vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I will say the Italians made some beautiful flying boats.
Frustated Projects
- Thread starter gekho
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That they did...
- Thread starter
- #163
On 17 May, 1946, Bell Aircraft announced that 'experimentation with the use of sweptback wings in an effort to reach the ultimate goal of man-carrying flight beyond the speeds of sound has passed from the high-speed wind-tunnel stage to the use of full-scale aircraft'. This announcement marked the first stage development of the US Navy research swept-back wing experimental programme. To do so, two P-63 airframes were diverted for modification: one was an XP-63N with 379 hours of flight time and received the model designation L-39-1; the other was a P-63A-9-BE and received the model designation L-39-2. The main modification consisted of mounting P-63E-like outer wing panels with 35 degrees sweep-back. The main undercarriage was not retractable but the nose wheel was still retractable. To modify the centre of gravity position, ballast was installed in the rear fuselage. But it was later discovered that this ballast was insufficient and it was decided to change the four-blade propeller for a lighter three-blade one (from a P-39Q). After further tests, the fuselage was lengthened by four feet, a large ventral fin was added and wing slots installed in the wing leading-edges.
The maiden flight of the L-39-1 was made on 23 April, 1946, at Niagara Falls Airport with A M 'Tex' Johnston, Bell test pilot, at the controls. After several other test flights, the aircraft was ferried to NACA Langley Research Center on 22 August, 1946, by L W Grey. Meanwhile the L-39-2 had been flown by Johnston. This aeroplane was equipped with an automatic fuel equalizer designed to maintain a constant position of centre of gravity during flight. Both aircraft were used to correlate previous wind-tunnel experiments and were also used for various other experiments. For example, in August 1946, L-39-2 was fitted with a circular arc aerofoil developed for the future Grumman XS-2F Tracker. All tests were halted on 26 August, 1946, and the entire programme was withdrawn. L-39-2 was sent to Langley on 11 December, 1946, and both aircraft were transferred to NACA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, on 12 December, 1949. The two airframes were eventually sold as scrap in 1955.
The maiden flight of the L-39-1 was made on 23 April, 1946, at Niagara Falls Airport with A M 'Tex' Johnston, Bell test pilot, at the controls. After several other test flights, the aircraft was ferried to NACA Langley Research Center on 22 August, 1946, by L W Grey. Meanwhile the L-39-2 had been flown by Johnston. This aeroplane was equipped with an automatic fuel equalizer designed to maintain a constant position of centre of gravity during flight. Both aircraft were used to correlate previous wind-tunnel experiments and were also used for various other experiments. For example, in August 1946, L-39-2 was fitted with a circular arc aerofoil developed for the future Grumman XS-2F Tracker. All tests were halted on 26 August, 1946, and the entire programme was withdrawn. L-39-2 was sent to Langley on 11 December, 1946, and both aircraft were transferred to NACA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, on 12 December, 1949. The two airframes were eventually sold as scrap in 1955.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #164
The Consolidated TBY-2 Sea Wolf was the production version of the XTBU-1 torpedo bomber developed by Vought at the same time as the Grumman Avenger. The XTBU-1 was very similar to the Avenger, although with a less 'chunky' appearance. The first prototype flew on 22 December 1941, and was delivered to NAS Anacostia in March 1942. This placed it several months behind the Avenger, which had made its maiden flight in August 1941, and a first production order had been placed as early as December 1940.
Although the XTBU-1 was 30mph faster than the Grumman design it suffered from several disadvantages. The first was that the Avenger was already in production by the time the prototype XTBU-1 reached Anacostia. With their wings folded the XTBU-1 took up more space than the Avenger, reducing the number that could be carried on each carrier. Finally Vought's own production facilities were fully occupied building F4U Corsairs. The Navy sat on the XTBU-1 for well over a year, before deciding to put it into production after all. In September 1943 Consolidated Vultee received an order to built 1,100 of the redesignated TBY-2 Sea Wolf at their new factory at Allentwon, Pennsylvania.
The TBY-2 carried more guns than the XTBU-1, gaining two more fixed 0.50in guns for a total of three, to go with the 0.30in ventral gun and the 0.50in gun in the powered dorsal turret. It could carry bombs or a torpedo in its internal bomb bay, and was equipped with four zero-length stubs for 5-inch rockets under each wing. Search radar was carried, with the antenna housed in a radome on the leading edge of the right wing. Production of the new aircraft was slow. The first Sea Wolf didn't make its maiden flight until 20 August 1944, eleven months after the contract was placed, while the first delivery to the navy didn't come until 7 November 1944. After only 180 aircraft had been completed production was cancelled. None of the existing aircraft were used in combat, instead being allocated to training units based in the United States.
Although the XTBU-1 was 30mph faster than the Grumman design it suffered from several disadvantages. The first was that the Avenger was already in production by the time the prototype XTBU-1 reached Anacostia. With their wings folded the XTBU-1 took up more space than the Avenger, reducing the number that could be carried on each carrier. Finally Vought's own production facilities were fully occupied building F4U Corsairs. The Navy sat on the XTBU-1 for well over a year, before deciding to put it into production after all. In September 1943 Consolidated Vultee received an order to built 1,100 of the redesignated TBY-2 Sea Wolf at their new factory at Allentwon, Pennsylvania.
The TBY-2 carried more guns than the XTBU-1, gaining two more fixed 0.50in guns for a total of three, to go with the 0.30in ventral gun and the 0.50in gun in the powered dorsal turret. It could carry bombs or a torpedo in its internal bomb bay, and was equipped with four zero-length stubs for 5-inch rockets under each wing. Search radar was carried, with the antenna housed in a radome on the leading edge of the right wing. Production of the new aircraft was slow. The first Sea Wolf didn't make its maiden flight until 20 August 1944, eleven months after the contract was placed, while the first delivery to the navy didn't come until 7 November 1944. After only 180 aircraft had been completed production was cancelled. None of the existing aircraft were used in combat, instead being allocated to training units based in the United States.
Attachments
Interesting stuff!
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I agree!
- Thread starter
- #167
The plane was specified by S.28/43 requiring single-board single-attack fighter. The aircraft followed the previous ones Firebrand , which was subsequently replaced. From his predecessor, he left almost unchanged aft fuselage, underwent modifications to the cab area and got a new airplane wing, broken in W, which was equipped with air brakes for dive. The first flight carried out the first prototype RT651 April 1947. He was then still standing VF172 third prototype, second prototype was completed RT656. The aircraft is then extensively tested and formed another airplane project, driven by different engines. But it was decided to give priority to airplanes with turbine engines, such as the Westland Wyvern , none of them realized. Both prototypes were abolished in 1950.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #168
he Curtiss XBTC-1 (Model 96) was a low-wing monoplane with retractable tailwheel landing gear which used a 2,200 hp (1,641 kW) Wright R-3350 radial engine. It was entered in a 1943 United States Navy competition against the Douglas XBTD-1 Destroyer II, Martin XBTM-1 Mauler, and Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK-1. The BTC-2 should have used the Pratt Whitney R-4360 engine, but problems with the Wright engine led to the further development of the BTC-2. Despite its power and "first-class performance and weapon-carrying capacity", it lost to the XBT2D-1 (redesignated as the AD-1 Skyraider) and the BTM-1 (similarly redesignated AM-1) Mauler, which were already building. Two VBTC-2s were built, each having a different wing. The "Model A" had a standard wing and flaps; the "Model B" featured a full span Duplex flap wing with a straight trailing edge and a swept-back leading edge. Both had the 3,000 hp (2,237 kW) Pratt Whitney XR-4360-8A equipped with contrarotating propellers. The planes were delivered to the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River, Maryland (USA), in July 1946. One plane crashed in February 1947 the other in August 1947. The United States Army Air Force assigned the designation A-40 to a proposed 'de-navalised' version of the XBTC; however, the USAAF decided not to acquire any further single-engine attack aircraft and the project was cancelled.
Attachments
Good stuff!
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I agree, keep them coming.
Interesting....
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Great stuff !
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
Agree with all, some really interesting stuff in this thread. I had some pictures of indigenous Yugoslav aircraft (both pre- and post-war) which never made it beyond prototype stage (or were only experimental aircraft) and would fit to this thread I think, but due to my recent computer hard disc crash I lost all of it. If I compile and/or scan some new ones I'll post them here.
- Thread starter
- #174
The Gallaudet DB-1 was designed as a day bomber and was the only Air Service aircraft to be assigned a DB (Day Bombardment) Type XI designation. Two aircraft were built for testing; the first was delivered in late 1921. Ground tests revealed problems with the flight control system and serious structural problems with the wings. Adding to the DB-1's problems was its excessive weight -- more than a ton over its design gross weight. The aircraft never advanced past the ground test phase and never flew. The DB-1B was a redesign of the basic DB-1, lighter and more structurally sound. The DB-1B flew a few times beginning on Aug. 1, 1923.
The DB-1, although unsuccessful, was quite advanced for its time. The wing had no external bracing -- wires or struts -- but structural design knowledge at the time was not sufficiently advanced to prevent problems like skin buckling from the stress of control surface movements. The single wing bomber design would not be tried again for about five years and not used on a production aircraft for another 10 years. The design speed of 144 mph would have made the DB-1 as fast as the pursuit aircraft in service at the time.
The DB-1, although unsuccessful, was quite advanced for its time. The wing had no external bracing -- wires or struts -- but structural design knowledge at the time was not sufficiently advanced to prevent problems like skin buckling from the stress of control surface movements. The single wing bomber design would not be tried again for about five years and not used on a production aircraft for another 10 years. The design speed of 144 mph would have made the DB-1 as fast as the pursuit aircraft in service at the time.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #175
In early 1942 the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) was planning the replacements for the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber and the Grumman TBM Avenger torpedo bomber. The aircraft was to carry the torpedo in an internal bomb bay. By late 1943 it became obvious that the proposed VBT design like the Douglas SB2D had drastically increased in size and weight. Therefore the U.S. Navy was initiating a smaller dive bomber design. The BuAer recognized the engineering workload for the major wartime programs and therefore assigned the design to companies without a major wartime production. BuAer selected Fleetwings at Bristol, Pennsylvania (USA), which was acquired by Henry J. Kaiser in 1943.
The XBK dive bomber program was initiated in February 1944 with a contract for two prototypes. To keep the airplane size down it was decided that all stores would be carried externally. A radar could be carried underneath the left wing. The dive brakes were of the lower and upper picket fence type at the inboard wing trailing edge. The horizontal tail was mounted on the tail fin above the fuselage. This feature avoided empennage buffet when the dive brakes were open. Unusual was the placement of the engine exhausts almost aft of the cockpit. It was hoped that this feature would significantly decrease drag.
A mockup inspection without engine was carried out in April 1944 while the engine was installed in May 1944, with completion of the first prototype scheduled for November 1944. To speed up later production the U.S. Navy even constructed a new airfield at the Fleetwing plant. In early 1945 BuAer requested that the plane would be able to carry a torpedo. The weapon was fitted to a new centreline station and the designation was changed to XBTK. The first XBTK-1 was finally completed in March 1945, making its first flight on 12 April 1945.
The flight testing revealed inadequate engine cooling and severe fuselage vibration. Resolution of these problems and the replacement of the R-2800-22W engine, which was already out of production, by the -34 delayed restart of flight trials until July 1945. The aircraft was delivered to the the US Navy Naval Air Test Center (NATC) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (USA), in August 1945 for evaluation. After the end of the Second World War the US Navy cut orders from 20 to 10 aircraft. NATC recommended replacement of the novel exhaust system with a more normal system, as the cockpit temperature was very high and cockpit egress and access after an engine shutdown was extremely difficult. It also noted that stall performance was poor, particularly with power off. It was noted, however, that diving characteristics were superior to any dive-bomber in service or under development. The plane was transported back to Fleetwings where redesign began. The second production aircraft first flew in March 1946 and featured built-in leading edge slots which greatly improved the stall performance of the aircraft. However, by early 1946 procurement of new planes was drastically cut down and the BTK found its role already filled by the Douglas AD Skyraider and Martin AM Mauler. In May 1946 it was decided to complete five airframes already in production. Continued testing revealed problems when the aircraft was spun, and the US Navy finally terminated the contract on 3 September 1946, as there was no need for the aircraft anymore. The five prototypes were scrapped.
The XBK dive bomber program was initiated in February 1944 with a contract for two prototypes. To keep the airplane size down it was decided that all stores would be carried externally. A radar could be carried underneath the left wing. The dive brakes were of the lower and upper picket fence type at the inboard wing trailing edge. The horizontal tail was mounted on the tail fin above the fuselage. This feature avoided empennage buffet when the dive brakes were open. Unusual was the placement of the engine exhausts almost aft of the cockpit. It was hoped that this feature would significantly decrease drag.
A mockup inspection without engine was carried out in April 1944 while the engine was installed in May 1944, with completion of the first prototype scheduled for November 1944. To speed up later production the U.S. Navy even constructed a new airfield at the Fleetwing plant. In early 1945 BuAer requested that the plane would be able to carry a torpedo. The weapon was fitted to a new centreline station and the designation was changed to XBTK. The first XBTK-1 was finally completed in March 1945, making its first flight on 12 April 1945.
The flight testing revealed inadequate engine cooling and severe fuselage vibration. Resolution of these problems and the replacement of the R-2800-22W engine, which was already out of production, by the -34 delayed restart of flight trials until July 1945. The aircraft was delivered to the the US Navy Naval Air Test Center (NATC) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (USA), in August 1945 for evaluation. After the end of the Second World War the US Navy cut orders from 20 to 10 aircraft. NATC recommended replacement of the novel exhaust system with a more normal system, as the cockpit temperature was very high and cockpit egress and access after an engine shutdown was extremely difficult. It also noted that stall performance was poor, particularly with power off. It was noted, however, that diving characteristics were superior to any dive-bomber in service or under development. The plane was transported back to Fleetwings where redesign began. The second production aircraft first flew in March 1946 and featured built-in leading edge slots which greatly improved the stall performance of the aircraft. However, by early 1946 procurement of new planes was drastically cut down and the BTK found its role already filled by the Douglas AD Skyraider and Martin AM Mauler. In May 1946 it was decided to complete five airframes already in production. Continued testing revealed problems when the aircraft was spun, and the US Navy finally terminated the contract on 3 September 1946, as there was no need for the aircraft anymore. The five prototypes were scrapped.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #176
Among the many Italian aircraft manufacturers, during World War II, the majority (such as Savoia-Marchetti and Caproni) designed and built mixed-construction aircraft, or, in the case of CANT, completely made of wood. While Fiat and Macchi built more advanced aircraft, they still tended to have conventional, often obsolete structures, even if of all-metal construction. Only Reggiane and Piaggio mastered advanced, all-metal structures. Of them, Piaggio tended to explore the innovative concepts. The Piaggio P.119 was one of the best examples of these projects. The '5' series fighters are well known, especially the Fiat G.55 and the Macchi C.205, but there were two other fighters on the same level, the Caproni-Vizzola F.6 and the Piaggio P.119, both of which did not enter production.
The P.119 was designed (in 1939), to minimise drag by fitting the engine in mid-fuselage in a similar layout to the P-39 Airacobra. It was hoped to improve maneuverability by positioning the engine near the aircraft's centre of gravity, which would also allow a heavy nose-mounted armament. In 1940, Piaggio still had to solve three major issues: contra-rotating propellers, power transmission, and engine cooling.Giovanni Casiraghi, chief designer of Piaggio, tried to solve the first issue with the P.118 fighter, but without success. It was intended to be powered by two Piaggio P.XI RC 40 engines, each connected to a propeller, but it was not built. The P.119 was built instead and first flew at the end of 1942. Three different configurations were studied before one was chosen.
The machine was flight tested, but it was found that firing all the weapons produced excessive vibration. A landing accident slightly damaged one wing on 2 August 1943. One month later, the armistice brought an end to the project. All in all, the P.119 was an interesting and somewhat mysterious aircraft, for many years it was totally unknown to the public. It was not sent to Guidonia for official evaluation. Performance could have been very good. The engine and the weapons were built under foreign license, but they could have been called 'authentic' in respect to the German DB 605 engine and 20 mm MG 151 guns mounted in the '5' series fighters. Performance was good enough to compete with other Italian fighters - endurance was much better. However, the aircraft was not ready until eight months after the other '5' fighters, and this was catastrophic for the program. Apparently, this machine was not rated officially by the Regia Aeronautica, and MM.496 was the only one built. Apart from this, the range, endurance and overall visibility were superior, and the performance and weaponry were not so different. But the P.119, with its technical problems, would never have been in a condition to show any capability as an operational aircraft, the only Axis mid-fuselage engined fighter was swiftly forgotten.
