Blohm und Voss Asymmetric Projects

OK my dear Dan,

my point is there was many and a lot of reports lost,and we can judge only on one source,for example,
Messerschmitt had a P list,we can see a gaps from P.1021 to P.1050,they were unknown,but they were
really existed.
 
hesham said:
OK my dear Dan,

my point is there was many and a lot of reports lost,and we can judge only on one source,for example,
Messerschmitt had a P list,we can see a gaps from P.1021 to P.1050,they were unknown,but they were
really existed.
Click to expand...

My research goal is to expand my/our knowledge of previously unknown projects through primary source research. The sources I use often turn out to be those previously used at various points over the last 75 years or so by other writers and researchers. I sometimes therefore find myself treading the same ground and in a position to comment on previous writers' interpretation of the documents they likely used.
You're right that there are 'known unknowns' to coin a phrase, but I'm certain that some projects are simply gone forever (although I always hope that new evidence will emerge that proves me wrong!). In the absence of any evidence for these sadly lost projects, I prefer to discuss and interpret the evidence that we do have.
 
Incidentally, for the record, here are the first and last pages of the 'handwritten list' of Blohm & Voss projects, as evidently used by Nowarra. You can see what I mean about the handwriting change from the start to what it was like at the end.


Handwritten list first page.jpg


Handwritten list last page.jpg
 
B & V 171, twin-engined dive bomber is the cover story on Dan Sharp's book-zine: “ Luftwaffe Secret Projects of the Third Reich, volume 6” (Morton’s, UK, 2019). ISBN: 978-1-911639-06-0.
This book-zine contains dozens of never-before published WW2- vintage sketches, plus new coloured paintings of a variety of weird-waffle concepts most of which never reached mock-up stage. Fascinating!

Sully spell-check is more interested in the waffles that I ate for breakfast than any old Air Force! Silly!


Disclaimer: I paid full retail price for this at my local “Chapters.”
 
Last edited:
"
Michel Van said:
Re: Blohm and Voss P.165 & P.166

Blohm & Voss tested the wingtip Cockpit at a BV141 (fly with two cockpits ! )
After those test they abandoned the Wingtip Cockpit concept fast

stop work on P.165 & P.166 and went on with P.177, P.204 and P.237 design.

According some stories was Göring outrage about the asymmetric design of Dr. Richard Vogt...
Click to expand...
"

Yes, mounting cockpits too far from the centre of gravity can create problems.
For example, if the cockpit is too far from the roll axis, the cockpit will experience dramatic positive or negative Gs during rolls. Before they North American Aviation built any Twin Mustangs, they experimented by adding a cockpit to the right tail boom of a Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

Similarly, modern RAF Tornado fighters mount the pilot's head a long way above the roll axis. During rolls, dramatic lateral Gs bounced a few pilots' heads off the sides of the caoopy before they learned how to brace their necks before rolling.

Another problem with mounting heavy weights on wingtips is that they increase rotational momentum, making it more difficult to recover from spins. For example, try to picture a T-33 with tip tanks full of fuel, machine guns in the nose and lots of ammunition well forward of the C. of G.
 
"
alfakilo said:
When I see these asymmetrical designs, I wonder why. What was the aerodynamic advantage?

Where was the longitudinal (roll) axis?
Click to expand...
"

Longitudinal roll ) axis on BV 141 was along the wing centre section - between the boom and gondola. It probably coincided with the lateral centre of gravity. The roll axis was slightly closer to the boom because I suspect that the BMW radial engine weighed more than crew.

To understand the aerodynamic advantages of asymmetric airplanes, you first need to understand the finer points of propeller aerodynamics. Even single propeller airplanes are not perfectly symmetrical. When they climb (nose high) , the descending propeller blade bites the air more, creating more thrust, ergo the "P factor" that pushes the airplane nose to the left (clockwise rotating propeller). That is why prop pilots need to dance on rudder pedals during landings and take-offs.

Now consider the dilemma of a twin-engine airplane (e.g. FW 189) when both engines rotate clockwise. If the left engine quits, only the right engine is pulling and the descending propeller blade is a long way from the centre-line requiring lots of rudder deflection to keep it flying straight.
OTOH If the right engine quits, the left engine provides thrust and the descending blade is closer to the centre-line, reducing the amount of rudder trim needed to fly straight.
IOW try to think of a BV 141 as a FW 189 that the right engine quit and fell off. It can still fly straight because the descending propeller blade overlaps the centre-line.

The primary tactical advantage is better visibility. Asymmetric airplanes can also have less drag because they only need 1.5 fuselages compared with the 1 fuselage plus two engine nacelles on conventional twins.
 
Are there any drawings survivor to P.194.00.102 and P.194.03.01 to P.194.03.013 ?.
 
hesham said:
My dear Dan,

I know you are expert in this field,but their list is not measure,no reason for slip some numbers,just the author
didn't know them or lost their reports,anther example for your list also,there was no P.174 & P.191,but in many
source they are known ?!.

Click to expand...
Hello hesham, Where do you find handwritten list? Do you have full list?
 
Hello HortenVIII,

you can ask my dear Dan (Newsdeskdan),he knows the source and he has a full list.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom