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 too 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.

 

[Wurger]

Maybe we have to include the Siebel (as Flugzeugwerke Halle, Fh) 201 as a "considered-to-be" carrier-borne reconnaissance/fleet shadower? aircraft too. A BA/MA file, on Kriegsmarine Luftstreitkräfte, included the airplane, along with the Fieseler Fi156, both showing folded wings. The tables make reference to dimensions with wings unfolded and folded.

 

[dan_inbox]

As I understand it, the Si-201 competed in the 'air observation post' category, and lost out to the Fieseler Storch.
Which is not the same role in my book.

 

[Wurger]

As I understand it, the Si-201 competed in the 'air observation post' category, and lost out to the Fieseler Storch.
Which is not the same role in my book.

Sorry for my ignorance, in your book?

 

[dan_inbox]

Sorry for my ignorance, in your book?

Rethorical figure for "in my way of seeing things", or " To my understanding.*

 

[Grey Havoc]

As I understand it, the Si-201 competed in the 'air observation post' category, and lost out to the Fieseler Storch.
Which is not the same role in my book.

The evaluation for the naval role would have more than likely been carried out separately. If I'm not mistaken, 'Kriegsmarine Luftstreitkräfte' was a semi-official general term used for the Luftwaffe units seconded to the Kriegsmarine, who were not allowed for the most part to have their own organic naval aviation assets because of dear old Goering, much to their understandable dismay and frustration. This arrangement had caused more than a few problems for the Navy even before WWII broke out; while the Luftwaffe aircraft & units concerned were supposed to be under at least the tactical command of the Kriegsmarine, in practice Goering not infrequently put his oar in, one wartime example being the infamous incident during the Battle of the Atlantic where he arbitrarily withdrew Fw-200 Condor support for the U-Boat campaign.

Presumably the photos and documents that Wurger has found relate to pre-war trials at the Erprobungsstelle See Travemünde (Experimental Agency Sea in Travemünde) which was responsible for developing & testing aircraft and other systems for the Kriegsmarine's planned aircraft aircraft carriers. Operational carrier aircraft were to be operated by specially formed Bordfliegergruppe (originally Flottenfliegergruppe) of which only one, Bordfliegergruppe 196 (what was supposed to be the Graf Zeppelin's air group), was in the event actually ever formed.

EDIT: Ack, it was the Trägergeschwader (Carrier Air Wing) and Trägergeschwader 186 in particular I was thinking of there! Bordfliegerguppe 196 dealt with shipborne catapult-launched spotter planes and the like. My brain really went out to lunch there!

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi