Blohm&Voss P.214

[moin1900]

Hi everybody

I have found another strange and little known Secret Project !
Here is a little Text about the Blohm Voss P.214 manned FLA-BOMB.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_P_214
http://www.luft46.com/pjtlstbv.html
Are there any other informations about this Project !

Thanks in advance

 

[Justo Miranda]

P.214 is also known as "Manuell Gesteuertes Raketen Projectil" in the specialised literature

 

[moin1900]

Hi everybody

Thank you for information about this project! JUSTO
But I do not understand how it will be used against BOMBERS !
I always thought that it was a Ground Attack Plane to be used against Ships, Bridges etc.

Many greetings

 

[moin1900]

Hi
Thanks a lot ! newsdeskdan

Karl Stöckel projects
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17345.msg166326.html#msg166326

Karl Stöckel Raketenjäger mit Luftstrahlantrieb
Span 7m
Length 7,2m
Wing area 10m²
Take-off weight 3000kg

 

[Basil]

Newdeskdan,

perhaps you have already mentioned it elsewhere but I have to ask: from where do you get this unbelievable amount of original documents (data sheets etc.) for german late war projects?

 

[Artie Bob]

IMHO, having worked with the microfilms of captured documents that originated at Wright Field for about 50 years is that microfilm collection possibly represents only about 50% or less of what material came to the USA and eventually was returned to Germany. I have no direct proof for this, but the appearance of documents from the German archives of material not microfilmed in the USA leads me to this conclusion. My belief is the material microfilmed represented the documents of then current interest to the USAAF and thus mostly late war items. My interest was the Ju88, which had over 100 test aircraft, but there are less documents microfilmed compared to the Ju 288 and 388. A glimpse of the type material captured is hinted to in the incomplete accession lists of the Paris clearing house contained in the Naval intelligence microfilms at US NASM.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[Artie Bob]

I believe the temporary occupation of Dessau and other locations for JFM was by USA forces and they may have not shared all of the intelligence booty with the Paris clearing house. There is a rumor that the entire JFM research library was absorbed into the US Library of Congress, but that is unconfirmed. However, at least three Allied intelligence groups visited JFM and gathered material before that area was turned over to the USSR. Those groups were the USSBS, USAAF and CIOS. My records are in storage and I am going by memory, but I believe US Naval Intelligence might also have exploited JFM sites. Another group gathering data was the War Crimes evidence group. In general, the intelligence exploitation of Germany was a well organized Allied operation involving several organizations to which were assigned a large number of personnel dedicated to that task.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[Artie Bob]

I cannot reply for the British end of the exploitation, but it appeared the US effort was both well staffed and organized. Certainly the USSBS was a much larger undertaking than the BBS. The interviews and field reports make it pretty clear that the JFM sites were indeed visited by at least 3 and possibly 4 groups as noted. That no material was returned to Dessau should not be surprising, as by the time USA returned documents, Dessau was in the Russian zone and things were not very friendly. I do believe that all USAAF material went to the BundesArchiv, not individual companies.
I have heard reports that much of the British material was simply scrapped, in at least one instance this report came from a person who managed to salvage some items from an RAF facility. He shared material with me and in it were documents not seen from any other sources. As a check, in the partial accessions from Paris are lists of documents that went to the RAF. If those documents can no longer can be located and there is no record of them being returned to Germany, then it is very likely there were destroyed.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[steelpillow]

Two other sources suggest that this is a quite different machine:

Hugh Cowin, "Blohm & Voss Projects of World War II," Part I, Air Pictorial, Oct 1963, p.316, says: "Intended as a high-altitude day fighter, the P-214 was the first of [their "arrow wing"] projects to have full fins and rudders, and externally was otherwise identical to the P-212."

David Masters, "German Jet Genesis", Jane's, 1982 p.35: "...designed to meet the OKL specification of 1944. ... the P.214 was of tailless layout with wingtip control surfaces. the wing was swept back at 40°..." He also gives brief data which are very similar to those he gives for the P 212, including the HeS 011A engine. and armament of 3 Mk 108 cannon.

These descriptions are not really consistent with a throw-away mission, but are consistent with each other and each adds detail not present in the other.

As far as I can tell, the Internet meme for the suicide bomb goes back to a claimed quotation from Heinz Nowarra's Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945. I have not checked the provenance of either Nowarra or the claim for what he said, can anybody help, there?

