UTVA – Achtung, Skyhawk!

Photo File – A Tale of Three (and a bit) Utvas

March 28, 2025September 23, 2025Posted in U-75, Yugoslav And Croatian Aviation HistoryTagged E7-PDC, S5-DCI, U-75, UTVA, Utva 75, UTVA Pančevo, Z3-DCF1 Comment

By me
All photos me too, copyrighted

If you’ve ever wanted to send the ex-Yugoslav aviation scene into a fit of fond nostalgia and blind rage at the same time, there was only one aircraft you’d need to mention: the Utva U-75. Behind its facade as a rather conventional two-seat basic trainer, it had over the years evolved into one of the most polarizing aircraft ever made by Yugoslavia’s aviation industry, a rough but capable diamond to some – and a vile deathtrap to others. While the truth is inevitably somewhere in the middle (and requires quite a bit of historical context to place), the fact remains that even today the type is very firmly ingrained in the local aviation psyche.

This, in turn, meant that it was only a matter of time before it would start appearing in force here at Achtung, Skyhawk!. Indeed, back in 2017 there was a big piece on the sole surviving four-seat U-75A, followed up a year later by an attempt at making a sensible (!) pilot report for my first ever flight on one. And while their mention here is a shameless plug (💪), they are nevertheless worth a read on their own merits… if anything for providing at least some of the aforementioned context, and helping to illustrate just what the U-75 was supposed to be and why it ultimately succeeded/failed at that.

All of this is also relevant for what is to come now. What had originally started out as just a simple photo showcase of the U-75s I’ve flown so far had, shockingly, gone completely off the rails within minutes. I’d needed only a few catchy captions to go along with the photos… but ended up going on a number of lengthy tangents, each delving deeper and deeper into the juicy, nerdy details of the U-75’s design and operation. Thus, having even a bit of the type’s backstory at hand will make it much easier for this whole (rambling but hopefully interesting) text to fall neatly into place…

*A manly man’s stick with a guarded weapon release switch, and a 70s green ergonomic mess of a panel… who could honestly say no?*

The origins of this thing go back to the summer of 2022, when – in an entirely unscripted series of events – I had managed to log time on three different U-75s in three different countries all in the space of just three months’ time. What had set the ball rolling was an innocent decision in June to add another new reg and another new airfield to my logbook. While browsing through available fields within reasonable reach by car, I stumbled upon Prijedor (LQPD) just over the border in Bosnia, whose Facebook page had prominently featured its U-75 E7-PDC in all its galleries. Tick. Having posted photos of that flight on my Instagram account, I was then contacted by an instructor from Maribor (LJMB) in Slovenia, and invited to have one last go on their S5-DCI before it used up its remaining service life and ended its flying career. Tick again. And, having done all of that, I thought “sod it”, and on an impromptu vacation to North Macedonia in September decided to go for a Triple Tick and try out Z3-DCF out of Štip (sans ICAO code), by far the best of the few remaining U-75s in the country. Naturally, my camera had made all three trips as well, making for some entirely predictable results…

On a serious note: the story of every aircraft featured here touches upon, in one way or another, the Yugoslav independence wars of the early 90s; it’s simply the nature of the beast (much to my regret, having lived through those times). Since this site is, and has only ever been, about nerdy airplane stuff – and the 90s are anything but that – you’ll have to forgive me for occasionally skimping on the details… as well as being vague at times, since records from the period are not always easy to find (be it from not being kept at all, honestly lost, dishonestly destroyed, or simply unavailable for any of a myriad reasons)

The Mule: E7-PDC

Kicking off both the photos and the tangents is the youngest U-75 I have on file, manufactured in 1985 under the military ID 53238¹. Nowadays operated by AK Prijedor (AK = aeroklub, flying club), PDC is your typical small-town jack-of-all-trades, used for everything from basic flying instruction to precision flying competition to glider towing – all of which also makes it one of the busiest and hardest-working 75s on the Balkans today.

Since legacy Yugoslav aircraft tend to be “generational hand-downs” – frequently serving out their entire lives with the same club, or changing hands once or twice at most – PDC, like many 75s, has a disappointingly straightforward history. Initially flying with AK Paraćin of (the Federal Republic of) Serbia as YU-DJS, it would be transferred to Prijedor in JUN 1988, becoming YU-DLY in the process. One of the few 75s that do not appear to have gone into temporary military service during the collapse of Yugoslavia, it would remain on the Serbian register all the way into 2003, when it would become T9-PDC… and then finally E7-PDC when Bosnia swapped out its registration prefix in AUG 2007.

The twins. While the most complicated part of the entire airplane – the powerplant – may be as generic as it gets (a **180 HP Lycoming IO-360** whirling a two-blade **Hartzell HC-series** constant speed prop), the rest of the airplane is pretty much bespoke. This inevitably became an issue once the spares pool had started to dry out – and was further exacerbated by the type’s withdrawal from the Serbian Air Force in 2016-2017, ending any meaningful official support. Remaining operators are increasingly left with few choices but to cannibalize non-flying examples, a fate that likely awaits E7-PDB as well…

Despite its seemingly compact appearance (accentuated by the short **9.73 m** wingspan), the U-75 is a proper chonk of an airplane – which becomes particularly obvious when parked next to something else. The wing root alone is **approx. 80 cm** off the deck, while the wingtip itself has a very generous **1.1 m** ground clearance – both far in excess of many other low-wing two-seaters (E7-PDH would, sadly, be lost with both on board barely six months after this was taken)

As iconic a cockpit view as there can be on the Balkans! True to its role as an everyday workhorse, E7-PDC has a few add-ons not normally found in other U-75s: a **Garmin Aera 500** GPS unit, an **ICOM IC-A210E** com radio, and a **Trig TT31** Mode S transponder (the **King KR 85** ADF doesn’t count; that was part of the factory standard fit). Other new bits include more modern seats with modern harnesses, and outside there’s a full suite of LED navigation and strobe lights

In addition to the panel layout, another thing to get used to inside are the very lines of the cockpit itself. The heavy frame and low door sills mean that looking forward **initially** feels like you’re peering out of a post box, while glancing over the sides you’d think you’re in an observation airplane. However, once you get a bit more comfortable with it all, it doesn’t feel even remotely as unnatural as it looks; the short downward sloping nose – plus the extensive glazing and generally airy feel to the cabin – mean that visibility is actually borderline excellent in all direction except backwards

¹ among the many specifics of Yugoslavia’s aviation industry was the often confusing interplay of civilian and military interests in the design and manufacture of light aircraft. A perfect example, the U-75 itself was conceived to cater for the needs of both the civilian Vazduhoplovni savez Jugoslavije (VSJ, Aviation Federation of Yugoslavia) and the Yugoslav Air Force (Ratno vazduhoplovstvo, RV). It included very nearly equal amounts of input from both of them – a tow hook for the VSJ, underwing hardpoints for the RV for example – and both were intended to split the bill of its development. However, due to the military’s higher position in the state apparatus (not to mention having eventually ended up covering most of the expenses), all of the aircraft would actually be owned by the RV, with an agreed-upon number made available to the VSJ through a lease agreement. The VSJ would, in turn, distribute these aircraft to flying clubs across the land according to its own internal schedule. This meant that in peacetime, the RV could recall aircraft from civilian service to cover its own operational needs (such as replacement of losses) – and in wartime press them into use as nuisance raiders armed with two of either 120 kg dumb bombs, 12-round 57 mm rocket packs, twin-tube 128 mm rocket launchers, or 7.62 mm machine gun pods.

As an upshot of this “ownership structure”, all of the U-75s used by the VSJ would also carry the RV’s standardized five-digit ID (evidencijski broj, record number) alongside their normal civilian registrations. Here, the first two digits would denote the aircraft type, and the last three a particular aircraft’s position in the production sequence (with the 0xx block reserved for prototypes and pre-production examples, and 101 onward for series machines). With the U-75 having been assigned the type code 53 – and the two production batches being 53101-53124 and 53151-53261 – PDC’s ID of 53238, for example, works out to being the 111th production-standard 75 made. These IDs were sufficiently big a thing in fact that they became the stand-in for serial numbers when identifying individual airframes – so much so that many forgot the aircraft even HAD factory/line numbers to begin with.

To complicate matters even further, the RV also used custom type designations for many aircraft in its service, usually a combination of the aircraft’s role and its two-digit type code. The U-75 so became the V-53 (višenamjenski, multipurpose), though this tended to be rarely used outside of official documents and manuals; thus, U-75 YU-DJS of “the civilians” and V-53 53238 of the military would actually be the very same airplane.

But wait, there’s more! “According to its own internal schedule” is just an abridged, diplomatic way of saying the bureaucracy didn’t end there – not even remotely. Subordinate to the VSJ proper were the aviation federations of the individual Yugoslav republics and autonomous regions – much of the same really, but with a more tactical, hands-on approach. In the case of the U-75, the VSJ, as the “head office”, would split the 86 aircraft it had received (later upped to 114) into lots deemed sufficient for the needs of each republic/region – and then sit back and let the individual federations do the heavy lifting of allocating them to individual clubs. I mention this because anybody not from around here trying to make sense of the whole arrangement will inevitably run into a myriad of acronyms for the various organizations involved – VS, ZS, ZLOS, … – all of which may seem different and confusing… but all essentially denoting the very same thing. The main culprit here is linguistics – and to avoid setting off a firestorm, suffice to say that there were two dominant languages in use back then: Serbo-Croatian (Yugoslavia’s lingua franca) and Slovenian. You can probably see where this is going:

VS: vazduhoplovni savez … “aviation federation” in Serbo-
ZS: zrakoplovni savez … “aviation federation” in -Croatian
ZLOS: zveza letalskih organizacija Slovenije … “the union of aviation organizations of Slovenia”, a long-winded way of saying “aviation federation” in Slovenian

The warbird: S5-DCI

The next one, by contrast, is NOT your everyday hauler; indeed, it is (or rather was) possibly as close as you could get to an operational, original military-spec 75 anywhere in the lands of former Yugoslavia. Manufactured in 1980 as 53171, it would be allocated to AK Maribor right from the beginning, initially under the reg YU-DGF. Come the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991, it and other Slovenian U-75s would be pressed into service with the 15. brigada vojaškega letalstva (15th Military Aviation Brigade) of the newly-formed Slovenian Air Force. Now known as SL-DCI, it would eventually become the S5-DCI we know today when Slovenia was allocated its permanent registration prefix² in 1992.

Used solely for training duties during this time³, all of the impressed U-75s would be withdrawn from service in 1994 and replaced by the Zlin Z-242L. The surviving machines (some having been lost to accidents) would eventually be released for use by their original flying clubs, though they would nevertheless remain under military ownership for the next two decades⁴. And while all of them would lead busy civilian lives throughout the rest of the 90s, age and spares and maintenance costs would eventually whittle the fleet down until only DCI remained, operated by AK Maribor’s successor, Letalski center Maribor (LCM).

Initially earning its keep as a glider tug (and occasional competitor in the odd precision landing championship), by the mid 2010s it would increasingly take on the role of the “treasured family oldtimer”, flown pretty much solely for the experience and its historical significance. By mid 2022 however, the Utva Curse would catch up with it as well, with an upcoming engine overhaul – made doubly more expensive by post-lockdown inflation – being simply too expensive to be justifiable, particularly given the financial commitment required by LCM’s large “daily driver” fleet. With just 45 hours left to run by the time I arrived (again), DCI was flown to exhaustion over the summer, and finally ended its career in autumn with some 4,620 hours on the clock…

The last place you could see 1991-1994 Slovenian Air Force colors out in the wild. Serving out its third consecutive year in the hangar at the time of writing, there is a possibility (albeit not a definite one) that DCI might eventually join the ever-growing collection of airplanes at the fantastic Park vojaške zgodovine (Park of Military History)… note also the prominent fairing under the wing just outboard of the main gear; this covers up the fuel level sensor and fuel tank drain port – and NOT the pylon attachments as some seem to claim (these were located further out roughly half way towards the wingtip)

*Hopping around tight grass strips on the edges of forests, a green panel inside and beautiful green landscapes outside… happy place, happy place!*

A cockpit study… in banging my head against the overhead frame while trying to find a good angle. Unlike PDC, DCI’s interior is entirely stock, the only additions being the **King KT76A** transponder and **Trig TY96** com radio

It’s hard to appreciate just how thicc the U-75 really is until you stand behind it. The vertical stabilizer tops out at approx. **3.2 m**, while the trailing edge of the horizontal is at something like **1.7**. Note also the tow hook under the tail, a VSJ requirement as stated previously

² since they actually represent a national radio communication identity rather than just plain nationality, registration prefixes are regulated by an industry-spanning multinational body called the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Since the ITU is a big thing with its own processes, meetings, committees and all the accompanying inertia, it takes awhile to get anything major done – particularly creating and allocating an entirely new prefix. To expedite abandonment of the now no-no YU-, both Slovenia and Croatia adopted temporary non-kosher prefixes of their own choosing that would be considered “legal tender” until the ITU decided on a permanent solution. Slovenia thus went with SL-, while Croatia opted for RC- (Republic of Croatia). By the mid-to-late 1992, all the required processes were complete, allowing for today’s S5- and 9A- to come into use…

And if anybody’s wondering what was wrong with SL- and RC-: as far as I can work out (and I reserve the right to be wrong), SL- had previously been used between 1947 and 1959 for the Saar Protectorate – a bit of Germany that France likes to occupy after every world war – and likely the ITU didn’t want to reuse it so soon. To dial up the irony in this to 11, Somaliland – an unrecognized breakaway territory of Somalia – is nowadays using the same SL- prefix for itself (apparently illegally), and on U-75s of unknown origin to boot! On the other hand, R + the earlier letters appear to be reserved by Russia for future expansion of its registry (such as the RF- regs used by its military hardware), while HR- (from Croatia’s native name, Hrvatska) was already taken up by Honduras

³ upon their formation, both the Slovenian and Croatian air forces existed pretty much in name only. With no proper combat aircraft and few left to capture (most RV units having been withdrawn to bases in Serbia and Bosnia on the eve of war), both forces had to take whatever they could get their hands on – hence the impressment of civilian aircraft from flying clubs. By virtue of its distance from the actual shooting, the Slovenian Air Force could afford to use its U-75s in the training role only; in Croatia however, the reality of BEING the front line meant that the Utvas actually had to go to war as designed – for the first and only time – hastily armed with Yugoslav M79 and M80 shoulder-launched anti-tank systems strapped to the wings in lieu of proper air-dropped munitions.

While this was (and remains) a masterclass in ad-hoc field improvisation and lateral thinking, the fact that it was organized so quickly and successfully owes something – ironically – to a Yugoslav “institution” called TO. Short for teritorijalna odbrana (Serbian) / teritorijalna obrana (Slovenian and Croatian) – meaning simply “territorial defense” – these were archetypal socialist paramilitary defense organizations, in essence irregular units that could be quickly raised from the civilian population in time of war. With their “biggest selling point” being the speed and geographical extent in which they could be activated, their primary goal was to harass and slow down the enemy using unconventional tactics, giving the regular army time to fully mobilize. A key component of this approach was using off-the-shelf “whatever is at hand” equipment, which also included civilian light aircraft. While even Western types were included in the scheme (Yugoslavia having had sizable Cessna and Piper fleets since the 60s), the most common actor in later years was the U-75 itself, since it was literally designed with this in mind. Using aircraft leased from flying clubs (albeit without pylons fitted), the TOs would run a number of exercises through the 70s and 80s, which went a long way to smoothing out kinks in the concept and providing experience to both air and ground crews. Indeed, the TO program as a whole would be wound down at the end of the 80s for fear that it would provide a nucleus for the formation of proper armies and air forces in any breakaway republics… which, in fact, was exactly what had ended up happening in Slovenia and Croatia

⁴ in this system, the clubs themselves would pretty much be responsible only for the airplane’s day-to-day operational costs and regular maintenance, while the military would do all major servicing and overhauls of its own accord (and out of its own pocket); more than anything else, this helps to explain why the U-75 held on in Slovenia for so long. However, in the early 2020s, the whole fleet would be placed under the jurisdiction of the civilian Letalska zveza Slovenije (LZS, Aeronautical Association of Slovenia), which would in turn transfer full ownership of individual airplanes to the clubs themselves. Included in this deal was a caveat that the airplanes could not be sold onward, which meant that they were now stuck where they were and completely at the mercy of their clubs’ finances. And while for 99% of the 75s this made little difference (having already been grounded and condemned to “hangar arrest” for years), for DCI it spelled a very resounding “game over”…

The joyrider: Z3-DCF

We had the mule… then the warbird… and now finally, here’s the mule-bird 🤔. Today used for a curious mix of frequent glider towing and even more frequent joyriding, Z3-DCF is one of those stereotypical Balkan aircraft that have been with the same operator and flying from the same airfield their entire lives – albeit with one notable break. 1981 and 53183 being the important bits, it was delivered new to AK Štip as YU-DGX, and would remain with the club all the way until 1993, when it would be pressed into military service⁵. Becoming Z3-DGX the same year, it would eventually take on its current identity in JUN 1994, when all remaining Macedonian U-75s appear to have been standardized into the Z3-DC* registration block. Finally, it would make its way back to AK Štip in 1996 when the Macedonian Air Force, like its Slovenian counterpart, started the switch to the Zlin Z-242L⁶.

Push, push, push, I can see the prop! Being a touch under **700 kg** empty, pushing the U-75 up any form of slope is a guaranteed workout – especially on a soft surface (and don’t worry, as the youngest present, I did jump in and throw in my lot immediately after this was taken)

*Maro says the walkaround is complete, no findings. If you can’t trust the airfield cat, who CAN you trust?!*

*Stick, rudder, throttle… and outside the sun-kissed slopes of Mt. Plačkovica. Had worse days out to be honest!*

I may be biased – having grown up around hills, forests and rivers – but the views out here are a sight for sore eyes! Another sight that fails to escape notice is the 75’s small(ish) wing, which does make for quite a good view down. Despite its lack of span however, the wing area is still significant at **14.63 m²**; at the type’s usual⁷ **960 kg** Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM), the resulting wing loading is just **65.3 kg/m²**, not that much more than the 64.4 of the average 80s Skyhawk

⁵ while all the countries that broke away from Yugoslavia outright had sizable fleets of U-75s on the eve of independence (Macedonia 10, Slovenia 15 and Croatia 14), it is the Macedonian fleet in particular that warrants another tangent. By virtue of the country’s peaceful and orderly departure, with none of the fireworks seen up north, its 75s were neither sent to the front, nor pushed to destruction through intensive training and liaison operations; indeed, it took two years from the country’s SEP 1991 independence for them to even be drafted. What’s more, faced with the same lack of spares and support as everybody else, it appears that only two machines would actually be impressed and used: DCF and 53167 YU-DFZ/Z3-DFZ (later renamed Z3-DCE).

Being out of harm’s way also meant that quite a significant number of them had survived to fly another day. Of the 10 in country at the time of independence, eight were operational, and six would eventually live to see the Z3- prefix be introduced. According to available info, three remain flying today, DCE, DCF and 53118 YU-DFB/Z3-DCC/Z3-DAN. While this may not sound like something to write home about, the total sum of operational examples in Slovenia and Croatia is currently… zero

⁶ try to spot a pattern:

Slovenia declares independence… impresses U-75s from flying clubs… replaces them with Zlin Z-242Ls
Croatia declares independence… impresses U-75s from flying clubs… replaces them with Zlin Z-242Ls
Macedonia declares independence… impresses U-75s from flying clubs… replaces them with Zlin Z-242Ls

Either the Zlin really is that good… or we Balkan people are an unimaginative lot 🤔. Joking aside, there are some notable differences though: while Slovenia and Macedonia had ditched their fleets already in the mid-90s, Croatia held on to them until all the way until 2007. Croatia too would be the only one to NOT return the aircraft to their original owners – bar for one, mentioned later

⁷ I say “usual” because the U-75 actually had two MTOMs – the applicability of which depended, quite literally, on how many times you wanted to use the airplane afterwards. In the “training configuration” (used by the military in peacetime and by civilian operators all the time), the MTOM was capped at the aforementioned 960 kg, which was sufficient for two RV-standard crew and full tanks (2x 75 l). Critically, this was also identical to the Maximum Landing Mass (MLM), keeping things nice and simple, and assuring that the aircraft would (barring “unforeseen circumstances”) survive intact to its expiration date.

In the “combat configuration” however, the MTOM went up to 1,200 kg, which now allowed for two RV-standard crew, full tanks – and, critically, the maximum permissible war load of two 120 kg bombs (960 + 240). Since the aircraft’s role as nuisance raider meant that its expected lifetime in an actual shooting scenario was rather low, the additional stresses imposed on the structure while maneuvering at such masses were not considered limiting – especially since the aircraft would in all probability be lost well before it began to suffer from the strain.

