“Captured White-21” / “T9+PK”

Airplane artAirplane profile
Written By Anton Petrov

Lavochkin, La-5FN (Late)

(As “Captured White-21”), Rechlin test site, Germany (Prussia), late September/November 1944.
Flown by a Luftwaffe test pilot, Hans-Werner Lerche.

And
(As “T9+PK”) 2./Versuchsverband OKL (Wanderzirkus Rosarius), Stendal, April 1945, Germany.

 

“Captured White-21” and “T9+PK” were supposedly the same La-5FN airplane. The reason for supposing this is because the photos of the two airplanes share some clues to suggest this idea, such as the missing wheel guards on both planes or the uncommonly high demarcation line between the lower and the upper colours on the “chin” of both planes (most likely T9+PK’s livery followed a similar demarcation line to that of the “Captured White-21” when it was repainted). There is also the fact that many of the captured Allied planes, after being extensively tested in Rechlin (like White-21 was), were then passed on into the 2./Versuchsverband Ob.dL (Later OKL) where they were repainted with the same liveries as T9+PK. And the last reason for supposing that the two are the same plane is that I was unable to find information about Luftwaffe possessing more than one airworthy La-5FN airplane (other than the photos, which are probably showing the same, but repainted, airplane).
The La-5FN that we do know Luftwaffe captured and tested, was originally the Soviet “White-21”, branded with Soviet insignia. The details around the capture of White-21 are foggy to say the least, with some unverified sources in online forums suggesting that this airplane might have been a plane of 111GIAP which crash-landed behind enemy lines [1]. However, this is most likely just a speculation and will remain so until evidence can be found to support or deny this.

 

Captured White-21

Unlike the White-21’s obscure Soviet origins, we do have some clarity about what happened with this airplane after its capture. White-21 became available to Luftwaffe at Gross-Schimannen airfield in East Prussia (Today’s Szymany, Poland?) on the 18th of August 1944 [2]. It was the first airworthy example of the Lavochkin La-5FN they had access to. It was also the first decently airworthy Soviet fighter that a German test pilot by the name of Hans-Werner Lerche had the chance to sample as part of the Rechlin team.

On the 15th of September, at 1603 hrs, Lerche took off from the Gross-Shimanen airfield in this prized La-5FN trophy and flew it to Rechlin, which was Luftwaffe’s main test center, arriving to his destination 3 hours later, with a 26 minute stop-over at Markisch-Friedland. It was obvious to Lerche from the start that this La-5 was no longer comparable with the earlier Soviet fighter types and was a very serious opponent to Luftwaffe fighters below 3000 meters (10,000 feet). Despite this positive first hand impression however, Lerche also reported feeling quite dizzy that evening, not ruling out that this might have been due to the inhalation of CO (Carbon Monoxide) exhaust gasses inside the cockpit of White-21. Another negative first impression was the excessively loud roar of the engine. Due to this, Lerche decided to wear an oxygen mask and cotton wool in his ears for the forthcoming test flights which he performed in September, and then again in November of 1944.

It wasn’t just the results of Lerche’s test flights which were of interest to the Luftwaffe of course, this La-5FN was of special interest to many other experts upon its arrival at Rechlin. They were flocking in from all quarters to have a close look at the machine’s engine and airframe, and they had a hard time preventing the machine from being dismantled there and then.[3]

However, “Captured White-21” might not have been a perfect specimen of this Lavochkin type to base flight tests on because this machine hasn’t produced the results which are usually associated with the standard, serial production La-5FN. Various explanations for this have been proposed over the years, including the idea that White-21 might have been “worn out” by the time the Luftwaffe got it, Lerche himself mentioned that the plane “has been in service for some time”. Or that perhaps this plane was fitted, or even retrofitted, with some earlier version of the engine, because Lerche mentioned that it had an M-82FNV engine*, rather than simply an M-82FN. Or that the plane might have not been optimally repaired (supposedly) after it crash-landed in enemy territory, or that the fuel wasn’t the ideal mix to use, or that the Luftwaffe’s testing methods were different, etc. Regardless of the reasons, Lerche’s report produced inferior technical data to that which was achieved and attributed to La-5FN by the Soviets.

Lerche’s report, in its reduced form, stated the following:

Summary

The La-5FN represents a great improvement in performance, flying characteristics and serviceability compared to earlier Russian fighters, and its performance below 3000 m (9840 ft) is particularly noteworthy. Maximum speed is below that of our fighters at all altitudes; best climbing speed near ground level lies between those of the FW 190 and Bf-109. In the climb and turns below 3000m the La-5 is a worthy opponent, particularly for the FW-190. The type’s manufacturing shortcomings should hardly affect the Russians, who are used to inferior flying characteristics. Range is short, flight endurance at rated power being about 40 min…
…The supercharger must not be used at emergency power. The (full throttle) altitudes are so low that full emergency power cannot be achieved either in climbing or horizontal flight.
The aircraft itself was fully serviceable. Its flying hours are not known, but the machine has been in service for some time. Surface finish, especially that of the wings (wood) is good; the sideways and forward-extending slats fit very accurately.

The report goes on to present the plane’s performance data and flying characteristics. The 3 selected top speed entries recorded by Lerhe were as follows:

Airspeed, emergency power, sea level. 520 km/h (323 mph TAS)
Airspeed, rated power, 5000m (16,405 ft) pressure alt 560 km.h (348 mph TAS). - this is Lerhe’s overall top speed recording.
Airspeed, rated power, 6500m (21,320 ft) pressure alt 545 km.h (338.7 mph TAS)

Note that this is lower than the max. speed usually attributed to La-5FN, which should be 542 km/h. at sea level, and 620 km/h. at 6500m [2]

Lerhe’s rate of climb entries were recorded as follows:

Rate of climb, rated power, at 300m (984 ft) 16.17 m/sec (3182 ft/min)
Rate of climb, rated power, at 4000m (13,120 ft) 13 m/sec (2558 ft/min)
Rate of climb, rated power, at 7000m (22,960 ft) 6 m/sec (1180 ft/min)

Note that this is lower than the rate of climb usually attributed to La-5FN. The climb to 5000m (16,400 ft) should be 5 minutes [2], implying an average rate of climb (roughly speaking) of 16.6 m/sec.

Lerhe’s entry for the Operational ceiling stands at 8000-9000 meters (26,2250-29,530 ft), while it should be 11,000 m [2]. His minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m (3280 ft) and with emergency power is about 25 seconds. His other entries record 28-30 seconds for a stable 360 degree turn. In contrast, the minimum time for La-5FN’s 360 degree turn should be about 18-19.5 seconds [2]. Not least of all is Lerche’s claim about the La-5FN’s flight endurance of 40min (At rated power) and the subsequent short range. This is mentioned again in his “Tactical conclusions and advice” below. Usually La-5FN’s range should be about 775 km [2]. Though it’s true that this is a relatively short distance compared to some other fighters, it does imply (in theory) that La-5FN’s flight endurance (at rated power?) was most likely longer than 40 minutes.

Characteristics

Lerche described that the pilot’s sitting position was comfortable and that the visibility from the cockpit was good except for when taking off, landing and taxiing (due to the large radial engine obstructing the view). He mentioned that the high-altitude oxygen system was unused and leaked, and that various controls were operated by cables resulting in a lot of lost motion and mushy response.

Take-off

Lerche described the limited propeller ground clearance and advised that the tail should be raised slowly and not too soon, mentioning that there is some swing proportional to engine power.  Said that the acceleration is good and the distance relatively short, mentioning that the elevator and rudder trimmers must be watched because there were no trim position indicators.

Stability, control power and effectiveness.

Lerche described that the Longitudinal stability at normal angles of attack, with undercarriage and flaps retracted or extended, was “surprisingly good”, even in a full power climb. He mentioned that the rudder effectiveness reduces at low speed. Dynamic directional stability is weak and damping is bad. Gun aiming is quite easy. Aileron effectiveness was described as “outstanding”.