 

[newsdeskdan]

Two other sources suggest that this is a quite different machine:

Hugh Cowin, "Blohm & Voss Projects of World War II," Part I, Air Pictorial, Oct 1963, p.316, says: "Intended as a high-altitude day fighter, the P-214 was the first of [their "arrow wing"] projects to have full fins and rudders, and externally was otherwise identical to the P-212."

David Masters, "German Jet Genesis", Jane's, 1982 p.35: "...designed to meet the OKL specification of 1944. ... the P.214 was of tailless layout with wingtip control surfaces. the wing was swept back at 40°..." He also gives brief data which are very similar to those he gives for the P 212, including the HeS 011A engine. and armament of 3 Mk 108 cannon.

These descriptions are not really consistent with a throw-away mission, but are consistent with each other and each adds detail not present in the other.

As far as I can tell, the Internet meme for the suicide bomb goes back to a claimed quotation from Heinz Nowarra's Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945. I have not checked the provenance of either Nowarra or the claim for what he said, can anybody help, there?

You should have been here back in 2016 when I was posting up original performance graphs for the P 214 - subsequently deleted. The document I have, dated November 20, 1944, describes it as 'Bemannte Fla - Bombe'. It had a wing area of 10m2 and a wingspan of 7m, with an aspect ratio of 4:9. Take-off weight was 3600kg including a fuel load of 1700kg. From engines on (presumably rockets) it was to accelerate on the ground until it reached 700-800km/h, whereupon it would pull up at a 45-degree angle and climb to 52,000ft+. From this altitude, its horizontal range is given as about 90km.
I don't have a picture of it though.

 

[steelpillow]

Thanks, Dan. These numbers are nothing like Masters, his are very similar to the P 212. But it's interesting that Cowin seems to be drawing from the same sources as Masters.
I have found Cowin to be generally fairly reliable, but he appears wrong here to say that this was the first arrow wing with full fins and rudders, as the P 212.03 had them. I wonder if there might have been a P 212.04 or some other muddle over project identification.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[steelpillow]

Thank you here, too.

However these drawings are both variants of the MGRP. Dan Sharp (our newsdeskdan) has confirmed that the MGRP proposal did exist but it was by Karl Stockel at the DVL, a research lab, and was not a B&V project after all - see his Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich, pp.127-9.

The B&V P.214 must have been something else.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Thank you here, too.

However these drawings are both variants of the MGRP. Dan Sharp (our newsdeskdan) has confirmed that the MGRP proposal did exist but it was by Karl Stockel at the DVL, a research lab, and was not a B&V project after all - see his Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich, pp.127-9.

The B&V P.214 must have been something else.

As far as I can tell, they are two distinct projects. There's no known picture of the P 214 so it's very difficult to be certain, but the MGRP appears as part of a Stockel proposal which also includes some of his other projects. There's no mention of Blohm & Voss in this.

 

[hesham]

Amazing drawings my dear Justo.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Amazing drawings my dear Justo.

I think the top one is an original but reprinted in one of the German Secret Projects books - probably the Herwig/Rode one. I think the second, correct me if I'm wrong, is a re-draw from one of the Griehl books. This is the original.

EDIT: And I should point out that, despite this image being posted in the P 214 thread - it is NOT a drawing of the Blohm & Voss P 214. It's Stockel's MGRP - his signature is present at the bottom right hand corner of the drawing.

 

[steelpillow]

I cannot reply for the British end of the exploitation

It was the British who first occupied Hamburg, where the B&V main site was. Presumably we had first pick of any drawings left behind. A crying shame (but so typically English) if we went and threw a load out before handing the remnants to an archive - presumably the National Archive, who certainly have a lot of the old Committee reports.

 

[athpilot]

Hi

Hi and thanks Justo! In img 860 it is called a "Torpedoträger" (torpedo-carrier) - I´ve never heard that description in this context. Can someone explaine? Should it be an underwater antiship missile??

Greetings

 

[Wurger]

Good point, considering that the torpedo would have a diameter of 1 meter, but not necessarily underwater, I believe the Lorin scoop would have hindered any useful trajectory under water.

 

[iverson]

Hi

Hi and thanks Justo! In img 860 it is called a "Torpedoträger" (torpedo-carrier) - I´ve never heard that description in this context. Can someone explaine? Should it be an underwater antiship missile??

Greetings

I'm not sure how the word is used in German. But, in English at least, "torpedo" originally referred to an explosive charge or naval mine. Hence, the "Bangalore torpedo" that sapper's use for clearing wire obstacles and mine fields (what we think of as a torpedo these days was at first called an "automotive torpedo" or "fish torpedo").

