had been purchased as well. One of the Marine pilots was also testing the D-XXI with only one canon firing as the navy wanted to equip the P4/34 plane with one 20mm. Madsen machine canon in one wing and 4 Madsen 8mm. Machine gun in the other.

The two (not one) Cierva C.30 autogyro was already grounded as they were unflyable for the pilits and usually enden in a crash when starting or landing.

There was two (not one) de Havilland Dragonfly liason plane on strength. At the outbreak of the was one was in Jutland.

Hærens Flyvertropper never had realistic plans for further Fokker D.XXI fighters as the political landscape was against strengthen the military.

Two Heinkel HE114 was ordered from Heinkel and a contract was signed on April 1st. 1940, but cancelled about 14 days later.

There was drawn up a contract for 12 Macchi M.C.200 from Italy, but never signed. The Macchi M.C.200 fighters would have been delivered unarmed so either way the Marinens Flyvervæsen would have needed to test and decide for a danish armamant of Madsen origin.

A license contract for 12 Fokker G.1 recon/bommer/heavy fighter was signed and several workers was at the Fokker factory to learn to build the plane. Engines was a pain point as Bristol engines was not available. There were plans to acquire further 12 Fokker G.1 from Fokker in Holland and even to build a further 12 Fokker G.1 planes, but they were plans only.

The Marinens Flyvervæsen fighter project was a one plane only project, thus with several fuselage designs and two different wing arrangements, a straight and a gull wing design, but is was only "emergency thinking" as there were no funds and no political backing the project. With the size of the plane, the armament of 4 8mm. Madsen machine guns with plenty of rounds would save no space for bombs or other ordonance. The fuel capacity would have been very small as the fueltank was positioned in the opper fuselage in front of the cockpit behind the firewall. Not at all a fighter project that could have made any difference in a war, but might have had some effect when training student pilots.

Regards
Orla
 
Top