The 1,200 kg limit would have also been pertinent for a proposed “ferry configuration”, in which the aircraft would be fitted with 2x 100 l external tanks, one on each wing hardpoint. With a resulting 350 l of usable fuel, this setup was projected to give a range of almost 2,000 km – but in reality, the aircraft had never been flown even close to that during flight testing, and the whole idea would eventually go nowhere

BONUS: The Silent Ones

With the “three” now accounted for, it’s time to turn our attention to the “a bit” part. This “organized Utva hunting” being a relatively recent development (2017-2018, and then 2022 onward), it took me until typing this whole thing up to realize that I’ve been stumbling upon various U-75s since 2010, usually by accident and without prior knowledge of their existence. Having written off those encounters as a “one of” each time – “like that’s ever gonna happen again” – collating all of those photos into a single gallery had never really occurred to me… until I spotted E7-PDB in one of the shots above and went “hmm”. So, since it is the main culprit for this piece twice as long as it needs to be, we’ll start from there…

A gem straight out of the gate: ID **53182**, making it Z3-DCF’s immediate older brother. Initially called **YU-DGV**, it was operated by AK Prijedor since Day 1; however, in the early 90s it would be impressed into the Bosnian Serb army and given the ID **51104** (it is unclear why the Bosnian Serb military used the Yugoslav type designation for the Cessna 185-lookalike Utva U-66). Following the end of the war, it would eventually become **T9-PDB** and then **E7-PDB**. Withdrawn from use sometime in the late 2000s, its future is unclear… though it would surprise no one if it became a parts donor to keep PDC running

**E7-PDA**, kept company by U-66V E7-PDI/51138 and shot across the dorsal fin of U-66 E7-PDJ/51143… what in another time could have been an Utva promo shot has, sadly, become just another reminder of the demise of the region’s aviation sector as a whole. Manufactured in **1983** with the serial **53219**, its history mirrors that of PDB: from being **YU-DIZ** with AK Prijedor, through **51105** in the military, to **T9-PDA** & **E7-PDA**…

’tis but a scratch! Born in **1981** with the serial **53187**, this sad mess was initially known as **YU-DHB**, first of AK Banja Luka, and then later AK Bihać. One of the few machines to end up in the hands of the newly-established Bosnian Army, it would become known for its **15 JUN 1992** dash from Cazin to Zagreb (100 knots, at night, through unfriendly skies), intended to open up an air bridge between the Bihać area and the Croatian capital. Having stayed at Zagreb (a return flight at that moment likely being deemed too risky), it would be used to train the upcoming generation of Bosnian military pilots, gaining a camo paint scheme and the reg **T9-CLM** sometime in **1993**. It has been reported by some sources that it had actually made a few runs back to Bihać once the military situation had stabilized; be that as it may, the end of hostilities in **1995** would find it back at Zagreb undergoing heavy maintenance. Through a chain of events that’s not entirely clear, it would end up staying here forever, being slowly stripped of parts to keep the Croatian Air Force’s own fleet flying…

Forming with T9-CLM the second of two “sequential ID” pairs in my collection, **53188** was delivered new to AK Celje as **YU-DHC**, and would stay with them all the way until its impressment in 1991. Its history immediately after joining the military has some gaps to it, and I could not confirm whether it had ever carried the temporary SL- prefix; what I can confirm is that it became **S5-DCJ** while there, before rejoining its old alma mater after the introduction of the Zlins. It would serve there primarily as a glider tug, before being replaced by more manageable Western types – including Piper Pawnee HA-TNC, previously a Lučko native called 9A-BLF… and before that YU-BLF, one of a number of PA-25s operated by Privredna avijacija Zagreb

Caught between a trike and a hard place, the **1979** vintage **53122** is the second oldest U-75 I have on file. Originally known as **YU-DKT**, it would be allocated to AK Novo Mesto, based at the Slovenian airfield of the same name (nowadays LJNM) – ironically today home to world’s sole remaining four-seat U-75A. As was the case with DCJ, I could find no definitive proof that it had carried the SL- prefix in military service, only that it would return to civilian life under the reg **S5-DCD**. At some unknown point in time (but apparently quite a while ago), it would be withdrawn from use and chucked in the back of the hangar at nearby Metlika Airfield

The first U-75 I have on digital… but not the first one I’ve ever photographed, the honor going to DCI on film in 2002. **53233** from **1983**, new to AK Murska Sobota as **YU-DJH**, all the 1991-1994 stuff as before, renamed into **S5-DCN**. Don’t really know what had happened to it since, saw it last in 2010 when it was still airworthy…

What could easily pass as an 80s flight line is, in fact, just part of the decommissioned U-75 fleet of the Croatian Air Force (10 strong at its peak). Leading the pack is 009 (**1981** • **53177** • **YU-DGH** of AK Split > **001** of the CroAF (not to be confused with the later 001 of the CroAF) > **9A-DCH** of the CroAF > **009** (despite still carrying the civilian reg) … then there’s **002** (**1980** • **53169** • **YU-DGB** of AK Rijeka > **169** of the CroAF > **9A-DGB** of the CroAF > **002**) … further on, we have **010** (**1981** • **53191** • **YU-DHF** of AK Slavonski Brod > **9A-DHF** of the CroAF > **010**) … and finally **011** (**1983** • **53215** • **YU-DJD** of AK Vrsar > **9A-DJD** of the CroAF > **011**)

Crap photo, but featuring by far the oldest U-75 I have: **004**. Just the seventh ever made (being **53107** of **1979**), it would be operated by AK Osijek as **YU-DED**, before becoming **9A-DED** of the Croatian Air Force and assuming its current military identity in 1995. Behind it is **003**, **53179** from **1981**, originally **YU-DGS** of AK Kila Like, then briefly **179** of the Croatian Air Force – and then **9A-DGS** and finally **003** (UPDATE: as on June 2025, 003 is in the process of being returned to AK Otočac, the successor of AK Krila Like; it is unknown at this time whether it will be just a static example, or will it be returned to airworthy state)

The One That Made It Home – sort of. **53206** of **1982** and initially **YU-DIH** of AK Čakovec, wartime would find it without a temporary military ID⁸, and apparently without an RC- reg as well (despite having been QUITE active back then); it would appear in the registers only slightly later as **9A-DIH**, before taking up its definitive Croatian Air Force ID, **008**. The only U-75 to have been returned to its original owners following the type’s withdrawal from service, it would briefly become know as **9A-DIR** (according to some sources), before finally reverting to its new-old identity. Seen here in 2016 during the final stages of a wheels-up restoration, it was supposed to become the first civilian-owned U-75 to fly in Croatia since 1991; unfortunately, a series of events (including the death of the mechanic doing all the work) meant that the project stalled at some 95% complete – and apart from a fast taxi down the runway, it had never actually made it out of the hangar. A couple of years later though, it would be sold to the Delić family of Medulin (LDPM) – well known locally for undertaking such restoration work on a regular basis, and whose members had been very active on the U-75 scene in Yugoslav times – with plans to finally finish it and get it back into the air after nearly 20 years⁹…

⁸ because the U-75s had joined the fight during the utter chaos of the first days of the war, it is of no surprise that their new Croatian identities had ended up being all over the shop. Most of the units operating light aircraft had sprung up essentially where and when they could, formed almost entirely through self-initiative and without much in the way of standardization from a central military authority. Thus, each unit had adopted a different way of identifying its aircraft, including:

the last three letters of their original Yugoslav registration, with the YU- completely or partially removed or covered (e.g. DED, U-DHF and -DIH)
the last three digits of their original Yugoslav military ID (such as 169 for YU-DGB, 179 for YU-DGS and 227 for YU-DJL/53227)
and the sequence of joining the unit (001 for YU-DGH or 002 for YU-DLD/53239 for example)

Once the “early days” had passed and the Air Force had managed to bring everything together under one roof, the U-75s would begin to receive civilian registrations – in essence just their old Yugoslav regs, but with RC- and later 9A- prefixes. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but it has been suggested that this was a means to pass them off as non-military aircraft, thus bypassing the arms embargo imposed on the whole of former Yugoslavia, and allowing for the import of Western-made spare parts (particularly engines and propellers). Only around the end of the war in 1995 would the markings finally be put right with the standardized system used by the air force at large, the U-75s (as the OG air units) being allocated the 0xx block.

Mind you, things were not that straightforward even after the latter was adopted; 9A-DGH (which was 001 in its original unit) would now become 009, whereas 001 would go to a U-75 captured in 1995 during Operation Storm (ex. 53255, a military original with no prior civilian usage or reg)

⁹ something similar is afoot in Slovenia as well, with AK Slovenske Konjice well on its way to bringing its own 75 back into service. Reported to be as much as 90% done and just waiting on its engine, the aircraft in question is a 1983‘s 53216; interestingly, this is not a Slovenian native, having originally been operated by AK Kumanovo of Macedonia as YU-DJE. Heavily damaged in 1993 during a period of upheaval among the country’s Albanian population, it would be shipped off to Serbia for a complete rebuild in 2001 – and then sold on to AK Slovenske Konjice the same year to become S5-DPM. Having (again) not flown for some years, it is now back in the hands of the people who had rebuilt it the first time round, with a projected (third?) first flight due sometime in the summer of 2025… so watch this space!

BONUS DISCUSSION/RANT: as you have probably noticed (and lost time getting to grips with), the most complex thing about the U-75 is actually the system that created it. With military IDs, civilian regs, aviation federations, four-seat models and so on, it’s very easy to lose track of the basics, and build up an incorrect picture of stuff like the type’s production run, prototypes, versions and other nerdy bits (myself having been guilty of that numerous times). “If 53261 was the last of the production batch, why did I find mention of 53262 and 53265 on the internet?” “If there were only two prototypes, why do some sources also list 53003 and 53004?” and so on. Well, to set the record straight – and not through me being smart, but by asking people from the Utva works itself – here’s a very quick & dirty recap of what was actually going on…

All told, there were 138 U-75s produced, prototypes and production examples included. The first bit of myth-busting concerns the former; and since there’s no one-liner to describe them, we have to make do with a list:

53001: the first prototype (sometimes labeled as V53001)
53002: the second prototype
53003: the first pre-production aircraft – and the first to start the confusion rolling. Representing what the production-standard U-75 would eventually look like and intended to iron out the final bugs, it got caught up in one of the RV’s many whims, specifically a decree that all the aircraft made should be classified EITHER as prototypes or production machines. Since it was, after all, the template for actual production, the Utva works simply rolled with it, and 53003 became 53101, the first of the series examples (incidentally, despite them being called just “U-75” in everyday usage, their proper name is actually U-75A-21)
53004: the second pre-production example. Caught up in the same issue as 53003, it would go down a different route, being converted into the first incarnation of the four-seat U-75, called the U-78. Seeing as this was a major “prototype-ish” mod, it had managed to retain this ID until being lost in a crash in 1981

Production examples, as mentioned, came in two batches, 53101+53102 till 53124 and 53151 till 53261; the reason for the gap in IDs has never been conclusively established (since the airplanes were produced pretty much in one go), but it is believed to be another one of the RV’s idiosyncrasies. The outlier here is 53262, the final all-new U-75 ever made. The only machine not intended for the RV/VSJ (hence it mostly being excluded and consequently forgotten from production lists), it was destined for Jordan (to become JY-AKI), but was damaged in a test flight in 1986, and ended up being used as a spares donor for the existing RV fleet.

