B&V's company motto seems to have been, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..."

@johnnycab8986

Ай бұрын

...we dropped acid before designing this new plane.

The major advantage of placing the prop directly behind the cockpit is that any pilot will go above and beyond to try to save the aircraft before risking bailing out into the giant blender just over his shoulder.

@Neklar

Ай бұрын

The Germans had ejector seats. The Dornier 335 had an ejector seat as rear prop.

@bigblue6917

Ай бұрын

@@Neklar True. But would you want to rely on it working every time.

@Neklar

Ай бұрын

@@bigblue6917 Chancing the ejector seat would be better than burning. The Dornier 335 had explosive bolts to separate the aircraft before ejecting as it was only a pneumatic mechanism of ejection. Perhaps B & V would have come up with something similar.

@carloshenriquezimmer7543

Ай бұрын

@@Neklar nah, B&V would more likelly try to develop an emergency teleporter than to do something as pedestrian as adopt an ejector seat

@Munakas-wq3gp

Ай бұрын

@@Neklar Even Hitlers Condor had a kind of an ejector seat. His seat was able to jettison under the plane with a parachute...

Blohm & Voss, the gift that keeps on giving. B&V never seemed to get the memo on "normal"

@dragonbutt

Ай бұрын

Given that pushing the envelope was the only way to gain favor with the military structure at the time it paid off to not be "normal". They understood the concept of "A good old fashioned Razzle Dazzle".

@bigblue6917

Ай бұрын

True. But the problem is that it is less fun than what B&V kept offering up.

@tomellis4750

Ай бұрын

At least it kept personnel off more promising projects.

@patrickstewart3446

Ай бұрын

B&V is Germany’s Blackburn. 😁

@channelsixtyeight068_

Ай бұрын

@@patrickstewart3446 Good analogy. I'd give B&V more the benefit of the doubt than Blackburn.

Damn, Blohm and Voss really wanted to fill in every space on their weird plane bingo card.

@Rom3_29

Ай бұрын

They might’ve smoking meth instead.

@carloshenriquezimmer7543

Ай бұрын

only if they include the backside of the sheet they would have space for it all

@fenfrostpaws2000

29 күн бұрын

​@@Rom3_29designers probably got into the forbidden chocolate xD

@williamzk9083

28 күн бұрын

Blohm and Voss made excellent sea planes but their other designs were all very sound. Unfortunately they never got a chance. The head of the design department Richard Voigt was quite a genius. Aircraft I completely asymmetric because of propellor swirl,torque and p-factor. Vogt rather than trying to neutralise these forces exploited them instead

To be fair, this is one of the less bizarre Blohm & Voss projects.

@kaasmeester5903

Ай бұрын

At least it's symmetrical...

@Danse_Macabre_125

Ай бұрын

But that makes it less B&V style ​@@kaasmeester5903

I don't think Blohm & Voss' heart was really into the Second World War. It doesn't look like they were really trying to win.

@davidjernigan8161

Ай бұрын

It's almost like they were trying to see how weird a weapons design that Hitler would approve

@unclebobsbees4899

Ай бұрын

Producing designs just to keep the SS at bay.

@garyhooper1820

Ай бұрын

If it didn't operate off the water , I don't think they were interested in it .

@michaelcagle5938

Ай бұрын

I agree. Seems like they were playing around lot. With war time should come practicality.

@Einwetok

Ай бұрын

@@michaelcagle5938 Check out what Stalin would do to designers that failed him.

That supposed thin line between genius and insanity? That's where B&V loved to hang out.

I love the way you can give out interesting information and still remain humble. The ending monologue and your " Cool Logo" are great. Even when a fly interupts you.

The cockpit and forward fuselage only have one point of attachment to the rest of the fuselage through the center of the propellor. The forward braces keep it from rotating. They are NOT dive brakes as dive brakes need to be behind the center of pressure/gravity for stability.

@bigblue6917

Ай бұрын

I didn't think they were airbrakes either. For one thing they would effect the air entering the radiator intakes

@Turnipstalk

Ай бұрын

Have you actually seen a blueprint that confirms this? Because if the prop turns on a large hollow bearing driven by a sun and planet gear, there is plenty of room to connect front to rear.

@llamatronian101

Ай бұрын

So, this plane has a failure mode where the cockpit just starts spinning around? That's hilarious 🤣

@terencefranks1688

Ай бұрын

well said - who would ever want cockpit spin ?!!!

@wickedcabinboy

26 күн бұрын

@@Turnipstalk - I'm just trying to imagine the mass of a spinning ring with propellers attached that could sustain the forces involved without flinging itself to pieces. Do you think there existed materials that were capable of such a feat? I'm no engineer, but it seems that would be quite a challenge.

Blohm &Voss is like the aircraft manufacturers Kel-Tec.

@laszlokocsi1825

Ай бұрын

That is a perfect conparison

@cafhead

Ай бұрын

Hilarious

@Ian-oe9wp

Ай бұрын

finally a worthy opponent for blackburn

@johnnycruiser2846

Ай бұрын

Finally someone said it! Amen!

@johnbuchman4854

26 күн бұрын

The college which produces firearms?

I wouldn't like to parachute out of it in an emergency!Chop!Chop!Chop!

@worldtraveler930

Ай бұрын

I second that motion!!! 🤠👍

My guess for those winglet/brace things is that they acted as a guard against walking into the propeller when the plane was on the ground.

@bigblue6917

Ай бұрын

That would make sense. The only problem then is how does the pilot avoid the same fate.

@richardvernon317

Ай бұрын

Most likely held ducts for control runs and electrical cables from the cockpit to the rest of the aircraft.

@MrTmac9k

Ай бұрын

@@bigblue6917 Yeah, that's what I was wondering throughout the video myself. An immediate question that doubtless occurred to the RLM was, "How the hot buttered f*** does the pilot bail out without being filleted?"

@builder396

Ай бұрын

Honestly, if any ground crew that service the aircraft do not know to avoid the giant disc of death they dont deserve to be even near a plane. Seriously though, for bailing the propeller blades would probably be detached. There were systems for that at the time, IIRC the Do 335 had it for the rear propeller.

@stirzjuststirz5077

Ай бұрын

Supporting the cockpit ahead of a rotating assembly, otherwise you are relying on a relatively small shaft through the propeller hub. Routing control cables through the rotating assembly also a big problem... explosive bolts to release props during ejection seems a good idea too - blendomatic.

The P 192 would have made bailing out of the cockpit somewhat problematic. Probably giving the pilot an extra incentive to avoid getting shot down. German ingenuity!

Aw hell yeah, another wacky concept by the crazy minds of Blohm & Voss 😍

Exactly this airplane stood in front of the first company my mother worked at. As a small kid in the late 1970ths the security people let me sit inside it twice while waiting for my mother. I remember the plane wasn't flightworthy at all and most likely only a 1:1 mockup. But it had lots of instruments, two flight sticks, lots of pedals and an incredible soft seat.

Thanks for next bizarre B&V 🎉🎉🎉

Funny thing, a propeller setup sort of like this was actually used during World War I with the SPAD S.A. The pilot was still behind the propeller, but there was a gunner's nacelle in front of it. Since before the interrupter gear was invented, placing the gun in front of the propeller was the only way you could fire directly forward.

I reckon the B&V office Christmas parties would have been wild, especially if the design office was providing the intoxicants.

The canards are for sure structural support for the cockpit. Without them there is no way how integrate the propeller and fixing the cockpit from spinning.

The Forward canards are for structural stability. Along with dampening vibration from the placement of the prop which was probably on a gear-driven ring.

@wickedcabinboy

26 күн бұрын

@AJdet-2 - Imagine the force required to turn such a ring at prop speed, say 2,000 - 2,500 RPM. I'm no rocket surgeon but it seems that would require some pretty hefty gear.