The P.119 was designed (in 1939), to minimise drag by fitting the engine in mid-fuselage in a similar layout to the P-39 Airacobra. It was hoped to improve maneuverability by positioning the engine near the aircraft's centre of gravity, which would also allow a heavy nose-mounted armament. In 1940, Piaggio still had to solve three major issues: contra-rotating propellers, power transmission, and engine cooling.Giovanni Casiraghi, chief designer of Piaggio, tried to solve the first issue with the P.118 fighter, but without success. It was intended to be powered by two Piaggio P.XI RC 40 engines, each connected to a propeller, but it was not built. The P.119 was built instead and first flew at the end of 1942. Three different configurations were studied before one was chosen.
The machine was flight tested, but it was found that firing all the weapons produced excessive vibration. A landing accident slightly damaged one wing on 2 August 1943. One month later, the armistice brought an end to the project. All in all, the P.119 was an interesting and somewhat mysterious aircraft, for many years it was totally unknown to the public. It was not sent to Guidonia for official evaluation. Performance could have been very good. The engine and the weapons were built under foreign license, but they could have been called 'authentic' in respect to the German DB 605 engine and 20 mm MG 151 guns mounted in the '5' series fighters. Performance was good enough to compete with other Italian fighters - endurance was much better. However, the aircraft was not ready until eight months after the other '5' fighters, and this was catastrophic for the program. Apparently, this machine was not rated officially by the Regia Aeronautica, and MM.496 was the only one built. Apart from this, the range, endurance and overall visibility were superior, and the performance and weaponry were not so different. But the P.119, with its technical problems, would never have been in a condition to show any capability as an operational aircraft, the only Axis mid-fuselage engined fighter was swiftly forgotten.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #177
With an airframe fundamentally similar to that of the R-36, the R-37 differed primarily in having a closecowled 1100hp Gnome-Rhone 14N-21 14-cylinder radial engine. Cooling air reached the engine via a narrow annulus, was mixed with exhaust gases and ejected through two groups of nozzles to provide some thrust augmentation. The proposed armament consisted of four 7.7mm or two 13.2mm machine guns mounted in the wings. Although the R-37 was displayed statically at the Salon de Bruxelles in July 1939, no attempt had been made to fly this prototype before the German occupation of Belgium in May 1940. The R-37 was discovered at Evere by the occupation forces and a Luftwaffe pilot - possibly unaware that the aircraft had not previously been flown - flew the aircraft to Beauvechain. There is no record of any subsequent flight testing, although it is known that the R-37 was taken to Germany. Prior to the German occupation, Alfred Renard had prepared a project for a two-seat version, the R-37B, for use as a ground attack aircraft.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #178
In November 1940, Nikolai Polikarpov proposed a heavy cannon-armed fighter for bomber escort duties and ground attack missions. The new ITP was designed around either the 1,230 kW (1,650 hp) Klimov M-107P or the Mikulin AM-37 inline engines. Two armament configurations were planned. The first consisted of a 37-millimetre (1.5 in) cannon firing through the propeller hub and two synchronized 20-millimetre (0.79 in) ShVAK cannon mounted on each side of the fuselage nose. The 37 mm cannon was provided with 50 rounds and the ShVAK had 200 rounds each. The second configuration substituted an additional ShVAK with 200 rounds for the 37 mm cannon. It had racks for eight unguided RS-82 rockets underneath the wings.