And finally, two examples that tend to cause way more confusion than actual impact – primarily because they carry bespoke follow-on IDs but are actually based on existing airframes:

53263: originally registered YU-XAC (and later YU-BRJ), this was the second incarnation of the U-75 four-seater. Properly called the U-75A-41 (or simply just the U-75A), this was a less extensive rework than the U-78, and was actually made from the surviving bits of 53004, combined with new-built parts and spares; so despite having an entirely new ID number, it was physically (well mostly) an existing example
53265: registered YU-XAF, this was a single-seat crop dusting model called the U-75A-11 (or U-75AG to common folk), and was similarly made out of the shell of 53185 following an accident… again, new number, (mostly) existing airframe

53264 (before anyone asks) did not exists; stories say it was supposed to be a twin-engine model… but that may as well be apocryphal, since there is no existing paper trail to ever mention it. Similarly, the aforementioned Somaliland examples – as well as Sudan’s SAFAT 03, 6-12 re-badged U-75s claimed to have been designed and built in-country – are in actuality all standard VSJ U-75s, though their actual IDs are pretty much impossible to ascertain.

So, the final tally is as follows:

2x prototypes
1x U-78 (later to be rebuilt into 53263)
135x production examples (including 53003/53101, 53185/53265 and 53262)

Summary of aircraft featured (state as of MAR 2025):

53107 •• 1979 • 004 • non operational
53122 •• 1979 • S5-DCD • non operational
53169 •• 1980 • 002 • non operational
53171 •• 1980 • S5-DCI • non operational
53177 •• 1981 • 009 • non operational
53179 •• 1981 • 003 • non operational
53182 •• 1981 • Z3-DCF • operational
53183 •• 1981 • E7-PDB • non operational
53187 •• 1981 • T9-CLM • non operational
53188 •• 1981 • S5-DCJ • non operational
53191 •• 1981 • 010 • non operational
53206 •• 1982 • 9A-DIH • in rebuild
53215 •• 1983 • 011 • non operational
53219 •• 1983 • E7-PDA • non operational
53223 •• 1983 • S5-DCN • non operational
53238 •• 1985 • E7-PDC • operational

Sources:

Istorija vazduhoplovstva Pančeva: Utva 75 (printed book by Dragan Kolundžić & Dragoslav Dimić)
Utva 75 – album VSJ (printed book by Dragan Kolundžić)
Utva: fabrika aviona 1937-2022 (printed book by Dragan Kolundžić)
Tango Six – U-75 article (in Serbian)
sources used in the past two articles, most notably of all Mr. Dragan Kolundžić himself

Flight Report – That 70s Plane: Flying The UTVA 75 Trainer

April 24, 2018March 12, 2025Posted in U-75, Yugoslav And Croatian Aviation HistoryTagged LJMB, Maribor, S5-DCI, U-75, UTVA, UTVA U-75, UTVA-753 Comments

By me
All photos me too, copyrighted

Ever since the early days of Achtung, Skyhawk!, I’ve always been on the lookout for rare, interesting and historically significant aircraft puttering around the region – you know, the sort of machines that had it all really: rarity, backstory and a rich history to boot. As the winter’s soaked runways, persistent fog and oppressive low cloud finally gave way to dry grass, pleasant temperatures and clear sunny skies, I decided I might as well go one up this time and actually – fly one 🙂 .

Having spent my formative flying years listening to “oldtimers” and their stories of adventure on the many aircraft types indigenous to former Yugoslavia, the choice made itself really, especially since many of them are nowadays well up on the endangered list. The simplest solution was thus to go for the most modern and popular one, which eventually led me to Slovenia’s Maribor Airport (MBX/LJMB) and its resident UTVA U-75 two-seat trainer.

Responding to S5-DCI and owned by the Letalski center Maribor (LCM) flying club, this particular aircraft is itself already good for a classic AS review – but, being one of only a dozen or so still airworthy, I decided to bin tradition and focus this time on what this interesting machine is actually like to fly. So, instead of digging deep into its history (s/n 53171, mfd. 1980, ex. YU-DGF of AK Maribor, then SL-DCI and S5-DCI of the Slovenian Air Force until 2010, then to LCM 😀 ), I though I could put together a short flight report and attempt to describe what the U-75 feels like in its element…

The shape that launched a thousand student traumas… while it certainly won’t be winning any beauty contests, the U-75’s stocky build and generous size nevertheless make it stand out among its peers!

Author’s note: given that I have no experience flight testing aircraft (nor do I have the required skills or qualifications), this work is not a proper professional review – but rather the personal experience of a long-time light aircraft pilot and lifelong GA fan. As such, my observations will definitely not be something they will print in textbooks – but given the rarity of the U-75, they should nevertheless be an interesting read for the enthusiast!

Part 1: the basics

Even though the U-75 had already featured here in depth as part of a review of the type’s sole surviving four-seat example, for the sake of clarity and ease of reading I though it best to nevertheless run quickly through some of its more pertinent characteristics. Flying for the first time in 1976, the U-75 is a simple and robust all-metal semi aerobatic two seat trainer, designed to be suitable for everything from basic flying instruction (civilian and military) to initial aerobatics and even air-to-ground gunnery. Despite its not inconsiderable bulk, the U-75 weighs only 685 kg empty and 1,200 kg at maximum take-off (though it is usually flown at its maximum landing weight of 960 kg), which makes its 180 HP Lycoming IO-360 and its associated two-blade constant speed prop good for about 115 kts in the cruise. More importantly, its +5.5/-3 G stress limits with one person on board (and +4.4/-2.2 with two) give it a wide berth during maneuvers, while the tall wide-track landing gear, long-travel shock absorbers and large low pressure tires make (student) landings a doddle even on rough and unprepared strips.

With 138 examples made in total between 1978 and 1985, the U-75 would go on to become former Yugoslavia’s second most produced indigenous design – right behind the G-2 jet trainer – and was throughout the 80s and 90s used by civilian clubs and air forces across the land (in the latter often known as the V-53). And while it is today viewed with fond nostalgia, its life in service was much tarnished by a popular reputation for violent spinning (sometimes fatally), which bred considerable distrust in the design. In fact, the problems stemmed from the rearward position of its center-of-gravity, which made it a peppy and nimble performer – but at the expense of reduced longitudinal stability¹. When pushed hard and then poked with a stick, it would indeed want to spin and keep on spinning; but when flown in moderation and per SOP, it had shown itself to be pretty docile in all flight regimes, a fact attested to by numerous operators who went aerobatic on a regular basis and without incident.

¹ in simple terms, the two extremes of aircraft behavior are stability and maneuverability. An aircraft that is stable is not maneuverable; likewise, an aircraft that is maneuverable is not stable. Given that this principle acts along all axes of the airplane separately, nailing down the exact amount of each is an art. In prototype form, the U-75 was found to be too stable longitudinally, which reduced its maneuverability in pitch and made it less suitable for the training role. The root cause was determined to be a CG position that was too far forward; to solve the problem, the heavy battery – originally fitted behind the cockpit – was relocated to the tail cone. This shifted the CG backwards sufficiently to solve the problem, but at the same time made the U-75 “nervous” in pitch when it reached its limits. In a hurried or badly executed maneuver, it was not hard to stall and send the aircraft over one wing, initiating a spin that – if not countered immediately – just kept getting worse. Approved procedures therefore called for entry into a spin at a minimum of 5,000 ft AGL, and recovery to be initiated after just one turn; done properly, flight tests showed an 850 ft altitude loss could be expected. Done lower, slower and sloppier, you can well imagine the results

Aside from its significance to the locals, the U-75 is then a classic ab-initio trainer, the sort of aircraft produced by aeronautical establishments all around the world. This itself invites a comparison to some of its peers, such as the Slingsby T.67 Firefly, Scottish Aviation Bulldog, the PAC CT-4 or the SAAB S.91 Safir; however, what I am actually going to do is compare it to the restrained and very unmilitary Cessna 172. The reasoning behind this approach is simple: many GA flyers have at one point or another flown a Skyhawk, with most (myself included) having logged treble figures in at least one of its variants. Despite their different roles, the two aircraft are alike in a number of respects, which makes establishing a baseline for the U-75’s comparison all the easier. And anyway, there’s no point in drawing parallels with an equivalent aircraft if there’s nobody reading (or writing) who flew them, is there? 🙂

Part 2: getting in

But, first things first. Entry into the cockpit is pretty straightforward and is standard stuff for low-wing aircraft: hand in recessed handle, foot on step and up onto the wing from behind. However, since the U-75 was designed from the outset to operate out of unprepared strips, the wing root is a good 80 cm above the ground, so the whole maneuver requires a bit of gymnastics – though not much more than trying not to trip over the 172’s main gear leg.

Once on top, the two-part sideways hinged canopy (jettisonable in flight) opens upwards, and is then fixed in place by a manually folding arm tucked to the inside of the canopy frame. This setup is not really ideal for tall people (like me), since it is quite easy to bang one’s head against the canopy while maneuvering to enter the seat. Thankfully, the frame is pretty large overall so – heads notwithstanding – getting in and out is not difficult or haphazard by any measure.

Thankfully for its crews, the U-75’s exterior size is matched by its interior, with more space on offer than in Cessna’s premium piston singles, let alone the Skyhawk. The elbow room for either seat is impressive, and even larger pilots would still have plenty of space to work without body contact. Note the chunky seat belts and the canvas cover behind the seats that doubles as a parcel tray

While it is immediately obvious that all structural components and cockpit controls are built to last – everything feels decidedly more robust and durable than on the 172 – the overriding impression is of rudimentary finishing work, with rough and unprotected edges in abundance all over the cockpit. Admittedly, given the U-75’s military nature, comparing these and other creature comforts with those of the Skyhawk is apples to oranges – but despite the lack of padding and soundproofing and any form of interior trim at all, the cockpit is physically very comfortable and quite airy. Headroom however is slightly less generous than on the 172 (even when you lower the seat fully), and anybody over 1.8 m and wearing a headset will fill slightly hemmed in from above – though it is still manageable and not much of an inconvenience on shorter flights (under two hours).

While there are no basic Ts and sixes here, the U-75’s cockpit is in some respects pretty well though out, with a couple of good ergonomic touches. One in particular is the central pedestal, which contains pretty much all system controls, including the throttle (yellow lever), propeller control (blue lever), mixture control (plunger), alternate air source (red-topped plunger), demist controls on the side, parking brake (orange switch) and, out of shot, the fuel selector (which, like on the 172, has a very welcome BOTH setting). One particular level that is missing – and would have been fitted in the hole below the alternate air – is the underwing stores emergency release handle. Like many trainers, the U-75 also includes another set of throttle and prop controls on the left of the pilot’s seat. Absent from the shot is the flap level, a large Piper-like affair between the seats; its settings are simple, UP, notch 1 (take-off and landing) and notch 2 (landing only). For my taste, the sticks are of perfect height – not to low, not to high – and though they’re designed to accept either hand, they fall slightly more easily into the right. The only really annoying feature is that on both throttle quadrants the prop control is on the left and the throttle on the right; whereas the manifold pressure gauge (controlled by the throttle) in on the left and the RPM gauge is on the right. As is the norm for all Yugoslav designs, the flight instruments are all metric, while the engine instruments – usually cherry-picked from various Western designs – are mostly imperial.

Once seated, both the sitting position and the view ahead are pretty good, though the frame of the canopy initially gave me the impression of peering through a postbox; once on the move though, I quickly got used to it. The rudder pedals can be adjusted fore and aft, but this is generally avoided since the mechanism is known to stick. The brakes themselves are actuated by separate toe-operated paddles inboard of the pedals – a solution similar to that used on the Super Cub, where they’re heel-operated. With larger shoes (or military boots) on larger feet, this does not seem to be a particularly used-friendly solution, and it took me some fumbling and toe jabbing before I’d gotten used to it. The rudder pedal edges are also contoured to accept the outline of a thick boot – a feature not really compatible with the sneakers I was wearing that day.

Helping matters however is that the brakes are quite powerful, so even a slight jab at them (regardless of its elegance) produces some results. Then there’s also the fully steerable nose wheel, which makes ground maneuvering pretty painless – indeed, I’d managed to get the hang of it after just a few dozen yards. In fact, on steering alone (without differential braking), the turn radius is just 7 meters – noticeably less than the 8.3 the Skyhawk can achieve using BOTH steering and brakes at the same time. The shock absorbers and tires make the ride quite smooth even over rough terrain, but at the same time do not let the aircraft roll to much in the turns if you keep the speed moderate (though the aircraft’s low CG position has a lot to do with this).

Part 3: airborne

System-wise, all pre-departure checks are no more complicated than on the 172, and follow pretty much the same pattern. Having been designed from the outset to meet the FAA’s FAR Part 23 criteria, the U-75 holds no surprises, and there’s none of the “Eastern Bloc system exotica” that its looks and origin would lead one to believe. With the engine being essentially the same as on today’s Cessna 172S (albeit with a constant speed prop), the run-up is also straightforward and over in a jiffy.

As I was briefed by the instructor occupying the right seat, the standard flap setting for departure from both paved and soft fields is notch 1, which gives 20° of flap. The aircraft manual quotes a 225 meter max performance run on grass and with zero wind; however, we had the advantage of concrete and a quartering eight knot wind, so despite the 880 ft field elevation and 25° Centigrade outside, we opted for a more leisurely departure. Adding power, there’s a very noticeable swing to the left – far more pronounced than on the Skyhawk – which can be neutralized only with a large amount of right foot. What’s more, significant pressure on the pedal is constantly needed at high power, and with no rudder trim available, this tends to become wearisome after awhile (though I suspect the rigging of the tab of the vertical stabilizer was to blame for this). Being both lighter and more powerful than the 172, the acceleration was noticeably better, and with slight backward pressure on the stick we were already airborne at 110 km/h (59 kts), having used up around 300 meters of runway.

Passing 50 ft, LCM club procedures call for acceleration to the U-75’s best climb speed (Vy) of 130 km/h (70 kts), retracting the flaps at 300 ft AGL and then setting maximum cruise power, an easily remembered 25″ MP and 2,500 RPM (equivalent to roughly 80% power). In this regime, the rate of climb with full fuel and two of us on board varied between 4 and 5 m/s (800-1,000 fpm), but the day’s thermal turbulence made getting a constant figure impossible.

Once in the cruise – in our case at 3,000 ft towards one of Maribor’s training areas – the power came back to the 65% setting of 22.5″ and 2,350 RPM, which gave a solid 160 km/h (86 kts) indicated and 169 km/h (91 kts) true. While this is not particularly impressive for the available power, the thick wing profile and large landing gear do create a quite lot of drag; increasing the power by two inches MP gave around 170 km/h (92 kts) indicated, but since we were in no hurry, I soon throttled back to best cruise and set about seeing what’s what.

Given my previously noted lack of flight test qualifications, I decided to try and get an impression of the U-75 by flying a program based on the average PPL skill test (bits of which I dimly remember from ages past 😀 ). This I thought would give me the best impression possible in the allotted time frame (one hour 30 minutes), since I would get to see both how it behaves in regimes I’m familiar with from the 172 – as well as how a student might experience it during basic training. To this end, my “program” consisted of:

standard, 60° and 90° banked turns + snap roll
slow flight
stalling, both power on and power off
sideslip descent + gliding
flaps notch 1 and notch 2 approaches w/ crosswind
and route flying and navigation

Sadly, the pattern at Maribor was quite crowded that day, so there was no opportunity to perform a simulated engine-out approach without inconveniencing half the sky. To compensate, the ambidextrous nature of the U-75’s flight controls had allowed me to fly most of my program with each hand in turn and judge the ease and practicality of both. In the end – though I favor using my right hand as I do at work – flying with the left is often far simpler, since all relevant controls – flaps, lights, radio – are on the right side, allowing me to push and pull everything without having to constantly switch hands.

To cut to the chase without going through each maneuver separately, the handling came as quite a positive surprise – especially after everything I’ve heard said about it. The numbers themselves offer some clue to the above, as the U-75’s 65.3 kg/m² wing loading – only slightly up from the 172’s 64.4 kg/m² – promised similarly forgiving all-round behavior, while its 9.73 m wingspan – noticeably shorter than the Skyhawk’s 10.97 – bode well for rolling rates and a general willingness to maneuver.

Immediately after leaving straight & level fight, I found the stick to be very precise and informative, its travel pleasingly light in both axes – enough to get a good feel for the aircraft, but not twitchy enough to become tiring. Interestingly, the stick moves noticeably lighter in roll than in pitch, a setup exactly opposite to that of a glider. Thanks to the type’s large ailerons and powerful elevator (both blessed with considerable travel), the feel was matched by the aircraft’s physical response, with rolling and pitching done quickly and eagerly – but without the aggression of a thoroughbred aerobatic machine. Unsurprisingly, rates across all three axes were significantly higher than on the Skyhawk.

This harmony between stick and machine meant that I could achieve a remarkable degree of precision in most maneuvers already on the first time out, and all without any unnecessary flailing at the controls. Following my observations on take-off and in the climb, I was also quite surprised how little rudder was needed in turns – and that even left-hand maneuvers occasionally needed a poke of right rudder (though I again suspect tab rigging to be the cause). An additional characteristic that caught my eye/hand was that even in high bank turns, comparatively little backpressure was needed on the stick – and when I did find myself losing altitude, little additional force was necessary to return everything back to textbook state. As the numbers in the previous paragraph suggested, the U-75 was indeed very willing to sustain most maneuvers without much fuss and manhandling from my side, which immediately inspired a dose of confidence in its handling as a whole.

But what impressed me most of all was its stall response. Given the legends, tales and accident reports relating to U-75s going vertically, I was ever so slightly apprehensive about this part – not due to fears of ending up in a spin², but a perception that an aircraft with such a reputation will likely not be well behaved once the going gets tough. I am pleased to say that I was quite off the mark, for the U-75 had exhibited flight simulator-like behavior, even with power on: just a very slight shudder and forward tug on the stick saying that it would like its nose to point down if I don’t mind. Honestly, it made the 172 look dramatic! Another thing of note is that despite the day’s turbulent thermal weather, it resisted wiggling its wings near the stall – and as soon as it even slightly went to the side, quick pedal action would sort everything out in an instant.

² although owners who had spun the U-75 say it is not as big a deal as folklore suggests (again, if done properly), I had shied away from attempting one, due to both my lack of experience on the type – and the fact that S5-DCI itself was barred from spinning by LCM club rules

Some mention should also be made of the engine. Despite its nominal take-off rating of 180 HP, throughout the program we kept it at its 25″/2,500 RPM maximum cruise setting, which – according to the manuals – left us 150 HP to play with. Despite the abuse and the 20 °C at altitude, the engine oil temperature remained hovering around 95 °C (right in the middle of its 80-110 °C normal operating range), while the designated cylinder registered around 190 °C (deep enough for comfort within its 80-220 °C green arc) – which says a lot about the airflow through the engine compartment. Helping matters were the U-75’s distinctive cowl flaps, located on top of the cowl just ahead of the windshield, which lead to the odd situation of the front cylinders running hotter than the rear pair. Another thing of note is that despite its semi-aerobatic credentials, the U-75 sports the standard version of the IO-360, which is not equipped with fuel and oil systems for inverted flight (these would have been identified by the additional prefix AE).

Criticisms? Well, the only major thorn in my eye at this time was the trim wheel, which was far too coarse and lacking in feel; it resisted operation too much and even a slight turn resulted in an out-of-proportion change in stick force. However, as with the rudder, this may very well have been down to the rigging of this specific aircraft.

With the program completed, we settled back into the cruise, where the plan was for me to do some navigation of the greater Maribor area and see how the U-75 behaves en-route. In a number of critical areas, it didn’t fare all that well: its military genes mean that comfort was never allowed to compromise the training experience, the result of which is a cockpit with no soundproofing at all (as noted previously). The upshot is that ambient noise is off the scale, and even with headphones on it all becomes pretty annoying pretty quickly (especially since S5-DCI has no squelch control, which leaves the headphone mikes free to pick up the drone and amplify it back to you). The position and height of the stick also mean that you have very little space in your lap – so with a kneeboard on and the right seat occupied, you’re going to struggle to read an unfolded map, despite the nominally generous size of the cockpit.

However, as uncomfortable as it may be, the U-75 nevertheless does have something going for it as a navigation platform. In common with most other low-wing aircraft, the view outside is excellent, and the relatively small span of the wing means you can often have a good look down. Once trimmed (after much frustration), it will fly hands off for a surprising amount of time – without rudder input even – though having someone in the right seat to balance things out certainly helps. More importantly, the extensive glazing means you can easily keep tabs on surrounding traffic, and it never took us long to spot neighboring aircraft without having to bank or pitch or stand on our heads. So while the average GA tourer is in a completely different league in terms of comfort – so much so you’d be excused for sending hate mail to the UTVA works following a long cross-country – the U-75 is nevertheless a practical and safe platform for finding your way around.

In that other important route performance metric – fuel – the U-75 is pretty much on par with the 172, with our 65% power setting (mixture full rich) registering 30 liters/hour (7.5 GPH) on the flow meter. With the manufacturer’s 15% reserve fuel policy giving us 128 liters (34 USG) usable out of the 150 liters (40 USG) carried in total, this works out to an endurance of around 4.5 hours. At the same altitude, power/mix setting and ambient conditions, the POH for a late 70s 172N puts out a fuel flow of 25 liters/hour (6.7 GPH) which, with 136 liters (36 USG) available before hitting the 45 minute reserve, gives an endurance of 5.3 hours. However, I normally fly a 1979 Skyhawk with a very accurate digital flow meter, and the real-world figures in nearly identical conditions are all in the lower 7s, which gives an actual endurance of between 4.75 and 5 hours.

A charismatic 70s Yugoslav trainer, more noise than is believable, a green ergonomic mess of a panel and a guns/rockets/bombs toggle switch on the stick – fine ingredients for a fulfilling afternoon! Despite the large canopy frame, the view out is excellent in all directions (even back), though on clear days the sun coming in through the top of the canopy does lead to sauna-like conditions.

Part 4: stopping being airborne

With both zone and en-route work completed, I opted for a handful of touch-and-goes, to see how the U-75 manages that most difficult of maneuvers – landing. On the first three approaches, I went with a flaps notch 1 configuration – and quickly discovered that the little Utva could out-accelerate a brick going down. All that drag means that its glide is quite steep, with the manual quoting a L/D ratio (flaps up) of just 1/6.72 at 150 km/h, 1/7.1 at the 140 km/h (76 kts) recommended engine-out speed, and just 1/8.42 at its 116 km/h (63 kts) best glide – a condition where even the unaerodynamic 172 manages 1/9.2. In our case, these figures were decidedly lower, partly due to my ham-fisted flying – but mostly due to keeping our speed high to avoid disrupting the traffic flow and potentially shock cooling the engine. The ideal speed was therefore pegged at the same 130 km/h as in the climb, which gave more than adequate circuit performance while still keeping us below the maximum flap extension speed of 140 km/h.

Flying, both on and off work, a high-wing aircraft blessed with ample wingtip clearance, I was naturally apprehensive about touching down wing low in the day’s 6 knot crosswind. While this is just a light breeze everywhere else, the U-75 is deemed to be particularly sensitive to it, and is in fact limited to a 90° crosswind component of just 8 knots – HALF of the 15 knots limiting the Skyhawk. To avoid making a complete mess of it so early on, I elected instead for a jet-style crabbed approach with an appropriate bootfull just before the wheels hit the ground. The type’s powerful rudder made this a non-issue, though with experience I’m sure a proper sideslip approach could be flown easily and without danger to both the airplane and ego (especially since the 6° dihedral places the wingtip approximately 1.1 meters above the ground).

Glossing over my first landing – an inglorious thump from too high a flare – I’d soon gotten my hand in and discovered that the U-75 is quite easy to land softly, mostly due to the very tolerant trailing link main gear. As can be expected, the cushioning of the low wing and a more pronounced ground effect mean you can float a long way if you’re not careful, but it doesn’t take too long to get used to it. Indeed, pilots who flew the U-75 in precision landing competitions told me that it is far easier to place on a specific spot than the 172, and it was always the preferred mount with many podium finishes. Interestingly, despite the high degree of flap, the touchdown attitude is noticeably nose up, far more than on the Skyhawk; however, the slope of the nose does not impair forward visibility at any point. The touchdown speed in our case was around 100 km/h (54 kts), though this can be brought down a bit if a greaser is not your intention.

To step up the fun – and illustrate just how draggy the U-75 can be – for the next approach I was instructed to come in high, fast and close, rolling onto the runway heading just 1,200 meters away at 1,100 ft above ground, doing 150 km/h (81 kts). To reach the threshold, I’d have to fly a virtual glide slope of 16° – 10 more than the steepest ILS recognized by law. Pulling the throttle back to idle, setting the prop full fine and dropping flaps fully to notch 2 (30°), I found myself in a visually disconcerting steep descent at 110 km/h (59 kts) and slowing – eventually even having to add power just to make it to the runway. The maximum rate of descent I remember seeing was on the order of 8 m/s (1,500 fpm) with no forward acceleration.

As an encore, I had planned for the final landing to be a “minimum stopping distance” affair – but the traffic crowding in behind us and the necessity of taxiing a full kilometer to our turn off point meant I had to scrub the idea and get my behind off the runway ASAP. But, since I’m already throwing numbers around, the manual suggests a landing distance over a 50 ft obstacle of around 450 meters, with the run itself just 240 meters.

Post script / conclusion time

While the comparatively short time aloft (and my aforementioned lack of test pilot credentials) prevent me from making any worthwhile objective conclusion, from a purely subjective standpoint I was nevertheless pretty smitten with the U-75 – perhaps most of all because it was nothing like popular lore said it would be. While a pure aerobatic aircraft might have been more exciting (at least during maneuvering), the Utva is definitely not boring or dull; indeed, on fun factor alone it might even top the Super Cub and Citabria (both of which I’d had the privilege to fly). While it is not perfect – and living with its faults day to day would likely start to wear quite thin very soon – its charisma, origins and historical relevance had definitely been worth the trip!³ Simply put, to actually go somewhere, I’d undoubtedly choose the better equipped, more comfortable and far quieter Skyhawk; but to have a bit of good old fashion stick-and-rudder fun without much fuss and effort, it would definitely be U-75 all the way 🙂 .

³ despite their widespread use across the width and breadth of ex-Yugoslavia, airworthy examples are nowadays increasingly difficult to find, with – by my count – less than 10 still operational and in civilian hands. Their somewhat expensive maintenance, pretty specific role and an increasing lack of spares make them a financial handful for smaller flying clubs, while their specific character is unlikely to tempt the wallets of many private pilots and owners. Despite this, the few examples that are flying will likely continue to do so for some time to come, with one – 9A-DIH at Čakovec Airfield (LDVC) in Croatia – soon set to return to flight after nearly a decade on the ground!

*DCI back in the hangar, dwarfing pretty much everything in there…*

Sources:

ab-ix.co.uk – UTVA 75 production list
UTVA 75 and Cessna 172N POH and checklists
and various human sources and U-75 crews

Rare Aircraft – 2+2: The Four Seat UTVA 75

January 31, 2017March 26, 2025Posted in U-75, Yugoslav And Croatian Aviation HistoryTagged 53004, 53230, 53263, four seat UTVA-75, S5-DZT, U-75A, U-75A-41, U-78, UTVA, UTVA 75 četverosjed, UTVA Pančevo, UTVA U-75, UTVA U-78, UTVA-75, UTVA-75A, UTVA-75A-41, UTVA-78, YU-BRJ, YU-DJO, YU-DRJ, YU-XAC3 Comments

By me
Photos as credited

While the very mention of its name often invokes fond nostalgia and strong apprehension in equal measure, there’s no denying that the pudgy little UTVA 75 remains one of the most famous, significant – and perhaps maligned – aircraft ever produced by the Yugoslav aviation industry. One of a number of piston props conceived, designed and built solely in-country, it had left a lasting mark on the local aeronautical landscape, having over the years seen off generation after generation of young pilots, service in a bewildering number of roles in every nook and cranny of the land – and the occasional appearance in the odd accident column…

But for all its past ubiquity, the type has become somewhat of a rare sight today, with most of the airworthy civilian examples nowadays confined to flying clubs in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. Outside military dumps, finding one elsewhere requires a bit of luck – so much so that even the locals (many of which had flown them extensively in the 80s and 90s) raise an eyebrow when one happens to rumble by.

So imagine my surprise when – having so far only five examples under my camera’s belt – I became aware of a beautifully curious four-seat example parked just 70 km away at Novo Mesto Airfield (LJNM) in southeastern Slovenia. Having only seen such a “quad” in one 80s photo, I was through the roof even before I found out it was the only such example in existence – a fact that (as if any further persuasion was necessary!) had seen me grab my car keys and set off across the border to see what’s what… 🙂

It may be fully white and featureless – making it particularly unsuitable for photography in direct sunlight – but being the only survivor of its kind had meant that I just had to have a crack at it whatever the conditions…

Wings of the nation

But, before we cover this prime example of Achtung, Skyhawk! material, a bit of history to introduce this compact little type to readers who may have never seen one in the metal 🙂 . Flying for the first time on 19 May 1976, the UTVA 75 – known under the factory designation U-75 – was designed to be a simple, straightforward basic trainer¹ that could be efficiently used both in civilian and military roles. Even though the Yugoslav aviation industry had always put much stock in this segment, its offering of such aircraft was next to abysmal at the time, with the late 40s Ikarus Aero 2 and mid-50s Aero 3 being the only machines widely available for the role. Despite having given wings to post-WW2 Yugoslavia, they were both very much outdated designs, sporting wood & fabric structures, tandem cockpits, narrow-track tailwheel landing gear, basic instrument fits – and flight characteristics that often did not inspire much confidence in the student.