@AJdet-2

26 күн бұрын

@@wickedcabinboy We are dealing with Germans here... They will come up with the ponies and gear ratios needed I'm sure. Then Hitler will want something added even Germans can't do 🤔

Very instructive. Thanks

Those canard thingies were likely primarily to route controls through.

@ikr9358

Ай бұрын

Makes sense. Would be tough to run cables through a spinning propeller.

@festungkurland9804

Ай бұрын

that would be a problem

@ErikssonTord_2

29 күн бұрын

And holding the cockpit in place, plus routing all cables through.

@knoll9812

27 күн бұрын

I think structure as not needed on pusher variant.

Love those quirky ideas folks had.

This is actually a beautiful plane. Other than bailing out being risky this looks like an amazing design far ahead of its time.

@ErikssonTord_2

29 күн бұрын

Never to be repeated. During the Great War some aircraft had their gunner placed in front of the propeller, leading to instant death to the gunner in any kind of accident, and a slower aircraft than the competition!

I love this channel.

@cyberfutur5000

Ай бұрын

Me too, but I start to think it's just a big Blohm u. Voss commercial^^

@bigblue6917

Ай бұрын

@@cyberfutur5000 And we are now all B&V junkie

The works of Blohm & Voss one of the few places that Nazi and Fun come to mind at the same time.

@bigblue6917

Ай бұрын

Fun yes. I have a feeling that what sense of humour the Nazis had was dissipated as soon as they knew it was a B&V submission

@terencefranks1688

Ай бұрын

seems that way !

Love all these German experimental aircraft! Some of the wildest designs ever!

Since I was a kid I've always been interested in German WWII aircraft especially their less conventional designs and I've read a few books with numerous builds, models blueprints and sketches and I've never seen this before. That wing, looks like a De Havilland Mosquito's wing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. =D

With the fixed canard, the CG and CL can get closer without the tail, reducing the necessity of the tail down-force. The wing is a highly tapered slightly forward swept wing, despite the straight leading edge, the chord registers it a forward swept wing. The wing area around the fuselage is likely to stall at lower aoa, at lower speed. The close coupled canard works like a slot, though the propellers accelerate air and mess up with the upstream & flow. The propwash alone will contribute to the low speed handling of craft, when it comes to the flow attachment. The propeller blades are more efficient at the outboard section due to the unchanged incidence regarding the ratio of combined angles, between the incoming air due to the plane's forward movement, and the propeller's helical motion. Because the propeller's tip moves faster than the root, its incidence is kept unchanged relative to the root. You can have a propeller that resembles that of a helicopter rotor, and it still works at higher speed depending on the propeller RPM. More perpendicular the airfoil angle is, more lift is considered as the thrust. Looking at the designs like P-39, you see the root of the propellers are more rounded. These area never contributes to the thrust, they merely exist as a support for the middle section of the blades. Though the armament is not centered for this particular design to benefit from, guns can be aligned to the center of the aircraft in these kind of "clear-fuselage" construction. Spinners can be made around the thickest part around the fuselage to maximize this masking effect though, simply putting the propeller mid-fuselage does the same thing at higher efficiency in theory. The propeller upstream kind of work like a suction, making it suitable for reducing drag at the most crucial part. Though I highly recommend more narrow aft fuselage to minimize the drag. I'm certain the fuselage could have been made laminar to further enhance the performance.

Hey Mr Cool. Just sending you a shout out that I enjoy your work. Cerby from Down Under

The main problems I noticed right off the bat of the P-192 design is that the mid-engine design would have required a huge amount of ball bearings in order for the propeller housing to rotate which were in shorter supply later in the war and secondly, the discharging of spent 20mm rounds would have impacted with the propeller blades. Why newer ground support designs were still being considered even after the introduction of the HS-129 is beyond my paygrade.

@williamzk9083

26 күн бұрын

They might have used journal or sleeve bearings. It only requires a flow of oil, has less friction and never needs replacement.

love the closing comments

I do hope there was some plan to put an ejection seat in either of these designs! Gotta love the insanity/genius that was Blohm & Voss! 😆

Pilot survival is considered something of an afterthought with some of these German designs.

@erloriel

Ай бұрын

"They won't need it if they're winning and don't deserve it if they're losing."

@MadCDeeJay

Ай бұрын

Doubt it, they invented the ejection seat after all.

@mate5571

Ай бұрын

@@erlorielfunny how this exact rhetoric played a huge part in the Nazis losing

@1maico1

Ай бұрын

The Heinkel He 219 night fighter had ejector seats as did the Do355

@wolfen1628

23 күн бұрын

theres an ejection seat on most of the blohm & voss rear props

Feel you on the weather thing and the bugs. Cool little presentation, never heard of this one. I lowkey think, that the R&D guys were just coming up with new designs to justify their position and not be send to the front lol.

I agree. Having been in construction for most of my life here in Florida, I, too, always said you can always put on another coat but you can only get so naked before children start screaming and parents start stoning you. lol. Of course now the issue is a kaput AC unit. I can no longer work and the heat still wins. Oh well. Thanks for posting about the "Cuisinart" of planes.

I am convinced that Blohm and Voss are either time travelers going to the future and bringing back these designs or they from another universe entirely!

Great video 🙏

Fantastic thats why i love zinn watches they try things no nonsense

It seems that the canard struts were there for additional support to the cockpit section. Where the propeller was there was most likely a fixed tube connecting the two pieces of the fuselage, allowing control cables etc going trough and the propeller fitted onto a hollow shaft turning around the fixed part driven by gears, in the same manner the Germans already did with the gun firing trough the spinner of the ME-109. The tube and shaft didn't need to be of small diameter because the effective area of the prop was outside of the fuselage anyway. From a maintenance standpoint this construction would be a nightmare, imagine changing propeller shaft bearings, it would require taking half the plane apart.

Excellent

Thank you!

Thank you very fascinating! The German sure are a innovative people!

Unique problems call for unique answers and surely they had all the unique points. Those two wings on the 192 coming out from the nose had to be its major bracing because there is literally only a propeller spinning behind them. They could have gotten a slight spar through the center hub IE the 109 20 mm but that wouldn't have been strong enough. I would guess the whole nose and wings would detach in the case of an ejection. To further my point look at the end proposal, there was no wing or anything coming off the nose. The props could be feathered for a breaking effect, this was used by the best of pilots, so I could imagine that second design not being so bad. At that point they probably already had been working on the Do335 as well, that was doable as seen on it. Hard to tell if they had communications about that. Very nice look into these, well done.

I think she looks great , very cutting edge !

I would love to see how the prop was to be driven on the 192. It does boggle the mind.

I imagine one problem would be engine overheating. It's entirely reliant on the radiators, there's no natural airflow over it or through it to help. Even liquid cooled engines often rely to a certain extent on air cooling as well. I remember some rear engined cars like the Hillman Imp were quite prone to overheating.

@Turnipstalk

Ай бұрын

The Imp overheated due to inadequate hoses from front to rear. In fact it was fixable. Neither the Porsche Boxster/Macan at one end nor the Smart Forfour at the other have problems. Liquid cooled engines for aircraft have very little radiative or convective cooling.

The blogger is incorrect to suggest this would be a weak design. The prop should be pictured as blades attached to a rotating ring, gliding on roller bearings, and with gear teeth somewhere on it (inside surface, trailing edge, whatever, that is turned by a gear attached to the crankshaft. You could really have a huge number of structural members inside that ring, with a diameter at most 10cm or so narrower than the plane normally would have had. The thrust of a propeller is proportional to swept area, and the internal part of the normal propeller disc "missing" here is actually quite small by area. It may have needed one extra blade. On the other hand, being between the landing gear, it would have been impossible for it to do a ground strike should landing or takeoff be at the wrong angle, so you could get much closer to the ground than otherwise. Finally, the rendering at 7:24 for instance shows the blades as narrow as if they were attached to the hub. In practice I think the blade would already be at their widest even at the point they attached to this ring. (I used to sketch such planes, albeit with the blades behind the engine, in class as a kid, so I've given this matter some thought!)

@ErikssonTord_2

29 күн бұрын

That is a design that has been tried on submarines, and experimental aircraft, never functional in the real world on a fast aircraft

@lqr824

29 күн бұрын

@@ErikssonTord_2 sure. To be clear I'm not actually saying it's a great design--I have no idea about that. I'm just saying the video is quite wrong to insinuate this would necessarily be a weak point. That's all.

@toolbaggers

29 күн бұрын

Childish doodling while ignoring formal education does NOT make you an expert in anything. I think it shows the exact opposite. Ever see the Simpsons' episode where Homer designs a car?

@knoll9812

27 күн бұрын

These are good points. However it takes a lif engineering to transfer 20000hp to propeller through anythyotger than shaft Note even pusher was hard to make work.

@lqr824

27 күн бұрын

@@knoll9812 Again, I'm not saying that it'd be easy, or durable, or cheap, or anything like that. I'm ONLY saying that the plane absolutely would not have had to be fragile. That's all!

OMG... your ending monologue just killed me, exactly my kind of humor! 🤣 Apart from that bit - great choice and presentation as always! P. S. Did you absolutely positively check it actually was a fly and not another B&V secret project just camouflaged as one? 🤔

So with the propellor behind the cockpit, there is nothing that could connect the cockpit to the rest of the aircraft unless you had a hollow drive shaft with a structural shaft there, however that would still be very weak and would be highly susceptible to failure in high g maneuvers. The connections from the cockpit to the wings would then be (additional) connection points for the cockpit to the aircraft body. Whatever other features that they could do would be bonus.

That prop in the middle of the fusilage is a good idea as the inner part of any prop produces little forward thrust, just enough to cool a radial engine, maybe ?

@williamzk9083

26 күн бұрын

The design was to use either the Jumo 213 or DB603 engine. 2000hp class V12s.

Blohm & Voss always thought outside the box.

@PaulAngileri

Ай бұрын

They also thought outside ways to engineer to wartime deadlines, and ways to help win the war.

@tlum4081

29 күн бұрын

What box?😀

Cool! Cheers.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

11:20 the 193 has got that A10 warthog vibe going especially the nose section.

Seems the forward wing/supports is what held the cockpit stable, in front of the prop. I expect a spar extended through the engine to provide additional stability to the cockpit/ front gear assembly

I can't help but imagine a kind of modernised version of the "Pulpit Fighter".

The Germans also designed a dive bomber with jet engine. It had a single jet in the upper part of the frame, but unlike He-162, the engine was blended/included in the body. About 2...3 full size prototypes were in very advanced manufacturing stage. That factory fell in the Soviet occupation zine. The Soviets moved the unfinished prototypes to Soviet Union, then finished completely one of them and tested it.

The front wings are supporting bracket to hold the pilot cabin. With out that how do you suggest will be keeping the cabin on the plane with the engine rotating?

If it had worked wouldn't reversing the engine and having the prop near the trailing edge of the wing be a better design? Or even taking the gun pods back into a twin boom design, so turning it into a sort-of piston powered de Havilland Vampire.

Incredible insight for WWII planes. Forerunner of future A.F. aircraft like A-10 and stealth bomber. Good thing they didn't have the budget or time to mass produce.

The Stuka was not the only ground attacker fielded. There were also the Bf 110 and 410, for example. Although these got pressed into interceptor roles a lot.

6:16 now that you mention it, i could not help but to notice that the propeller has a somewhat unconventionel position😂

I found out about all the strange German aircraft and air raft research in a Ballantine Books titled Blueprint from Mars. This was back in the late 1970’s.

The only way the escape scenario would make any sense would be if the prop had some sort of explosive bolts to remove the prop blades 1st?

@Aahmpower

18 күн бұрын

What if the bolts are hit during combat ?

That was great fun in spite the fact that those two planes never made the prototype cut!

It would be interesting to see if such a design would be practical, or even airworthy.

Depending on how the propeller was mounted, those cannards might have kept the cockpit inline and ptovided a path for control cables. The propeller could be on a big bearing with the fuselage extending through it, but that would be very heavy. But a small shaft would be lighter, you just have nowhere for the control cables to go, with at best the space for the cannon on a bf109.

@HALLish-jl5mo

Ай бұрын

@@Turnipstalk It’s not the gearbox that would be heavier, it’s the giant bearing. Which would have to be capable of withstanding the full thrust of the propeller as well, basically it’d need to be the turret ring off a light tank. There’s a reason nobody does this.

@HALLish-jl5mo

Ай бұрын

@@Turnipstalk Thrust distributed over the entire circumference is NOT A GOOD THING. There are two ways of doing that: 1. You have the load bearing points be directly next to the propeller blades, so about 4 in this design. This lets your propeller assembly be RELATIVELY light (though you still have to make the propeller ring heavy enough to withstand the twisting torque that’s going to make it want to roll up like taking off a sock), but now the ring it’s pushing against has to be able to withstand that concentrated force moving around, and now it is extremely heavy) 2. You make the propeller ring extremely heavy to distribute the force equally. Sure the ring it’s pushing against is lighter, but the total mass is probably the same. Only now more mass is spinning, which is really bad. You just made the gyroscope heavier, so it’s going to resist the motion of the aircraft in pitch and yaw. Which means you need to re enforce everything against those forces… There is a reason almost nothing works like this. Axels are kept as small as possible, especially if the RPM is high.

@johnlang3198

27 күн бұрын

I was wondering about the flight controls and the engine controls as well. The whole configuration of the aircraft brings in too many complications.

i love Blohm & Voss' stufff

4:50 I think anytime a feature on a Blohm & Voss aircraft is described as “pretty standard”, it represents the point at which an engineer just started crying during a design committee meeting and the management realized they needed to tone things down to prevent alcoholism, burnout, and intentionally walking into propellers amongst the staff.

When your design staff's best perk is access to a free all-you-csn-drink schnapps bar.

The canard looking structures are to support the cockpit and stop it rotating as the rear of the cockpit would be mounted on the prop boss. All controls would have to be mounted through this too, so it would have very little area to support the weight of the nose.

For a conventional Blohm&Voss design, try the Battleship Bismarck!

@CraigCholar

Ай бұрын

The ship and airplane divisions were apparently vibing as polar opposites.

Do you know if the forward winglets?/Canards were intended to be rotatable??

I'm a cold weather type of guy as well. Strange thing that I've ended up living in San Diego for 3/4 of my life.

@PhilipDeLamarter

16 күн бұрын

You love Dago too? Everywhere else it's triple digits, but Dago's 72 degrees. Paradise!

11:21 Looks very A10.

@shannonkohl68

Ай бұрын

Yep they got the tail wrong, not sure why because the dual vertical stabilizers were more common in WW II than today. And of course the dual, wing-mounted guns are inferior to a single gun mounted in line with the pilot. But otherwise this could be an early design of the A-10.

Apart from the engineering issue of that prop placement (not insurmountable.. but added complication for sure) The big issue I see is how does the pilot escape if they have to bail? With a "normal" pusher at the tail there is some chance, especially if the prop is discarded with explosive bolts. But with the prop so close to the pilot seat? Even a decent ejector seat of the time would have problems clearing it. There was method in the "madness" of BV's asymmetrical designs, they were an attempt to overcome the problems of "P factor" (the tendency of an aircraft with a propeller to yaw when pitched up or down) along with the spiral airflow from the prop impacting with the wings, tail plane and fin/rudder. Conventional designs used simple trim adjustments, or offset fins and similar to counteract it partially, with some effect on performance. The asymmetrical design had very little performance penalty. I think eventually contra rotating props largely solved the problem of P factor with the massively powerful piston engines at the close of the war and the centripetal effect of the huge propellors they turned. (Merlin went from around 750 hp at it's conception to well over 2100hp at the end) Jets of course got rid of the issue entirely.