The ITP was a low-wing, mixed construction monoplane with a wooden monocoque fuselage made from 'shpon', molded birch plywood. The two-spar metal wing was built in three sections with automatic leading edge slats. The engine radiators were built into the wing center section with intakes in the wing roots while the oil cooler was located under the engine. The curved, one-piece windshield lacked a flat front panel which gave the pilot a rather distorted view. The conventional undercarriage, including the tailwheel, was fully retractable. It carried 624 litres (137 imp gal; 165 US gal) of fuel in tanks between the spars of the wing center section. The rear fuselage, cockpit and tail resembled that of the Polikarpov I-185. The first ITP prototype (M-1) was completed in October 1941 with a 1,300-horsepower (970 kW) M-107P engine. Due to German attacks, the aircraft was evacuated to Novosibirsk and did not make its first flight until 23 February 1942. The M-107P engine proved unreliable and was changed to a M-107A in late 1942. The 37 mm gun was deleted in exchange for another 20 mm gun mounted on the side of the fuselage. Flight testing was not completed because the airframe was used for ground static testing, but the estimated maximum speed at 6,300 metres (20,669 ft) was 655 km/h (407 mph) with a time to 5,000 metres (16,404 ft) of 5.9 minutes. The second ITP prototype (M-2) was built in 1942 and fitted with a Mikulin AM-37 engine which also proved unreliable and was replaced with a 1,345 kW (1,800 hp) Mikulin AM-39 that December. It first flew on 23 November 1943 but the manufacturer's flight tests were not completed until June 1944. Since several other aircraft with about the same level of performance were already available, it was not placed into production.
The ITP was a low-wing, mixed construction monoplane with a wooden monocoque fuselage made from 'shpon', molded birch plywood. The two-spar metal wing was built in three sections with automatic leading edge slats. The engine radiators were built into the wing center section with intakes in the wing roots while the oil cooler was located under the engine. The curved, one-piece windshield lacked a flat front panel which gave the pilot a rather distorted view. The conventional undercarriage, including the tailwheel, was fully retractable. It carried 624 litres (137 imp gal; 165 US gal) of fuel in tanks between the spars of the wing center section. The rear fuselage, cockpit and tail resembled that of the Polikarpov I-185. The first ITP prototype (M-1) was completed in October 1941 with a 1,300-horsepower (970 kW) M-107P engine. Due to German attacks, the aircraft was evacuated to Novosibirsk and did not make its first flight until 23 February 1942. The M-107P engine proved unreliable and was changed to a M-107A in late 1942. The 37 mm gun was deleted in exchange for another 20 mm gun mounted on the side of the fuselage. Flight testing was not completed because the airframe was used for ground static testing, but the estimated maximum speed at 6,300 metres (20,669 ft) was 655 km/h (407 mph) with a time to 5,000 metres (16,404 ft) of 5.9 minutes. The second ITP prototype (M-2) was built in 1942 and fitted with a Mikulin AM-37 engine which also proved unreliable and was replaced with a 1,345 kW (1,800 hp) Mikulin AM-39 that December. It first flew on 23 November 1943 but the manufacturer's flight tests were not completed until June 1944. Since several other aircraft with about the same level of performance were already available, it was not placed into production.
Attachments
Good stuff!
- Thread starter
- #180
The Koolhoven F.K.49 was a photographic survey aircraft built in the Netherlands in 1935. It was a high-wing cantilever monoplane of conventional design with twin engines carried in nacelles on the leading edges. Usually fitted with fixed, tailwheel undercarriage, a floatplane version was also developed. The aircraft carried an onboard darkroom. Three examples were purchased by the Dutch Army, but only one of these was ever delivered, the other two were destroyed before completion when the Koolhoven factory was bombed by Germany on 10 May 1940. Others were purchased in small numbers by Turkey, Hungary, and Finland.
The sole example delivered to the Dutch Army was eventually used as a general utility type, serving as an air ambulance, parachute trainer, and general transport. The Turkish F.K.49A, powered by Fairchild Ranger engines, had a short service life before the engines caught fire in flight, resulting in a fatal crash. The Finnish Coast Guard (Merivartiolaitos) ordered two examples with floats and powered by Hirth engines. The first of these was delivered via Sweden in 1940, and gave continuous engine trouble; it was withdrawn from service after only 18 hours of flight time, and the second one ordered was never delivered.
The sole example delivered to the Dutch Army was eventually used as a general utility type, serving as an air ambulance, parachute trainer, and general transport. The Turkish F.K.49A, powered by Fairchild Ranger engines, had a short service life before the engines caught fire in flight, resulting in a fatal crash. The Finnish Coast Guard (Merivartiolaitos) ordered two examples with floats and powered by Hirth engines. The first of these was delivered via Sweden in 1940, and gave continuous engine trouble; it was withdrawn from service after only 18 hours of flight time, and the second one ordered was never delivered.