¹ interestingly, the project had originally envisaged a whole family of aircraft stemming from one basic design, including a four-cylinder two-seat utility machine dubbed the M-10, and – most interesting for us 🙂 – a six-cylinder touring four-seater called the M-11. Eventually though, financial difficulties (which had also seen the temporary inclusion of Polish aircraft manufacturers in the design between 1973 and 1975) had left the M-10 as the sole survivor, paving the way for its development into the U-75

Designed around more modern principles, the U-75 had a lot going for it in the trainer role: it was robust, simple, easy to maintain and had just enough power to pull a few basic aerobatic maneuvers – but not enough to allow the student to correct every mistake with liberal application of the throttle. Additionally, it had a side-by-side seat configuration, a large instrument panel suitable for more advanced avionics (including blind-flying gear) – and, most importantly, was built entirely of metal (prolonging its service life in the aerobatic role) and used a wide-track tricycle gear with low pressure tires that made it safe and relaxing to operate even on poor airstrips. Other features had included a tailhook for towing gliders or banners, while the military could be content with a removable pylon under each wing, which could accommodate jettisonable fuel tanks, cargo drop containers (carrying 100 kg (220 lbs) each), light bombs of 50 kg (110 lbs) – and even unguided 12-tube 57 mm rocket packs and twin 7.62 mm machine gun pods.

One of the Croatian AF’s post-1991 examples (now decommissioned) doing what it was designed for during low-level training near Zadar (LDZD). Of interest, the fleet would in the mid 1990s be repainted into a mint CroAF scheme and be transferred to a bespoke military register (photo from: www.aeroflight.co.uk).

Designed from Day 1 to meet the requirements of the FAA’s FAR Part 23 regulations concerning UTILITY category aircraft, the U-75 can also boast a +6/-3 load limit – and was found in actual operations to be rather crash-worthy, since its wing and wing box were strengthened to cope with the rigors of “external cargo” 🙂 . Despite hailing from “the East”, under the hood the U-75 sports quite a bit of Western hardware, including a four-cylinder, fuel-injected 180 HP Lycoming IO-360-B1F whirling a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1 BF/F 7666A two-blade constant speed propeller.

With a MTOM of 960 kg, this package is responsible for a maximum level-flight speed of 215 km/h (116 kts), a maximum ceiling of 4,000 m (13,100 ft) and – combined with a wing profile suitable for low speed maneuvering – take-off and landing runs of only 125 m (410 ft) and 100 m (328 ft) respectively. The efficiency of the constant speed prop also means that the U-75 can be relatively frugal in a stable cruise, registering a range of 800 km (432 NM) on 150 liters (40 USG) of internal fuel. When fitted with two 100 liter (26 USG) drop tanks however, the U-75 was supposed to be able to reach an impressive 2,000 km (1,080 NM) – though this was a theoretical calculation only, since the aircraft had never been test flown to this extreme (the tanks themselves were never used in actual training operations).

Equipment-wise, the standard 75 was provided with the usual VFR instrument setup, including everything from the Basic 6 with the addition of an ADF receiver (all of which were powered from a simple and unremarkable 14 V electrical system). The armed versions used by the Air Force would also be provided with a simple optical aiming sight on the left side, while all models could be additionally equipped for night VFR operations. Interestingly, the instruments used were an unusual East-West mix, with the artificial horizon, turn and bank indicator, ADF, manifold pressure/fuel flow gauge and the tachometer all sourced from the US, with the rest of the instrumentation either indigenous or acquired from other European states that had used the metric system.

In service, the U-75 was always much blighted by a popular reputation for violent spinning (sometimes fatally), which bred some distrust in the design. However, while it could indeed be thrown into a serious spin if the pilot was determined enough, most of the type’s spinning accidents were due to it being flown contrary to manufacturer recommendation. Even before it had entered series production in 1978, official flight tests had concluded that the U-75 had no abnormal tendencies to spin if flown by the book – a fact also testified to by numerous operators who had never had any such problems, despite regularly putting their machines through various aerobatic and near-aerobatic routines².

² one of the main causes of the 75’s willingness to spin if pushed was the location of the (rather heavy) battery. Initially, it was to be located immediately behind the cabin; however, it was calculated that this would shift the CG too far forward, making the aircraft too stable and docile for its intended training role. To combat this issue, the battery was relocated to the extreme of the aircraft – the tail cone – thus moving the CG backwards and making the aircraft less stable and more maneuverable (but still well within accepted limits).

Interestingly, the U-75’s public perception parallels another love-hate civil aircraft, the sporty Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprop. From a purely statistical viewpoint one of the unsafest designs around, the MU-2 had gained its unenviable reputation mostly due its users’ inexperience with turboprop hot ships, coupled with poor and insufficient training (especially in the US). Once these issues are surmounted, owners swear on them to no end, with numerous examples having clocked up accident-free flight time that runs well beyond 15,000 hours

By the time production had ended in 1985, the U-75 had become one of the most produced indigenous Yugoslav designs, with 138 examples made (including the prototypes) – though not coming close to the country’s other notable aviation product, the Soko G-2 Galeb jet trainer, of which 248 were made 🙂 . Being a wee little piston prop had also meant that the U-75 was very usable outside military and training circles, with a good number eventually making it into various civilian flying clubs and to various private owners following Yugoslavia’s collapse. Despite 20 years of attrition still a common sight in Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia and (very occasionally) Slovenia, the type is – as noted previously – sadly absent from Croatian skies, with the only examples operated after 1991 having flown with the Croatian Air Force. Used initially for limited combat operations during the war, the type would continue to soldier on in the basic training role until 2007, when it was withdrawn and replaced by the Zlin Z-242L…

The only CroAF U-75 to return to civilian life, 9A-DIH - formerly known as 008 - is unfortunately not airworthy... though major steps are being taken in that direction. — *The only CroAF U-75 to return to civilian life, 9A-DIH – formerly known as 008 – is unfortunately not airworthy… though major steps are being taken in that direction.*

2+2=78

The story of the four-seat U-75 would, however, begin not long after the first of the standard machines had started rolling off the production line. For all the variety produced by the Yugoslav aviation industry, no manufacturer of the time had a modern touring machine on offer, with most of their light aircraft output catering to utility and training needs – leaving various imported Cessnas and Pipers to fill the gap. Having been the newest indigenous design available when the industry had finally turned more of its attention to this segment – not to mention its connection to the stillborn M-11 – the U-75 had seemed to be a good place to start, its basic design offering a low-risk opportunity to quickly (and cheaply) produce a suitable aircraft for the role. From the very outset, the design goal had been to create something of a home-grown PA-28 that could be used both for personal flying and IFR training – as well as potentially exported abroad³.

³ even though the international public’s unfavorable perception of Yugoslavia’s engineering capability (in part well earned) might have put off people from buying its hardware, several of its aircraft were in fact highly regarded in Western aeronautical circles. Most notably, in a USAF fly-off competition in the 80s, the Soko G-4 Super Galeb jet trainer was judged superior in a number of respects to the visually similar BAe Hawk – however, the implications of a major Western power buying military hardware from a Socialist state (never mind its alliance) had sealed the aircraft’s international sales prospects well before it had even been flown

However, since the whole project had had “cheap and cheerful” as its premise, the changes necessary to turn the standard 75 into a four-seater had to be kept minimal (in part to also reduce disruption on the production line). To this end, the design team had taken the second pre-production two-seater (53004/YU-DRJ) and reconfigured its capacious cargo bay to give a bit more room, slotted in two additional seats – and then fitted a longer, extensively-glazed two-piece canopy to make entry into the back easier.

*For visual reference, a bog-standard two-seater… (from Cavok Aviation Photos)*

Dubbed the U-78, the new aircraft had in other respects remained identical to the stock 75⁴ (retaining even the towing hook under the tail). Even though it had also retained the original’s spartan mil-spec cockpit, production models were envisaged to sport a comprehensive IFR suite, sourced in full from Bendix-King and including the:

KI 525A HSI (slaved to a remote gyrocompass and with full ILS capability) + ADI
KI 229 RMI
KNS 81 RNAV system (a fascinating piece of kit used for early area navigation, covered in more detail here)
KN 62A DME
KT 79 transponder
and the system’s associated navigation and communication radios

⁴ there were indications in some sources that flush-headed rivets were used in lieu of the dome rivets of the standard model; available photo evidence however shows dome rivets on the fuselage, though it is not possible to discern their type on the wing. Informed opinion from a UTVA engineer is that it is highly unlikely (on a cost/benefit basis alone) that flush rivets were used anywhere on the aircraft

However, back in the actual world, many of the finer details of both the design and DRJ’s service life remain a mystery; according to people in the know, the production documentation for the U-78 had always been scant at best, and what little was widely known was further lost during Yugoslavia’s violent dissolution in the early 90s. Furthermore, the aircraft had never been formally tested by the Vazduhoplovni opitni centar, or VOC – the state flight test center which was required to sign off each indigenous design – so no accurate or official performance numbers exists. Pretty much not even the people who had worked on the basic U-75 at the time have a complete and definitive picture of its capabilities…

What is known for certain is that DRJ – as the U-78 – had flown for the first time on 23 March 1979. Following standard factory testing, it would be transferred to the VOC at Batajnica Airbase (LYBT) just outside Belgrade, where it would continue to fly informally until 14 August 1981, when it had suffered an unspecified accident and was written off.

The loss of the only prototype – and the continued desire to press ahead with the project – had meant that the UTVA works would eventually need to produce a replacement. Interestingly, this would occur only in 1986, a year after production of the standard 75 had come to an end. This had meant that the new aircraft would not be manufactured outright in the classical sense, but rather assembled from the ground up using replacement parts (manufactured in advance to support the fleet in the future) and DRJ’s vertical stabilizer (which had survived the accident). Given serial 53263 – denoting it as the first of the post-production modifications – this new aircraft would officially be designated the U-75A-41 (though always shortened to just U-75A), and would initially carry the reg YU-XAC. Despite the different name though, XAC would not differ from DRJ (apart from dome rivets definitely being used throughout 🙂 ).

Flying for the first time on 14 May 1986, XAC would also initially pass to the VOC – again informally – before ending up with UTVA’s own flying club (AK UTVA Pančevo) as YU-BRJ. Sadly though, it would be completely destroyed on 24 March 1999 when the factory and its facilities were severely damaged in a NATO air strike.

I’m leaving on a container ship…

Even though XAC would – as proof of the design – go on to fly for a good number of years, forewarning of Yugoslavia’s 1991 implosion had quickly dashed many hopes of continuing development beyond the prototype stage. However, just before the country’s whole aviation industry would grind to a halt, the UTVA works had managed to cobble together one final aircraft, the lucky No. 3 that would lure me to Slovenia 🙂 .