@williamzk9083

26 күн бұрын

The Germans had ejection seats. In fact their ejection seat program started before 1939 as a way to support bail out from dive bombers.

If I was a pilot of a B&V P-192, I wouldn't bother with donning a parachute, because there is no way I would try bailing out with that Cuisinart mounted directly behind the cockpit.

Common aircraft have Center of the lift aft of CoG, and the tail compensates it by producing the downforce. This downforce still comes with a corresponding drag, pure tandem designs have no such deficiencies due to the lack of downforce required to balance out the pitch axis. Putting the canard means the point of total CP is moved forward, meaning the location of CoG and CL is closer without the horizontal tail. The wing is a highly tapered slightly forward swept wing, despite the straight leading edge, due to the airfoil shape, the chord actually registers itself as a forward swept wing. The joint section near the fuselage is likely to stall at lower AoA in lower speed due to the sideway airflow. The canard is closely coupled, meaning it will work like a slat, though the propellers accelerate air and mess up with the upstream & flow. The propwash alone will contribute to the low speed handling of craft, because of the region the slipstream is interfering with is the weak spot when it comes to the flow attachment. Also the Propeller blades are more efficient at the outboard section due to the unchanged incidence regarding the ratio of combined angle, between the incoming air due to the plane's forward movement, and the propeller's helical motion. Because the propeller's tip moves faster than the root, its incidence is kept unchanged relative to the root when it comes to the speed regime of the aircraft. More perpendicular the airfoil angle is, more lift is considered as the thrust. So by design, you can think of the propeller blades kind of like an outboard jet turbine section. Though the armament is not centered enough for this particular design to benefit from, guns can be aligned to the center of the aircraft in these kind of "clear-fuselage" construction. Spinners can be made around the thickest part around the fuselage to maximize this masking effect though, simply putting the propeller mid-fuselage does the same thing at higher efficiency in theory. The propeller upstream kind of work like a suction in aerodynamics, making it suitable for reducing drag at the most crucial part. Though I highly recommend more narrow aft fuselage to minimize the drag. I'm certain the fuselage could have been made laminar to further enhance the performance.

Looks really similar to an A 10. Its cool

Fantastically nuts ✌️

I think it looks like a good aircraft design. The B & V designers/ engineers were thinking instead of copying what had already been done. IF the pilot needed to bail-out, then he could have pulled the ejector gizmo, if the prop was still turning. The pilot had good vision, uncluttered by a propeller blade spinning in front of his eyes on many other aircraft. P.S. - If the Luftwaffe wanted to win the air war, then they should have told the designers to make a German copy of the Spitfire, the Hurricane, the P-47, or the DH 98 Mosquito.

That fly across the screen 🙂

ty

There are 2 ways in which this could work. Firstly, the prop blades could be mounted on a big donut, which spun around an inner fuselage. The inner part of the donut would thus have a drive gear. But the second way is that the propeller is conventional and mounted on the crankshaft of the engine, albeit with a short shaft added to the front. The cockpit would sit on a bearing on that shaft, free to rotate, however the 'winglets' would prevent the cockpit from rotating. The difficulty with the former would be in adjusting propellor pitch and dealing with the very large bearing surface implied by the donut. The difficulty with the latter would be in getting control cabling to the control surfaces.

@grizwoldphantasia5005

Ай бұрын

Everything outside of the propshaft has to be empty. There can be no through-structure outside the propshaft. And the idea of a huge hollow cylinder for a propshaft is insane, because it has to connect to the engine driveshaft. If you tried to make that propshaft some huge ring gear rotating around some solid inner "fuselage", it would weigh more than the engine. The design is simply impossible. But then, I am no mechanical engineer, and neither were Hitler or Goering. Maybe B&V was simply trolling.

World War II German fighter planes had ejection seats. The first ejection seats were developed independently during World War II by Heinkel and SAAB. The Heinkel He 280 prototype jet-engined fighter was fitted with an ejection seat in 1940, becoming the first aircraft to be equipped with such a system. On January 13, 1942, Helmut Schenk became the first person to escape from a stricken aircraft using an ejection seat after his He 280's control surfaces iced up and became inoperative during a test flight. The Heinkel He 219 night fighter was the first operational aircraft to be equipped with ejection seats in 1942 .

Me: *sees thumbnail image* I ❤❤❤ it already.

@FallenPhoenix86

Ай бұрын

Me: looks at thumbnail... "Guess Hans won't be bailing out of this one..."

Anyone who studied HS physics and nothing more than mechanical drawing would instantly realize that there was no realistic way of connecting that cockpit out in front of the engine/fuselage, regardless of the propose leading-edge wing spars. Just try considering transferring the pilot's commands to the various flight, power-plant and TO/Landing systems. Fantasy land.

Pilots would have a lot of fun bailing out of that thing.

Most sane B&V aircraft proposal:

SPAD used a similar mid-propeller design in the Great War, so there was precedent. Known as the model S.A., it was produced in S.A.1 through S.A.4 variants. It was a two seat observation biplane with the observer sitting in a nacelle located in front the rotary engine, while the pilot sat in the fuselage behind the engine. The intention was to provide the observer with an unobstructed view, while mitigating the drag and control linkage issues with traditional pusher designs. In addition to structural support for the pilot's nacelle, the canards on the B&V may have housed the electrical harness or other control systems for the wing guns, landing gear and wing control surfaces.. Otherwise they would have been routed through the engine and propeller shaft, around the engine and back forward to the wings. This may have been impractical or at least less desirable for several reasons. When I first saw the B&V, I couldn't help but feel that it was inspired by the mid-propeller SPAD SA.

What would the undercarriage/landing gear look like on the P192? The landing gear would have to be pretty tall to avoid the propeller striking the ground.

The wing cannons in this design look like the Mk103, judging by the length of the barrel. The Mk108 due to its very short barrel design had a very low muzzle velocity and is actually the weapon that the Heckler & Koch 40 mm grenade launcher (Mk19) is based on. This was a real problem for pilots who needed to lead a moving target in the air, and the Mk103 as used in some Me410 aircraft was known to be the preferred 30 mm weapon due to its superior ballistics and hitting power. The Mk103 posed a number of problems to aircraft designers due to the recoil of the weapon. For example the extensive wing rework on the Ta152 from its predecessor the Fw190 was a direct result and requirement in order to mount the Mk103. In any case, as strange as the design is, if the Mk103 was the intended weapon for this design it perhaps would explain the support structrure between the guns and fuselage. Edit: The artwork on the B&V 193 clearly shows Mk103 cannons as wing mounted weapons.

Prop failure and the cockpit separates from the aircraft.....genius!!

I think the canard like things - gave structural stiffness to the cockpit sector as the propeller rotating around behind the cockpit wold have weakened the front cockpit sector - and you could rute wires and through them to.

Cockpit escape pod module. They're obviously small wings to convert the frontal section into a glider when it separates from the fuselage /s

These Blohm & Voss aircraft look like something you'd see in the old Fasa game, Crimson Skies.

the winglets were probably to reinforce the cockpit. if u think about it there would be 2 ways the center mount propeller would attach: 1.) would be a large ring around a shaft and spires that holds the cockpit with internal supports down the center of the ring. the ring would be driven by a gear from the engine. this would be complicated and the bearings to hold the ring in place would probably have a life of days. 2.) would be a straight shaft from the engine powering the the propeller and the cockpit would be held on by the winglets. there probably be a gap between the front of the propeller and the cockpit or a single center shaft. simple and conventional(ish).

That 2nd one looked a bit like the A10 Warthog's predecessor to me, pretty cool looking stuff, they could've been on the right track.

Good God! Spot! The 7up thingy! I remember that!

a good project for the RC builders