He imported five small civilian single engine MFI-9 planes produced by Malmö Flygindustri, at that time owned by SAAB, which he knew could also be used for a ground attack role in warfare. He had the planes painted in camouflage colours and fitted with license manufactured 68 mm SNEB type rockets, and proceeded with a crew of two Swedes and two Biafrans to form a squadron called 'Biafra Babies' to strike the air fields from which the federal Nigerian Air Force launched their attacks against the civilian population in Biafra. On 22 May 1969, and over the next few days, von Rosen and his five aircraft launched attacks against Nigerian air fields at Port Harcourt, Enugu, Benin and other small airports. The Nigerians were taken by surprise and a number of expensive jets, including a few MiG-17 fighters and three out of Nigeria's six Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, were destroyed on the ground.
They swept the wing the ‘wrong way’ just so that it wont get in the way of getting into the cockpit. But now the wingtips get in the way when turning.. all because of the rock heavy piston engine in front.. should have gone turboprop..
A turboprop would be much more expensive to buy and operate than the cheap and ubiquitous piston engine used, as also found in Cessnas and many other small planes. This makes it much more practical to maintain at any airfield. Much less fuel burn too. Less engine power also makes it more suitable for beginner pilots.
At higher speeds and at higher altitudes, yes. In the flight regime that something like this thing or a 172 would operate the high fuel burn, maintenance,and upfront cost would not make it worth it in the slightest. Turbines also get less efficient per their own weight the smaller they get.
I worked on Saabs and sold Saabs for years. Love those things but the funniest shit ever.
Let's mount the motor in the front longitudinally but backwards and drive the front wheels.
Which of course makes the transmission drain oil plug and engine oil drain plug reversed. Cue thousands of new techs in the US constantly draining the wrong fluid.
The only important thing is that the two wing beams are connected through the body. The front and rear sections of the wings can go anywhere, it doesn't matter.
Forward swept wings cause the wingtips to stall last allowing roll control deeper into the stall.
However it increases the stress on the wing structure at high speeds, requiring a stronger wing structure than a traditional sept wing. Although the sweep on this is minor.
xerberos@reddit
This was a further development of the Malmö MFI-9 Junior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%B6_MFI-9_Junior
That aircraft actually saw combat in Biafra in 1969, where they bombed Nigerian airfields and destroyed several aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_von_Rosen
Here's a pic of it with weapons:
https://alchetron.com/cdn/malm-mfi-9-bf6fa417-e38c-42fb-8328-0fb27a49b8e-resize-750.jpeg
3_man@reddit
This guy sounds like a real life Porco Rosso.
setthrustpositive@reddit
Which was also available as a homebuilt. Theres 2 or 3 now in Sweden with Rotax engines.
DerFlieger@reddit
This is definitely worthy of its own post.
Yunicito@reddit
They swept the wing the ‘wrong way’ just so that it wont get in the way of getting into the cockpit. But now the wingtips get in the way when turning.. all because of the rock heavy piston engine in front.. should have gone turboprop..
couplingrhino@reddit
A turboprop would be much more expensive to buy and operate than the cheap and ubiquitous piston engine used, as also found in Cessnas and many other small planes. This makes it much more practical to maintain at any airfield. Much less fuel burn too. Less engine power also makes it more suitable for beginner pilots.
starkruzr@reddit
I thought turboprops were some of the most efficient aviation engines you could build?
couplingrhino@reddit
Not for small training aircraft. The smallest useful turboprops put out way too much power for this little guy.
Effef@reddit
At higher speeds and at higher altitudes, yes. In the flight regime that something like this thing or a 172 would operate the high fuel burn, maintenance,and upfront cost would not make it worth it in the slightest. Turbines also get less efficient per their own weight the smaller they get.
g3nerallycurious@reddit
What the fuck
Porchmuse@reddit
Same philosophy used in their cars.
British_Rover@reddit
I worked on Saabs and sold Saabs for years. Love those things but the funniest shit ever.
Let's mount the motor in the front longitudinally but backwards and drive the front wheels.
Which of course makes the transmission drain oil plug and engine oil drain plug reversed. Cue thousands of new techs in the US constantly draining the wrong fluid.
KeeganY_SR-UVB76@reddit
To be fair, American mechanics being useless is nothing new. You have a convenient username considering the topic.
British_Rover@reddit
Hey it's me I was the new American tech almost 30 years ago. I have trained a bunch of techs since then but I am out of technician game now.
I always had a soft spot for British cars. Worked on them too and sold them for a while.
KeeganY_SR-UVB76@reddit
I’m American, but British cars run in the family. I own a Jag XJ6.
Fake-Podcast-Ad@reddit
"...Also, cupholders....
xerberos@reddit
The only important thing is that the two wing beams are connected through the body. The front and rear sections of the wings can go anywhere, it doesn't matter.
xrelaht@reddit
There is bracing, it’s just not visible.
PatchesMaps@reddit
From the picture it looks like there is bracing underneath the wings.
Poagie_Mahoney@reddit
And that bracing is aligned with the member that's dividing the canopy.
RoebuckThirtyFour@reddit
and then Von Rosen said "lets bomb mig-17s and IL-28s!"
the_friendly_one@reddit
This is probably the most 70s sci-fi single-prop aircraft I've ever seen, and I love it.
CivilHedgehog2@reddit
We use an almost identical plane for elementary pilot training in the danish air force, the T-17. Lovely little thing
TG484@reddit
Forward swept wings cause the wingtips to stall last allowing roll control deeper into the stall.
However it increases the stress on the wing structure at high speeds, requiring a stronger wing structure than a traditional sept wing. Although the sweep on this is minor.
RockstarQuaff@reddit
VNE is 197 kts, so Saab got some speed out of this airframe.
lickmyscrotes@reddit
That would be in a dive, max speed is a lot lower
RockstarQuaff@reddit
Yup, but still far higher than a random 172, Cherokee, whatever, doing the same thing. Strikes .e as a tough acft.
lickmyscrotes@reddit
Definitely has to be built tough if it’s a military trainer
Poagie_Mahoney@reddit
With a name like "Safari" you'd think it's to be marketed as a bush plane, but that tricycle gear instead of being a tail dragger...
KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit
It looks like the front wheel is retractable, but not the rear ones?
link_dead@reddit
You can fly off airport with trike gear no problem.
7stroke@reddit
Weird ass SAAB
DisregardLogan@reddit
“Yeah let’s just slap everything from standard trainers all on one plane”
earl_of_lemonparty@reddit
Mmm, forward sweep, yum yum yum.
delta_hotel3443@reddit
Somewhat reminds me of the RAFs training aircraft the GROB tutor