Like XAC, this new machine could only come about in an unusual manner. Despite not having produced any new aircraft since 1985, the factory was still busy repairing, overhauling and scrapping in-service 75s – activities that would continue right up until the start of hostilities. At one point in the very late 80s, the company had come into possession of YU-DJO – a stock 75 manufactured in 1983 with the serial 53230 – which had been written off following an accident. Seeing their last chance at keeping at least something of the four-seater dream alive, the factory had decided to take what remained of the aircraft and rebuild it into an XAC-like model using any available spares and parts of other demobbed 75s.

What happens next, however, requires a short digression. The consensus among online sources and forums dedicated to Yugoslav aviation is that the aircraft had never actually been completed prior to the war, and that only an empty shell had been produced. Much doubt is also cast on the extent to which it would have conformed to the U-78/75A standard, especially since it was a rebuild of an existing 75 (using its basic fuselage), rather than a bespoke four-seat model.

These sources also state that the aircraft had remained at the factory until 2003, when it was sold – along with a regular 75 – to a buyer in the US. However, the buyer was said to have been unable to register the four-seater due to issues with its paperwork, with specific reasons given including missing/discarded documents, the aircraft being a composite of several different serial numbers and “unassigned parts” – as well as available documentation pertaining only to the bits belonging to DJO. Having thus sat around for a while, it was said to have returned to Serbia in 2008, to be restored, re-certified and sold on to a buyer in Slovenia shortly afterwards.

But, having had the great opportunity to personally interview the buyer in question, the story I was made aware of was quite different. It transpires that the aircraft had actually been fully completed and outfitted by spring of 1991 – and that its paperwork was, in fact, clean and in good order. Possibly intended for export right from the outset⁵, the machine would soon be dismantled, crated up and – in the company of the aforementioned two-seater – shipped by sea to Mr. John Wallace of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, who had recently become the official distributor for UTVA aircraft in the US.

⁵ whether this export was just a fluke or planned from day one is not known with certainty. Given the ad-hoc nature of the build – with Yugoslavia already disintegrating – the project documentation was not diligently kept, so even UTVA employees are in the dark on this issue

*53230 nearing completion in early 1991, with a stock two-seater visible behind (author: unknown, photo kindly provided by Mr. Dragan Kolundžić).*

*Two of Yugoslavia’s best-known people movers, the U-75 (aptly in its four-seat guise) and the Zastava 101 family sedan (author: unknown, photo kindly provided by Mr. Dragan Kolundžić).*

Interestingly, Mr. Wallace had specifically requested both versions of the aircraft, since he was interested in marketing both its military and civilian potential (that is, having a single design fulfill the training, light attack and touring roles). However, to be able to actively offer them on the market, Mr. Wallace had first needed to make some changes to comply with FAA regulations, most notably swapping the existing Yugoslav instruments and avionics for a US-spec cockpit suite sporting imperial measurements (in another point of contention, there is some doubt that US instruments had already been fitted in Yugoslavia – though this is believed to be incorrect).

But, by the time the changes had been made and the aircraft were ready for re-assembly, open hostilities in now ex-Yugoslavia had already started, leading to the introduction of a wide-ranging UN embargo against all of its former states. For Mr. Wallace this had meant that he could no longer import any new aircraft from Serbia, making both of his current examples – worthless.

Faced now with a whole new set of financial problems, he had immediately decided to sell the engines of both aircraft in order to try and recoup at least some of the funds invested in setting up the dealership and shipping the machines across the Pond. This had made the already unwanted machines even more useless, with both examples eventually consigned to languish around in Mr. Wallace’s garage, still packed up in their original shipping crates. Having absolutely no use for two engine-less jigsaw puzzles whose market value had been steadily decreasing, he had in 2007 decided to put the aircraft up for sale, going so far as listing them on – eBay 🙂 .

As it is often stated online, “if it looks stupid and it works, it’s not stupid” – which fully applied here, since the aircraft were quickly spotted on that very site by Mr. Leon Pogelšek of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Having recently completed his PPL, he had expressed a desire for his first aircraft to be indigenous, with the four-seater seeming like the perfect ticket for the job. However, since both aircraft were being sold as a single item, there was no other option but to buy the lot and possibly use the two-seater for spares.

With the sale finalized, the aircraft – complete with all papers and US instruments, as provided by Mr. Wallace – were once again loaded up into a container and shipped to Slovenia’s main port in the city of Koper. However, once they had arrived, they would immediately be launched into a world of legal issues, which even today – nine years on – conspire to keep the four-seater grounded. Despite the U-75 having been as common as trees in ex-Yugoslavia, no certified mechanics or service centers had remained in Slovenia by 2007, making the aircraft impossible to assemble and fly within the country’s existing regulatory framework (being a one-of uncertified example didn’t help the four-seater either).

Pretty soon though, a workable solution was found, whereby the assembly and overhaul of the quad would be contracted out to a company based at Lisičji jarak Airfield (LYBJ) in Serbia – and headed by a former UTVA executive and engineer – with the two-seater used as payment for the work done (being a low-timer with prime potential for resale)⁶.

⁶ unfortunately, the identity of this aircraft is virtually impossible to determine today, since its documentation had been handed over during overhaul. However, it is known that it was one of reportedly six examples sent to Sudan around 2008/2009, where they had resurfaced under the designation SAFAT 03. Interestingly, that designation had initially been used for an upgraded, Sudan-built version of the U-75, which had failed to gain any meaningful orders and progress beyond the prototype stage…

In the event however, the work would drag on for four years – having even been handed over to a third party at one point – during which only the wings would be attached and a new engine and propeller from another U-75 fitted (both of which with only eight hours on the clock). Dissatisfied with the pace of the work so far, Mr. Pogelšek would in early 2013 ship the aircraft over to an official UTVA service center in Sremska Mitrovica – a road trip of 80 km that had, once again, seen the aircraft disassembled into its original state.

Here, the aircraft would be fully completed, outfitted with the type’s original instrumentation and test flown, making it finally suitable for delivery and operation. Wary of the legal requirements that had prevented it from being assembled in Slovenia, Mr. Pogelšek had originally wanted to register it in Serbia – but was informed by the Slovenian CAA that it was also possible to have it on the Slovenian register. Being a unique, uncertified example, it was initially allocated to the country’s experimental register, becoming S5-MZT the same year (M – experimental/homebuilt). However, it was soon decided that – given its commonality to the stock U-75 – the aircraft could even be added to the standard register (prefixed with D like in all former Yugoslav states), becoming S5-DZT in the process. Under this registration, it would be flown to Slovenia sometime in June 2013 (the exact date eluding Mr. Pogelšek’s recollection), making this the longest time it had been airborne in its entire life – for a grand total of just 7 hours and 13 minutes accumulated by the airframe.

The future is now

Unfortunately, soon after its arrival at Novo Mesto, the Slovenian CAA had withdrawn its approval for registration, effectively grounding the aircraft then and there (the exact reasons for this change of heart appear to fall into a domain I wish to steer clear of 🙂 ). Given that the issue was still not resolved at the time of writing, the aircraft had remained immobile for the next three years, though Mr. Pogelšek has made overtones to eventually register it in Hungary and potentially return it to airworthy state. Being employed in the art world, Mr. Podelšek plans on eventually turning the aircraft into a “mobile canvas” (more precisely, an “aero art” flying installation), and repainting it with stylized images of themes from Yugoslavia’s industry – thus paying homage to both the cultural and technical aspects for former Yugoslavia.

In the mean time, it remains the perfect “poster aircraft” for Achtung, Skyhawk! – and provides an almost unparalleled glimpse into a bit of left-field aeronautical thinking that I hope my readers will enjoy! 🙂

*Something’s rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark… and the UTVA factory at Pančevo. A decidedly odd sight for the locals… four people in an UTVA 75…*

Unlike similar aircraft, the 75A sports two individual seats in place of a one-piece bench. But, while this may sound like a nice touch, the space and structural constraints in the cabin mean that none of the four seats can recline even one inch.

DZT’s only external difference from both the U-78 and XAC is the shape of the canopy, which has a slanted as opposed to a straight rear edge. The reasons for this change are unknown; however, it is possible that this was a concession to ease of production, since this shape avoided the need to modify the fuselage and rear cabin frame (interestingly, straight-edge version had afforded less visibility to the rear passengers).

*Having descended from what was primarily a military trainer, the A is naturally quite airy and full of light, with good view afforded in pretty much every direction except below and aft.*

The same logic applies to the cockpit as well, which means that the pilot is spoiled for choice in terms of throttle and prop controls, with one set (the yellow level) on the left sidewall, and one in the traditional place in the throttle quadrant. Combined with an ambidexterous stick, this means the aircraft can be easily flown with both left and right hands, appealing to civilian and military pilots alike. However, like DRJ and XAC, DZT and had retained the basic setup of the standard trainer.

While the instrument panel itself is pretty conventional – reminiscent in layout to a 60s Cessna – the UTVA-75’s traditionally quirky central pedestal gives the cockpit an unusual feel. From top to bottom, the quadrant features the prop control (blue lever) and throttle (leverless… lever), with dual heating/ventilation on each side of the engine controls; the mixture is the first blue-red plunger below the throttle, with the brake block and elevator trimmer below (whose indicator – barely visible – is horizontal as opposed to vertical). To the right is the parking brake plunger and the injector air intake lever, which is a fancy name for an alternate air source. Finally, the small metal lever at the bottom of the pedestal is the fuel selector.

Always a relevant test of any light aircraft: how will I – with my 1.91 m / 6ft 3in frame – fit inside! Sadly though, the crossbeam near my knees (another remnant of an aircraft always designed to have two seats) makes sitting in the back somewhat uncomfortable. Likewise, the rear fuselage being relatively low, closing the canopy and sitting upright was a challenge…

Customarily, I would once again like to extend my sincerest thanks for their time and assistance to:

Mr. Leon Pogelšek, the current owner of S5-DZT
Messrs Matej Jevšček and Štefan Može of AK Novo Mesto
Mr. Mario Hrelja, who was one of the people responsible for DZT’s thorough refit
and Mr. Dragan Kolundžić, engineer at UTVA and author of several publications on its aircraft, without whose patience and education on the U-75 this article would not have been nearly as informative!

Sources:

Istorija vazduhoplovstva Pančeva: UTVA 75 (The History of Aviation in Pančevo: UTVA 75) by Dragoslav Dimić & Dragan Kolundžić
UTVA-75 factory catalogue from the mid-80s
Safat Aviation Complex – SAFAT 03 product page
My City Military Forum – U-75 discussion (in Serbian)
Paluba.info – U-75 discussion (in Serbian)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: