- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,142
- Reaction score
- 4,334
Various Blohm und Voss projects
- Thread starter Stargazer
- Start date
Johnbr
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 May 2007
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 312
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,633
- Reaction score
- 3,489
Avimimus said:
The main exhaust of the rockets was diverted via vents, I think.
What would be of interest to me, is the tiltable installation in pic 6, called "Geradbahnschuß"
(straight line shot). For a use as a kind of "schräge Musik" the angle is too low, I think.
So, what was it for ?
Avimimus
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 December 2007
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 589
My guess is that it would be desirable to have the target elevated high enough that there was no chance of it being obscured by the nose. If you lose sight of a target at night it can be very hard to spot again.
On the other hand, oblique guns typically required flying at speeds that were close to those of the aircraft being attacked - hence the emphasis on surprise attacks from the darker area below the target. The surface area of the target is much larger when viewed from below, but the tactic was apparently still reliant upon nearly matching speeds. Obviously, this is less than ideal in a high speed jet platform - so the tendency might have been to lower the level of obliqueness.
A fully mobile installation capable of tracking the target as the 215 passed under it might also have worked. Is there any evidence that these were two fixed positions rather than a fully mobile installation? I know that mobile installations were being experimented with for the Hs-129 during this period (similar to the KABB projects in Russia).
On the other hand, oblique guns typically required flying at speeds that were close to those of the aircraft being attacked - hence the emphasis on surprise attacks from the darker area below the target. The surface area of the target is much larger when viewed from below, but the tactic was apparently still reliant upon nearly matching speeds. Obviously, this is less than ideal in a high speed jet platform - so the tendency might have been to lower the level of obliqueness.
A fully mobile installation capable of tracking the target as the 215 passed under it might also have worked. Is there any evidence that these were two fixed positions rather than a fully mobile installation? I know that mobile installations were being experimented with for the Hs-129 during this period (similar to the KABB projects in Russia).
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,633
- Reaction score
- 3,489
The idea with keeping the target in sight may well be valid, the lower angle, than in other oblique
gun installations could be result of the higher approaching speeds with this night fighter. With those
five Mk 19 a short burst would have been enough to kill a heavy bomber, contrary two just two
MG 151/20 as often used. A fully movable, or beter horizontally stepless movable installation probably
would have meant a movable sight, I think, as in a gun turret. For the pilot, this would have meant a
tremendous workload, flying the aircraft and keeping the sight on target. Could have been a task for
the crew member besides him, but the gun sight is shown at the pilots station, so I wold guess, that
only two positions were envisaged.
gun installations could be result of the higher approaching speeds with this night fighter. With those
five Mk 19 a short burst would have been enough to kill a heavy bomber, contrary two just two
MG 151/20 as often used. A fully movable, or beter horizontally stepless movable installation probably
would have meant a movable sight, I think, as in a gun turret. For the pilot, this would have meant a
tremendous workload, flying the aircraft and keeping the sight on target. Could have been a task for
the crew member besides him, but the gun sight is shown at the pilots station, so I wold guess, that
only two positions were envisaged.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
hesham said:
Pulse-jet powered, armed with a MK 108 cannon. One of the projects under the Miniaturjägerprogramm, part of the overall Jägernotprogramm (Emergency Fighter Program).
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,142
- Reaction score
- 4,334
I've often wondered why the concept of adjustable wings, which provide increased incidence for STOL properties at takeoff, has never been more exploited in the course of aviation history. It would seem to me like a very sound and efficient addition to many aircraft.
That's seems to me to be a gross oversimplification. A variable incidence wing can be particularly useful for carrier operations to keep the nose down for visibility at low speeds and allow the gear to be short and strong. The Vought F8 Crusader was a good example as was the Supermarine 322 Dumbo, which would have outperformed the Fairey Barracuda using the same powerplant had it ever gone into production.
Kartek said:
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,633
- Reaction score
- 3,489
Correct, but as you mentioned, all aircraft, that actually used this technology were built as carrier aircraft.
But maybe it was seen as a way to achieve STOL performance for bigger aircrat and so reduce dependency
of long runways. During that stage of war, large airfields already were a prime target.
But maybe it was seen as a way to achieve STOL performance for bigger aircrat and so reduce dependency
of long runways. During that stage of war, large airfields already were a prime target.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,633
- Reaction score
- 3,489
With a glazed nose, visibility probably wouldn't have been a problem for this design. B & V
may have regarded a variable incidence wing as benefitial for other reasons, than take off
and landing, as the P.180 was to be fitted with such a wing, too (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18347.msg175974.html#msg175974)
Maybe for aiming fixed weapons ?
may have regarded a variable incidence wing as benefitial for other reasons, than take off
and landing, as the P.180 was to be fitted with such a wing, too (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18347.msg175974.html#msg175974)
Maybe for aiming fixed weapons ?
Germany 1945....short takeoff run! :
Kartek
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 10 December 2013
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
That's kinda what I'm wondering too since they are tilting the thrust as well as the wing.Justo Miranda said:Germany 1945....short takeoff run! :
B&V did some tre weird stuff, just because it's German doesn't mean it was a good idea lol.
Kartek
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 10 December 2013
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
Thanks, I've been looking to get back into aviation after a long stint in firearms.Stargazer2006 said:
Found this place while looking for a photo I used to have of the McDonnell swing wing mock-up but never found it :-( lol
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,633
- Reaction score
- 3,489
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,633
- Reaction score
- 3,489
Principally we have an early design for vectored thrust indeed. But I agree with
the statement "because it's German doesn't mean it was a good idea", something
that tomy opinion is too often overlooked.
the statement "because it's German doesn't mean it was a good idea", something
that tomy opinion is too often overlooked.
Similar threads
-
Blohm und Voss P.200 Transocean Seaplane Project- Started by kiradog
- Replies: 20
-
Blohm und Voss P.173.02 - Long range bomber project
- Started by kiradog
- Replies: 13
-
Kampfflugzeuge See (See-Stuka) 1938 contest
- Started by Wurger
- Replies: 15
-
-