 

[dan_inbox]

in English at least, "torpedo" originally referred to an explosive charge or naval mine. Hence, the "Bangalore torpedo" that sapper's use for clearing wire obstacles and mine fields (what we think of as a torpedo these days was at first called an "automotive torpedo" or "fish torpedo").

AFAIK, the early naval torpedoes were not self-propelled, but fixed at the end of a spar at the bow of the attacking torpedo-ram ship, which would try to ram it through the side of its target and detonate the explosives.

 

[Michel Van]

Hi and thanks Justo! In img 860 it is called a "Torpedoträger" (torpedo-carrier) - I´ve never heard that description in this context. Can someone explaine? Should it be an underwater antiship missile??

Greetings

Yes in german language, "Torpedoträger" (craft carry Torpedo) is use by bureaucracy in Military
it defined correctly what is it's purpose and use.

But there is catch to it, during WW1 and WW2 were use of word "Torpedo" also for Aircraft with similar purpose
Called "Lufttorpedos" (air Torpedos) later the term war replace in cold war with english word "Cruise missile"

IMG860 feature a Manned Cruise missile using Lorin Ramjets

 

[Michel Van]

That "Stockel's MGRP" document
i could decipher some of german text on it.
all date in Metric

Launch weight ~10 tons
Propellant ~4,5 tons
Guiding manned aircraft ~0.5 tons !
Impact weight ~5 tons
impact speed ~800 meter/second
Maximum hight ~50 km
range ~300 kilometer
flight time ~5 minutes

most of Text is garbled
what is understandable is this

? until 10 km with Subsonic speed
Projectile tratjectory is controllable by ? and Radar-bearing?
minimal? ? the tail unit? ~500 meters ? (circumference?)
? N~20
Return Flight with supersonic speed with Lorin engines
the Guiding manned aircraft serves als tail unit of the rocket
Stabilisation by split flaps in rear end
Project?, carry? up ?

Stockel 23. 9. (or 4.) 44

 

[newsdeskdan]

That "Stockel's MGRP" document
i could decipher some of german text on it.
all date in Metric

Launch weight ~10 tons
Propellant ~4,5 tons
Guiding manned aircraft ~0.5 tons !
Impact weight ~5 tons
impact speed ~800 meter/second
Maximum hight ~50 km
range ~300 kilometer
flight time ~5 minutes

most of Text is garbled
what is understandable is this

? until 10 km with Subsonic speed
Projectile tratjectory is controllable by ? and Radar-bearing?
minimal? ? the tail unit? ~500 meters ? (circumference?)
? N~20
Return Flight with supersonic speed with Lorin engines
the Guiding manned aircraft serves als tail unit of the rocket
Stabilisation by split flaps in rear end
Project?, carry? up ?

Stockel 23. 9. (or 4.) 44

The Stockel MGRP doesn't have its own thread on here, but maybe it should. None of this has anything much to do with the Blohm & Voss P 214.

 

[steelpillow]

Just come across this "replica" of the "Blohm & Voss P-214 'Mistletoe' Rocket Bomb" on display in the US Military Aviation Museum at Virginia Beach:

Another image before it got its its lower component is here:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/petercookuk/18386218646/

It is said to contain some original parts.

It looks too much like the muddled MGRP nonsense to convince me. Note also the rear air intakes for the "rockets". Again, the Mistel (mistletoe) composite programme was not as far as I know concerned with either B&V or anti-aircraft work, so that looks like another imaginative muddle thrown in for good measure.

I seem to recall seeing a comment somewhere about its creator being unsure what the subject looked like and taking a best guess based on some imaginative artwork they had come across. Boy, that artwork must have been imaginative! There were some photos too of its interior while under construction. Can anybody confirm or deny my vague brain cells?

If those are indeed original parts in there, they should be displayed alongside in their preserved state, not hidden inside a dubious reconstruction.

 

[steelpillow]

The document I have, dated November 20, 1944, describes it as 'Bemannte Fla - Bombe'. It had a wing area of 10m2 and a wingspan of 7m, with an aspect ratio of 4:9. Take-off weight was 3600kg including a fuel load of 1700kg. From engines on (presumably rockets) it was to accelerate on the ground until it reached 700-800km/h, whereupon it would pull up at a 45-degree angle and climb to 52,000ft+. From this altitude, its horizontal range is given as about 90km.
I don't have a picture of it though.

That specification reminds me more of the Bachem Natter than anything else. It too was a kind of manned near-suicide anti-aircraft rocket, though it took off vertically. According to William Green, "In the late spring of 1944, the RLM issued a requirement for a small and inexpensive target-defence interceptor. ... Numerous projects were submitted." Among these was the Heinkel P 1077 Julia. Perhaps also a predecessor to the B&V P 214, as the 214 number suggests it being initiated a few months later. So perhaps it is among these specifications and documents that we should be looking?

 

[steelpillow]

I have now included the "B&V P.214 MGRP Mistel" in my small collection of hoax aircraft, along with what little we do know about the actual P 214:

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

 

[newsdeskdan]

I have now included the "B&V P.214 MGRP Mistel" in my small collection of hoax aircraft, along with what little we do know about the actual P 214:

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

I mean, the Blohm & Voss P 214 is real - not a hoax - we just don't know much about it because it only existed briefly and few documents are known to have survived, though some did.
Similarly, the MGRP is real - not a hoax - it's just been conflated with the P 214 for some reason. Two genuine projects.

 

[steelpillow]

I have now included the "B&V P.214 MGRP Mistel" in my small collection of hoax aircraft, along with what little we do know about the actual P 214:

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

I mean, the Blohm & Voss P 214 is real - not a hoax - we just don't know much about it because it only existed briefly and few documents are known to have survived, though some did.
Similarly, the MGRP is real - not a hoax - it's just been conflated with the P 214 for some reason. Two genuine projects.

Did you read my piece? You forgot the Mistel - another real project - and you do not mention what I actually called out as the hoax.

 

[newsdeskdan]

I have now included the "B&V P.214 MGRP Mistel" in my small collection of hoax aircraft, along with what little we do know about the actual P 214:

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

I mean, the Blohm & Voss P 214 is real - not a hoax - we just don't know much about it because it only existed briefly and few documents are known to have survived, though some did.
Similarly, the MGRP is real - not a hoax - it's just been conflated with the P 214 for some reason. Two genuine projects.

Did you read my piece? You forgot the Mistel - another real project - and you do not mention what I actually called out as the hoax.

I did read your piece. I uncovered the only known existing genuine evidence for both the P 214 and Stöckel's projects so I'm reasonably familiar with them. There are other Stöckel projects that I've discovered since which remain unpublished. Sadly the evidence for the P 214 remains seven or eight A4 sheets comprising graphs and a few lines of text.
The word 'hoax' implies a joke or deliberate deception. I just don't think that this term applies to either the P 214 or Stöckel's projects in the way that the various different authors have portrayed them. Something like 'misunderstood' would suit them better in my view. I had no idea that the US Military Aviation Museum had acquired what it thought (thinks?) to be actual P 214 components. That would, indeed, constitute a hoax. My understanding was that the museum had just turned a few paper projects into life-size models for a bit of fun - the 'P.214' sharing hangar space with models of the E 580, P 213 and others. I believe the Rechlin museum has done something similar with the Gotha P-60.
Had you led the piece with the mysterious 'P 214' components acquired by the museum, then clearly the 'hoax' description would be entirely justified.
You say that I forgot the Mistel but wasn't really sure what you meant by 'Mistel' in this context.
The article says: "Mistel was a similar composite attack aircraft programme, though conceived to use up old aircraft which were too outdated for regular fighter or bomber missions. It saw some success and towards the end of the war the idea was adopted for some advanced proposals, such as Stöckel's. None of them ever left the drawing board. Nor is there any evidence that the Mistel project name was attached to any of them, nevertheless it tends to be these days."
Junkers genuinely did run a Mistel programme, called Mistel, and there genuinely were projects called Mistel 1, Mistel 2, Mistel 3, Mistel 4, Mistel 5 and Mistel 6. And Mistel 1-3 were built and flown (and shot down in some cases). These did leave the drawing board and the name Mistel was attached to them, just as it was attached to the other Mistel projects.
In addition, the word 'Mistel' appears in numerous official documents and was used as a generic term for arrangements where one aircraft or vehicle carried another aloft. For example, there was the Fw 56/DFS 230 Mistel.

 

[steelpillow]

Did you read my piece? You forgot the Mistel - another real project - and you do not mention what I actually called out as the hoax.

I had no idea that the US Military Aviation Museum had acquired what it thought (thinks?) to be actual P 214 components. That would, indeed, constitute a hoax. ... Had you led the piece with the mysterious 'P 214' components acquired by the museum, then clearly the 'hoax' description would be entirely justified.

A hoax is a hoax, however it is presented. The section title, "Blohm & Voss P.214 MGRP Mistel" describes a museum exhibit which was the subject of at lease one hoax. I then go on to dissect the issue. In what way does "This is more a catalogue of hoaxes than a single one. Some or perhaps even all of them may be more errors or wild guesses than outright hoaxes, but certainly their historical provenance was over-egged by respectable historians who should have known better. The B&V P 214, MGRP, Mistel and the accompanying depiction were all real projects, but they were all different" leads you to misunderstand my meaning? Why do you feel the need to reassert that last sentence at some length?

Then, you quote my comment that: "Mistel was a similar composite attack aircraft programme, though conceived to use up old aircraft which were too outdated for regular fighter or bomber missions. It saw some success..." and offer several interesting examples. But I am puzzled by your heckling tone implying that we are disagreeing. Are we?

 

[newsdeskdan]

Do you have a reference for the US Military Aviation Museum acquiring and/or presenting physical components said to be from the Blohm & Voss P 214? I would love to know more about this. Do we know how the museum acquired the components and from whom? Do they still have them? If so, do they still believe that they're genuine? What do they actually consist of?
I do apologise for any suggestion of a 'heckling' tone; I'm just confused. I can't see how the fun life-size models, the Stöckel projects and Mistel projects (and any associated misunderstandings thereof), not being hoaxes in and of themselves, are linked to that specific hoax.

 

[steelpillow]

Do you have a reference for the US Military Aviation Museum acquiring and/or presenting physical components said to be from the Blohm & Voss P 214? I would love to know more about this. Do we know how the museum acquired the components and from whom? Do they still have them? If so, do they still believe that they're genuine? What do they actually consist of?
I do apologise for any suggestion of a 'heckling' tone; I'm just confused. I can't see how the fun life-size models, the Stöckel projects and Mistel projects (and any associated misunderstandings thereof), not being hoaxes in and of themselves, are linked to that specific hoax.

It was on the museum web site, back when they had not long finished the mock-up and put it on display. See my previous post in this thread from January 2018: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blohm-voss-p-214.3578/post-323590
However the information has now disappeared and I managed not to make a note of its url. Without knowing that, it is next to impossible to find a copy on the wayback machine.
I do recall that the claimed original parts were cockpit items purportedly from the P 214 and came via an un-authenticated chain of acquisition. They were incorporated into the "P.214 MGRP Mistel" cockpit.
The link is simply that all these projects were conflated in the single reconstruction/mock-up incorporating those components with the hoax provenance.

The museum has put up a new image of it, now hung from the roof of their period German hangar, the Cottbus. But the image is in a slide show and I cannot find any more about the exhibit on there. Maybe if we ask, they would be able to tell us.

 

[Dagger]

A similar but higher resolution photo is available on wikipedia:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Blohm_%26_Voss_P_214_%22%22Pulkzerst%C3%B6rer%22_%28Bomber_formation_destroyer%29_%28Replica%29_%2843256463320%29.jpg

On this photo German text is visible/readable at various places on both devices. To give it a more credible appearance, I suppose.

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

Off-topic really, but you may want to review your text about the "Marton X/V or RMI-8". In the first sentence the Fokker D.XXIII is mentioned correctly, but in the rest of the text reference is made to D.XIII or D.VIII multiple times. Presumably typos.

 

[klem]

Here are some pictures I had uploaded before, showing the P.214 on the ground in the hangar.

 

[Dagger]

Here are some pictures I had uploaded before, showing the P.214 on the ground in the hangar.

10.jpg and 11.jpg seem to be from a magazine (or book). Which magazine?

 

[airman]

Rocket Bomb : concept of desperation like Willy Coyote ! https://tenor.com/S031.gif

 

[riggerrob]

".... But I am puzzled by your heckling tone implying that we are disagreeing. Are we? ... "

Remember that test-messages are a notoriously poor way to convey emotions.
Just go for the simplest possible interpretation: he is poor at expressing emotions on the internet.

Hanlon's Razor reminds us to avoid attributing to cruelty something that can equally be explained by a mistake.

 

[klem]

Here are some pictures I had uploaded before, showing the P.214 on the ground in the hangar.

10.jpg and 11.jpg seem to be from a magazine (or book). Which magazine?

Flugzeug classic Jahrbuch 2017

 

[steelpillow]

Here are some pictures I had uploaded before, showing the P.214 on the ground in the hangar.

Yeeks! Colour prints in a German publication, complete with false identification. This one will never die.

Nice to see the original display of the jockey craft though, before the missile/torpedo was finished.