Siebel Si 201 pusher aircraft

[Stargazer]

Not being much of a German aircraft specialist, I find myself stuck trying to identify this strange little pusher bird... It may well be a Focke-Wulf project, but that's my only clue.

I'm sure someone will be able to identify it soon and put me to shame! Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[hesham]

Hi Stargazer,


it was Siebel Si.201,not related to Focke at all.

 

[Stargazer]

it was Siebel Si.201,not related to Focke at all.

Thanks a lot for your help, hesham. I've split this into a new topic. And indeed, a search on my hard disk under Siebel brought a better quality image of the same aircraft, albeit in civil markings.

 

[Jemiba]

It was a contender for the STOL observation and co-operation aircraft. STOL and flying
characteritics were similar to the winning Fi 156 "Storch", but the Siebel design was somewhat
plagued by tail flutter. In most cases such problems could be ironed out, so maybe the real
reason may have been the story, which I read in a book about Gerhard Fieseler. An inspecting
officer of the RLM was said to have taken an engineer aside and murmured, that it should be
clear, that no higher ranking German officer would ever place himself in such a flying box !
Maybe just hearsay, or at least not serious. But it could be a clue, that even back then, design
played an important role in procurement decisions !

 

[toura]

from an old " air enthusiast"

 

[cluttonfred]

There were some very curious design choices going on there. The flat-fronted fuselage is very odd and draggy and the text of the Air Enthusiast bit describes staggered seating with the observer in front and resultant CG travel issues. It would seem to make much more sense to put the pilot forward -- you can fly without the observer and not without the pilot -- to put the variable load closer to the CG. While it greatly improved visibility, the pusher arrangement does have one obvious downfall for that era as there would be no easy way to provide a defensive machine gun. On the other hand, it would have made for a heck of a light antipersonnel strafer! with a brace of MGs in lieu of the observer!

 

[Jemiba]

.. On the other hand, it would have made for a heck of a light antipersonnel strafer!

Maybe it bit to slow and quite an easy target for light weapons ? About the rearward machine gun, don't know, in which
book I read about it, but it was said, that this weapon often was removed to reduce weight and because against a
fighter attack it had proved to be not very efficient either. In such a case, it was to fly as low and slow as possible.