Antenna wires on WWII aircraft

[Spitfires Forever]

I was wondering if and when antenna wires were discontinued on most, if not all WWII aircraft. Did later mark British and US aircraft discontinue installation of the wires. Looking at current warbirds with their much more advanced radios antennae are not evident so I can't rely on them as a good example. As far as Luftwaffe aircraft go did they also dispense with wires in their later model aircraft such as the Bf 109 and Fw 190? Any info on this subject would be of great help 

Cheers

[Seawinder]

You've got to look at it by nationality, specific aircraft type, and theater of operation.

 

For example, Spitfires and other RAF types in northern Europe received VHF radios and therefore shed their wires at least by the time of the Mk. V (some before the end of 1940), while planes serving in Africa and the Far East retained the wires longer because they were still using the HF radios. Then there's the whole matter if IFF antennas, which early on were wires from stabilizer tips to fuselage, but were replaced with rods under the starboard wing in 1943.

 

AFAIK, Soviet aircraft retained wire antennas pretty much through the whole war, as did Luftwaffe planes.

 

USN planes like the Hellcat and Corsair had wire antennas at least as late as 1944, while P-51s and P-47s were without wires at least by then.

 

Bottom line, it's too complicated for any simple answer.

 

[Rolls-Royce]

Indeed. There are documented examples of Mk I Spitfires with VHF radios and no antenna wires flying during the Battle of Britain. One was X4179, "QV0B", flown by George "Grumpy" Unwin on 15 September 1940...

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Oh gosh.  This topic is too big to encapsulate with generalities.  What aircraft are you interested in, and in what year are you trying to depict it?  My specialty is with heavies and transports, almost all of which carried HF wire antennas from the cockpit to the vertical fin, and DF "sensing" wire antennas along their bellies somewhere.  

[dogsbody]

4 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Oh gosh.  This topic is too big to encapsulate with generalities.  What aircraft are you interested in, and in what year are you trying to depict it?  My specialty is with heavies and transports, almost all of which carried HF wire antennas from the cockpit to the vertical fin, and DF "sensing" wire antennas along their bellies somewhere.  

 

Wouldn't aircraft of this time have loops/football DF antenna. The long pole type aerial under larger RAF aircraft were for the Lorenz Blind Approach system.

 

 

 

Chris

[Spitfires Forever]

I guess the topic is a bit broad so let's stick with allied fighters for now. What marks of Spits dispensed with the wires as well as US fighters like the P-38, P-40, P-47.etc. And did radios improve enough by the end of the war to not need the wires? I noticed the Tempest did not have antenna wires but maybe the old black and white photos didn't pick up the wires due to their diminutive size. 

[Spitfires Forever]

5 hours ago, Seawinder said:

You've got to look at it by nationality, specific aircraft type, and theater of operation.

 

For example, Spitfires and other RAF types in northern Europe received VHF radios and therefore shed their wires at least by the time of the Mk. V (some before the end of 1940), while planes serving in Africa and the Far East retained the wires longer because they were still using the HF radios. Then there's the whole matter if IFF antennas, which early on were wires from stabilizer tips to fuselage, but were replaced with rods under the starboard wing in 1943.

 

AFAIK, Soviet aircraft retained wire antennas pretty much through the whole war, as did Luftwaffe planes.

 

USN planes like the Hellcat and Corsair had wire antennas at least as late as 1944, while P-51s and P-47s were without wires at least by then.

 

Bottom line, it's too complicated for any simple answer.

 

Regardless you gave me some valuable information that you I'll help in future builds.

Cheers

[Seawinder]

3 hours ago, Spitfires Forever said:

I guess the topic is a bit broad so let's stick with allied fighters for now. What marks of Spits dispensed with the wires as well as US fighters like the P-38, P-40, P-47.etc. And did radios improve enough by the end of the war to not need the wires? I noticed the Tempest did not have antenna wires but maybe the old black and white photos didn't pick up the wires due to their diminutive size. 

It's not clear that you've read what people have posted. If you're talking comm radios, the type of antenna needed depended on the type of radio installed. At the beginning of the war, HF (high frequency) was the norm and required a strung wire antenna. VHF (very high frequency) radios began to come into wider use early in the war and quickly replaced HF units in some planes and in some theaters. These new radios didn't require a strung antenna; rather, the wire buried in the mast was sufficient. Some Spitfires in England began to receive VHF radios during the BoB, and virtually all Spitfires in front-line service were VHF-equipped by the time Mk. V production commenced. I recommend you check out this article, which has clear explanations and pictures of the different Spitfire antenna arrangements:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-masts-and-aerials.html

As you'll see, there's a very simple way to tell whether a Spitfire has the strung wire or not: the presence or absence of the triangular mounting bracket on the rear edge of the mast. If it's not there (even though the small bracket may be), there's no wire.

 

I think you may have to do some of your own digging for other types, but it appears that many American planes retained strung antennas (and therefore, presumably, HF radios) far longer than Spitfires. For example, here's a link I just found with a quick google search (hint hint) to a Hyperscale thread on P-38s that describes antenna wire arrays on P-38Js and Ls, so certainly mid- to late war:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/p-38j-antenna-wire-attachment-t508454.html

 

Also, HF radios could transmit/receive over much greater distances than VHF, so planes in the Pacific or other theaters covering long distances were more likely to have strung wire antennas.

Some useful info here:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/p51-d-antenna-wire.18345/

 

There's plenty more to be found ...

 

[Spitfires Forever]

Thanks to all for your input especially Seawinder, the info plus links will be of great help with my Spitfire Mk VIII and P-47D builds coming up.

Cheers

[fastterry]

Tempests, bubble top Typhoons and Spitfire XIV & XVI bubble tops all had whip aerials for their VHF radios plus IFF rods of course.

TRF

[Wez]

Seawinder's description is very helpful.

 

Watered down technical description coming up.

 

Generally, early in the war the radios typically fitted were HF sets, these use the wire aerial (because the lower the frequency, the greater the aerial length). 

 

Technology moved on and VHF sets came into use, these are lighter and provide clearer voice comms but they have a limitation which I'll come to in a bit.  Generally, these did away with the wire aerial and made use of the mast type aerials.  I say generally, because the lower end of the VHF spectrum is adjacent to the HF spectrum and could use a wire aerial (albeit a very short one).

 

The Soviets and Germans seem to have used wire aerials right until the end of the war (as seen on the Bf-109 and Fw-190), I suspect that in the Soviets case they were using HF sets, whether the Germans were using HF set or the lower end of the VHF frequency without further research I can't say.

 

So generally the Allies were the ones using VHF sets but I would suggest that overriding operational circumstances specific to a theatre of operations may have resulted in wire aerials being retained late in the war, this is due to the limitations of the respective systems.

 

As I've said, VHF sets are generally smaller and lighter, they don't have so many components but this comes at a cost.  VHF sets have a limited output in the low tens of Watts, also VHF radio wave propagation is strictly line of sight.  This means it has limited range and is obscured by objects such as buildings, hills, mountains etc.  The less obstructions and the higher you're flying the better your range (potentially hundreds of miles).

 

HF sets are bigger and bulkier, also generally, HF sets have much greater output in the high tens to hundreds of Watts.  Also, HF propagation bounces off of the ionosphere which effectively allows it to follow the curvature of the earth, it has much greater range (thousands of miles), and works pretty well in very hilly/mountainous terrain.

 

 

What does this mean for your question? 

 

If you think about it, a Spitfire, Mustang, P-47 or P-38 flying at 25,000 plus probably had pretty good line of sight and could get away with using a VHF set that would see them most of the way across Europe, once you start flying at lower levels the range decreases so comms with UK based control becomes a bit more hit and miss.  One of the things the Allies did post D-Day was include ground control radio as a part of their forces in order to maintain comms with their aircraft operating over land.  So these aircraft used VHF sets with blade/stub/pole/mast aerials.