Stalling

Lerche mentioned that when the airspeed is reduced, throttle closed, flaps and gear extended, in certain conditions the aircraft drops a wing.  Stall in a steep turn can also in some conditions cause the wing to drop, but Lerche mentioned that it’s not dangerous and that apart from the aileron over-ballance the smallest turning circle for a stable 360 degree turn at constant hight, at rated power, at a hight of about 2400m, (7870ft),  is about 28 to 30 sec. At emergency power the 360 degree turn at 1000m (3280 ft) is implied to be about 25 seconds.

Landing 

Lerche mentioned that it is possible to achieve a three-point attitude and to touch down without difficulty, but also warned that if the ground is uneven, coupled with the airplane’s poor undercarriage damping and unpleasant low-speed characteristics which can occur in some cases, the plane might “gallop”. At times like these the propeller becomes especially endangered due to low ground clearance.  In some conditions at low speeds, as mentioned above, the plane can drop a wing, but Lerche mentioned that this is not dangerous when landing due to the aircraft’s wide undercarriage. 

Tactical conclusions and advice

The La-5 is best suited to low-altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the FW-190 and Bf-109 (using emergency power). The Bf-109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole hight band in top speed and best climb rate. Acceleration is probably comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than that of the Bf-109. Turning times at ground level are better than those of the FW-190 and worse than those of the Bf-109. In best rate of climb, the FW-190 is poorer until 3000m (9840 ft). Because of its higher weight, the FW-190 accelerates less well, but by the same token it is superior in all diving manoeuvres and when it turns away level at high speed. Apart from sudden evasive action, it is basically right to dive away (like the Thunderbolt) because of the higher weight and wing loading of the FW-190, thereafter to pull away in a high-speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position (at best climb speed, the La-5 climbs at a steeper angle), not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dog-fights, because you have to accept that the Russians, who are accustomed to poorer handling characteristics, will not allow themselves to be impressed by the La-5’s handling in the turn as previously described.
Attention is drawn to the short endurance of about 40 min at rated power and less with the supercharger engaged. [4]

(Photos of Lerche’s original report (in German) can be found in this thread on the Il-2 Sturmovik’s forum https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16880-report-on-la-5-by-hans-werner-lerche-erprobungsstelle-rechlin/ )

Some time after Lerche’s test flights of the Captured White-21 in November, this airplane, like many other captured planes, was most likely transferred to the 2./Versuchsverband OKL (probably in Gottigen), where it was repainted and given its new markings, becoming the “T9+PK” of “Wanderzirkus Rosarius” (more info about this below).

 

Noteworthy Visual Characteristics

General) The Soviet insignia on White-21 has been replaced with German insignia. The plane seems to look pretty weathered, (presumably) except for the parts which have been freshly repainted.

1) The antena wires arrangement is very difficult to make out in the photo reference. Because this appears to be a “Late Type” La-5FN, I’ve used the arrangement option that is common to the late type La-5FNs.

2) The “ФН ” (FN) symbol on the tail and the fuselage stars marked by ‘2b’ have been painted over, most likely with a grey that is close to the Soviet AMT-11 and AMT-12. I have chosen a common Luftwaffe grey for this, RLM-75. The “FN” symbol on the engine cowling was left untouched.

3) Note that the “Balkenkreuz” (Bar cross) on the fuselage (3a) appears to be slightly non-standard, in size and design. The size of the swastika on the tail (marked by ‘3b’)appears to be larger than usual.

4) The shape of the heat protection panel on the side of the plane is that of the “Late Type” La-5FN. The dark grey part of the camouflage on the panel (if I have interpreted this part correctly from the photograph) is a deviation from the standard Grey/Grey camo pattern. It can be seen on some La-5FNs, but not often.

5) The exhaust panel looks quite dark. It was most likely simply covered in exhaust soot rather than being painted grey like the rest of the plane.

6) The cowl bands look to have been painted originally, but the paint started to come off exposing a lot of bare metal underneath, especially in the area indicated by the arrow.

7) The small AMT-12 (Dark Grey) spot on the nose of the plane is a deviation from the standard Grey/Grey camo pattern.

8) The spiral on the spinner was a tactical recognition marking ordered by the Luftwaffe high command in 1944 to be used on German fighters, ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft in Western Germany, France and Italy. Though Rechlin isn’t in West Germany, this order must have influenced the decision to paint the spiral onto White-21 also.
Some have suggested that the spiral might have played a role in helping the ground crew to see if the propeller was spinning or not, for safety reasons, which is possible.

9) The demarcation line between AMT-07 (Light Blue) and the Greys (AMT-11 and AMT-12) seems to go up a bit higher than usual.

10) The pitot tube appears to be longer than the original La-5 pitot tube. It seems to have some sort of an extended attachment on it, possibly something that the Luftwaffe added on.

11) One of the most obvious ‘unique visual characteristics’ of this plane is the absence of the ‘wheel guards’.

12) The Balkenkreuz appears to be smaller than usual based on what could be detected in a bad quality photograph. I tried to stay as true to the photo as possible in choosing the size, the style and the positioning of the bar cross on the lower wings.

13) The Soviet insignia (Red Stars) were painted out with a colour that was most likely some sort of a ‘Light Blue’, possibly RLM-65, a common ‘Light Blue’ colour used by the Luftwaffe.

14) The bar cross on the upper surfaces of the wings was a standard for the Luftwaffe fighters. Though in the photo of White-21 all the painted details on the upper surface of the wing are illegible due to a strong reflection of light, it’s quite likely that the crosses appeared there. I have followed the size of the cross as determined for the lower wings, and have chosen the common Luftwaffe cross design which was usually used on the upper wings.
It is possible that the Bar crosses might have been absent, though this would be non-standard for the Luftwaffe.

 

T9+PK

“T9+PK” was most likely the previously “Captured White-21” which was tested in Rechlin by Hans-Werner Lerche and, like many planes from the Rechlin inventory, eventually found its way into the 2.Staffel/Versuchsverband ‘Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe’ (second squadron of the Experimental Unit of Luftwaffe High Command). This unit was established in March 1942, and the 2.Staffel (Squadron) was established in 1943, on the instructions of the then general of fighter pilots Adolf Galland and led by Captain Theodor Rosarius [5].

This unit consisted of many captured Allied aircraft which were repainted into German colours with yellow undersides and grey-green (RLM-74) upper surfaces, with Luftwaffe markings. “T9” which can be seen on the airplane’s fuselage, was the unique Geschwaderkennung (Geschwader code) of this unit (though the unit also included some aircraft from KG 200, which used the code “A3”).

In 1944 this unit was based at the well equipped Göttingen airfield, but its airplanes toured various operational airfields along the Eastern and Western fronts, allowing Luftwaffe pilots of the front-line units to familiarise themselves with Allied equipment. Rosario’s squadron conducted their demonstrations on the ground and in the air, and organized training battles to help test Allied planes against Luftwaffe’s. Leading pilots could independently fly captured enemy aircraft, evaluate their combat and flight qualities[6]. The purpose of testing allied aircraft was to discover any strengths or vulnerabilities in their design or performance. This information was highly useful in enabling German service personnel to develop tactics designed to counter strengths and exploit any vulnerabilities.

This travelling “menagerie” of captured Allied war birds commanded by T.Rosarius became unofficially known as the “Rosarius’ Wandering Circus" , or in German as “Wanderzirkus Rosarius”, or “Beutezircus Rosarius” ,or simply “Zirkus Rosarius” [5].

The “Wanderzircus Rosarius” toured in groups of around 5-6 airplanes at a time, but its arsenal consisted of a much larger number of captured warplanes, amongst them a few Soviet airplanes such as Il-2, Yak and Lavochkins. A list of some of the Wanderzircus’s many “exotic” planes can be seen HERE. “Ex. White-21”, La-5FN which was repainted into T9+PK was the only La-5FN in the Wanderzircus’ possession as far as is known.