 

When operating over the Pacific, the ranges were much greater, VHF may not have had the range so HF sets would have been used in addition to the VHF sets.  The VHF would have provided short range tactical comms, the HF would provide the long range comms to talk to base.  This means you're likely to see late-war US fighters with a mixture of blade/stub/pole/mast aerials and wire aerials.

 

As always, it boils down to getting a good photo of the actual aircraft you're modelling or failing that, contemporary photos of aircraft from the same unit to see what they've got, your subject is very likely to have the same fit.

 

Hope this helps?

[Spitfires Forever]

11 minutes ago, Wez said:

Seawinder's description is very helpful.

 

Watered down technical description coming up.

 

Generally, early in the war the radios typically fitted were HF sets, these use the wire aerial (because the lower the frequency, the greater the aerial length). 

 

Technology moved on and VHF sets came into use, these are lighter and provide clearer voice comms but they have a limitation which I'll come to in a bit.  Generally, these did away with the wire aerial and made use of the mast type aerials.  I say generally, because the lower end of the VHF spectrum is adjacent to the HF spectrum and could use a wire aerial (albeit a very short one).

 

The Soviets and Germans seem to have used wire aerials right until the end of the war (as seen on the Bf-109 and Fw-190), I suspect that in the Soviets case they were using HF sets, whether the Germans were using HF set or the lower end of the frequency without further research I can't say.

 

So generally the Allies were the ones using VHF sets but I would suggest that overriding operational circumstances specific to a theatre of operations may have resulted in wire aerials being retained late in the war, this is due to the limitations of the respective systems.

 

As I've said, VHF sets are generally smaller and lighter, they don't have so many components but this comes at a cost.  VHF sets have a limited output in the low tens of Watts, also VHF radio wave propagation is strictly line of sight.  This means it has limited range and is obscured by objects such as buildings, hills, mountains etc.  The less obstructions and the higher you're flying the better your range (potentially hundreds of miles).

 

HF sets are bigger and bulkier, also generally, HF sets have much greater output in the high tens to hundreds of Watts.  Also, HF propagation bounces off of the ionosphere which effectively allows it to follow the curvature of the earth, it has much greater range (thousands of miles), and works pretty well in very hilly/mountainous terrain.

 

 

What does this mean for your question? 

 

If you think about it, a Spitfire, Mustang, P-47 or P-38 flying at 25,000 plus probably had pretty good line of sight and could get away with using a VHF set that would see them most of the way across Europe, once you start flying at lower levels the range decreases so comms with UK based control becomes a bit more hit and miss.  One of the things the Allies did post D-Day was include ground control radio as a part of their forces in order to maintain comms with their aircraft operating over land.  So these aircraft used VHF sets with blade/stub/pole/mast aerials.

 

When operating over the Pacific, the ranges were much greater, VHF may not have had the range so HF sets would have been used in addition to the VHF sets.  The VHF would have provided short range tactical comms, the HF would provide the long range comms to talk to base.  This means you're likely to see late-war US fighters with a mixture of blade/stub/pole/mast aerials and wire aerials.

 

As always, it boils down to getting a good photo of the actual aircraft you're modelling or failing that, contemporary photos of aircraft from the same unit to see what they've got, your subject is very likely to have the same fit.

 

Hope this helps?

Thanks for the technical information. I believe it applies to car and home radios to one degree or another. I read in Sabuto Sakai"s book that the Japanese radios were notoriously bad so thusly all the hand signals. In fact he got rid of his as well as sawing off his antenna mast to save weight and increase aerodynamic efficiency. Now I have a better idea as to which subjects I have built need some EZ Line to make them look more authentic.

Cheers

[ilj]

Seawinder's post is excellent and a concise summary.  The only thing I would add is that some 'wires' were not for e.g., HF radio communication per se but were IFF-related hardware.

 

For example, in 1942, many Spitfire Vs had wires running from the fuselage roundel to the leading edge of the tip of the horizontal tailplanes - these were IFF devices.  These were quickly discontinued and replaced with much more compact external masts et c. as the IFF technology advanced.

 

ilj

[Crimea River]

Good info on American fit-outs here: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/american-fighter-aircraft-radios-1942.57587/

 

[TheyJammedKenny!]

On 1/10/2022 at 7:03 PM, dogsbody said:

Wouldn't aircraft of this time have loops/football DF antenna

You need both to get a complete DF.  The DF equipment compares the phase difference in the received signal between the loop antenna and the wire antenna.  The loop gives you a line of bearing that runs through the aircraft (so two potential headings exactly 180 degrees apart).  Having the wire antenna resolves which of the two headings describes the bearing of the received source signal. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by TheyJammedKenny!
bad math--one reason I never became a Navigator

[Seawinder]

6 hours ago, ilj said:

Seawinder's post is excellent and a concise summary.  The only thing I would add is that some 'wires' were not for e.g., HF radio communication per se but were IFF-related hardware.

 

For example, in 1942, many Spitfire Vs had wires running from the fuselage roundel to the leading edge of the tip of the horizontal tailplanes - these were IFF devices.  These were quickly discontinued and replaced with much more compact external masts et c. as the IFF technology advanced.

 

ilj

Thanks, ilj. Yes, that's why I inserted the clause "If you're talking comm radios" at the start. The IFF thing adds a whole 'nother layer of complications, and the British weren't the only ones to make use of them.

[Dave Swindell]

10 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

(so two potential headings exactly 360 degrees apart).

Two bearings 360 degrees apart are identical, think you mean reciprocal bearings 180 degrees apart.

[dogsbody]

15 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

You need both to get a complete DF.  The DF equipment compares the phase difference in the received signal between the loop antenna and the wire antenna.  The loop gives you a line of bearing that runs through the aircraft (so two potential headings exactly 360 degrees apart).  Having the wire antenna resolves which of the two headings describes the bearing of the received source signal. 

 

Do not the loops rotate so that the navigator can tell from which direction the signal is coming from? The football shape ones just have an aerodynamic fairing over the rotatable loop.

 

 

 

Chris

[junglierating]

22 hours ago, Wez said:

Seawinder's description is very helpful.

 

Watered down technical description coming up.

 

Generally, early in the war the radios typically fitted were HF sets, these use the wire aerial (because the lower the frequency, the greater the aerial length). 

 

Technology moved on and VHF sets came into use, these are lighter and provide clearer voice comms but they have a limitation which I'll come to in a bit.  Generally, these did away with the wire aerial and made use of the mast type aerials.  I say generally, because the lower end of the VHF spectrum is adjacent to the HF spectrum and could use a wire aerial (albeit a very short one).

 

The Soviets and Germans seem to have used wire aerials right until the end of the war (as seen on the Bf-109 and Fw-190), I suspect that in the Soviets case they were using HF sets, whether the Germans were using HF set or the lower end of the frequency without further research I can't say.

 

So generally the Allies were the ones using VHF sets but I would suggest that overriding operational circumstances specific to a theatre of operations may have resulted in wire aerials being retained late in the war, this is due to the limitations of the respective systems.

 

As I've said, VHF sets are generally smaller and lighter, they don't have so many components but this comes at a cost.  VHF sets have a limited output in the low tens of Watts, also VHF radio wave propagation is strictly line of sight.  This means it has limited range and is obscured by objects such as buildings, hills, mountains etc.  The less obstructions and the higher you're flying the better your range (potentially hundreds of miles).

 

HF sets are bigger and bulkier, also generally, HF sets have much greater output in the high tens to hundreds of Watts.  Also, HF propagation bounces off of the ionosphere which effectively allows it to follow the curvature of the earth, it has much greater range (thousands of miles), and works pretty well in very hilly/mountainous terrain.

 

 

What does this mean for your question? 

 

If you think about it, a Spitfire, Mustang, P-47 or P-38 flying at 25,000 plus probably had pretty good line of sight and could get away with using a VHF set that would see them most of the way across Europe, once you start flying at lower levels the range decreases so comms with UK based control becomes a bit more hit and miss.  One of the things the Allies did post D-Day was include ground control radio as a part of their forces in order to maintain comms with their aircraft operating over land.  So these aircraft used VHF sets with blade/stub/pole/mast aerials.

 

When operating over the Pacific, the ranges were much greater, VHF may not have had the range so HF sets would have been used in addition to the VHF sets.  The VHF would have provided short range tactical comms, the HF would provide the long range comms to talk to base.  This means you're likely to see late-war US fighters with a mixture of blade/stub/pole/mast aerials and wire aerials.

 

As always, it boils down to getting a good photo of the actual aircraft you're modelling or failing that, contemporary photos of aircraft from the same unit to see what they've got, your subject is very likely to have the same fit.

 

Hope this helps?

Ah spoken like a true source trade pinkie as opposed to a convertee like me .....best thing I ever did tbh.....although I do miss the bombs and proper elecrickery😁

Meanwhile HF hasn't gone away ...SK 4 used the collins (coffin) radio....used to take young lads (& lasses)out on the line flash up the HF and demonstrate its use by calling up the Falklands or some such place.

Not sure the long(short really) range HF fitted to certain rotorcraft is really that good anymore....still theres always TACSAT I guess ......more complex and not much fun....still I digress from the subject....I get the door on my way out 😑😃

Edited January 12, 2022 by junglierating

[RainierHooker]

In the old timey times, the loops did rotate, but this still left the operator the problem of determining which direction was to the transmitter. The recieved signal strength is greatest when the loop is perpendicular to the bearing to the transmitter, two possible bearings result 180º apart. On more modern sets the loop is actually two antennae (aka a dipole antenna) and the controller compares the signal strength between the two received signals to determine direction to the transmitter. This type of antenna is fixed and does not rotate. The sense antenna that is separate from the ADF/RDF loop or bipole determines which of the two opposite bearings is the correct one.

 

As for HF, it is still very much alive, although it is quickly being replaced by Satcom. When I was in Pakistani Kashmir (US Army/RAF/RAAF humanitarian task force) we used HF sets on our helicopters to great effect as they were by far the best way to communicate within the steep valleys of the Himalayas. Atmospheric bounce really works.

Edited January 12, 2022 by RainierHooker

[junglierating]

2 minutes ago, RainierHooker said:

In the old timey times, the loops did rotate, but this still left the operator the problem of determining which direction was to the transmitter. The recieved signal strength is greatest when the loop is perpendicular to the bearing to the transmitter, two possible bearings result 180º apart. On more modern sets the loop is actually two antennae (aka a dipole antenna) and the controller compares the signal strength between the two received signals to determine direction to the transmitter. This type of antenna is fixed and does not rotate. The sense antenna that is separate from the ADF/RDF loop or bipole determines which of the two opposite bearings is the correct one.

You a source trade pinkie too...😁..good old loop and sense and the quadrangle thingy

[RainierHooker]

Ah yes, the quadrangle thingy!

[TheyJammedKenny!]

8 hours ago, RainierHooker said:

Ah yes, the quadrangle thingy

You mean a rhomboid antenna?  Sorry to hijack this thread!

[dov]

You may look at my post of  this topics:

 

All aircraft in each airforce underwent upgrades during operational life of the airframe.

Old equipment was changed.

By availability, resources for installation and need.

Older aircraft underwent upgrades, in this matter or other.

No general explanation can be given.

You need your common sense and logic to answer your individual question.

 

 

 

 

Happy modelling

 

[Graham Boak]

The other point not clarified earlier is that the available radio systems varied with theatre.  For example, it is undoubtedly true that all Spitfire Mk.Vs had  VHF radio in the UK, but overseas deliveries still had the HF radios.