By the time “Captured White-21” was sent to the 2./Versuchsverband Ob.dL, this regiment has undergone some restructuring and was already called 2./Versuchsverband OKL, having been renamed thus in July 1944[7]. The photos we have of T9+PK, La-5FN, were most likely taken sometime in April 1945, in Stendal, Germany, close to the time when 2./Versuchsverband OKL was disbanded. The final fate of “White-21”-”Captured White-21”-”T9+PK”, is unknown (to me).

 

Noteworthy Visual Characteristics

General) The airplane has been repainted with the usual livery of captured Allied airplanes, consisting of Yellow (RLM-04) and Grey-Green (RLM-74), as indicated by number (1) above.The plane does not appear to be weathered much.

2) “T9” was the unique Geschwaderkennung (Geschwader(Wing) code) of 2./Versuchsverband OKL/“Zircus Rosatius” and several special commandos. It appears to have been applied with a stencil.

3) “P'“ was the aircraft’s code.

4) “K” was the Staffel (Squadron) code.

5) The exhaust panel has been painted over with RLM-74.

6) The “ФН” (FN) letters/symbol has been painted over.

7) The demarcation line between the ‘Grey-Green’ and ‘Yellow’ follows a similar path as the demarcation line between the ‘Light Blue’ and the‘Greys’ of “White-21”, meaning that it goes up a bit higher than usual on La-5FNs. This is one of the clues to suggest that White-21 and T9+PK were probably the same airplane.

8) The pitot tube seems to be missing the bit that can be seen at the tip of the pitot tube on “Captured White-21”.

9) The propeller blades were probably painted with ‘Green-Black’, a common colour for propeller blades on Luftwaffe planes. The tips have been painted yellow.

10) The bomb attachment mechanism is exposed, it was probably the same on “Captured White-21”.

11) Note the absence of the wheel guards, same as on Captured White-21. This is another  feature which suggests that the two were probably the same airplane. 

12) Based on what can be seen in the photo reference, it looks like number ‘9’ has been applied with a stencil. It makes sense to presume that the other letters/numbers on the bottom of the wings have also been applied with a stencil.

13) It’s possible that  the wheel wells have been repainted also when the rest of the plane was given its new livery. If they were repainted,  then the colour could have been RLM-02, which was often used in these areas on Luftwaffe planes.




Here are a few closeup images to help illustrate the points above.

FOOTNOTES

* M-82FNV was a serial production version of M-82FN.

[1] The forum is the following: http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?p=73106

[2] All the data marked with [2] is taken from the book called ‘Lavochkin La-5’ by Miloš Veštšík, published by MBI in 2006. Page 83

[3] Much of the information in the previous three paragraphs is based on the book called “Luftwaffe test Pilot, Flying captured Allied Aircraft of WW2”, by Hans-Werner Lerche, published by Jane’s Publishing Incorporated in 1980, ISBN 0 531 037118, pages. 121-122.

[4] All the highlighted info pertaining to Lerche’s report is taken from the book called “Luftwaffe test Pilot, Flying captured Allied Aircraft of WW2”, by Hans-Werner Lerche, published by Jane’s Publishing Incorporated in 1980, ISBN 0 531 037118, pages. 155-158.

[5] Based on the information found on Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderzirkus_Rosarius

[6] Based on the information found on https://en.topwar.ru/30085-stranstvuyuschiy-cirk-rozariusa.html 

[7] Based on information found on https://ww2.dk/air/misc/verobdl.html

All the work presented on this is page is subject to updates and revisions in the light of new information which might present itself. If you have any new information relevant to this page or disagree with anything that's presented here, then please feel free to contact me through the Planes in Profile Facebook page. Thanks:)

Anton Petrov
Previous

Vishnyakov’s White-76 “Za Olega Koshevogo”
Next

Vendl’s “White-23” / Czech “(Yellow?)-23”,