Update about WW2 asymmetric aircraft

[Tophe]

Have you ever seen pictures of the asymmetric unknown projects not illustrated in Igor’s http://www.geocities.com/asymmetrics/ nor in my http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/Asymm_addition.htm ?
They are the Blohm-und-Voss P.18, 40, 44, 62, 65, 72, 74, 75, 103, 112, 113, 114, 128, 135, 141, 155, 164, 176 and Heinkel P.1071 .
More details are on http://www.luft46.com/pjtlstbv.html , still without picture. Do you have other sources?

 

[Tophe]

For instance, I read:
Heinkel He.P.1071 , Asymmetric Fighter with two unspecified piston engines.
And I would love to see it. I could invent a provisionary drawing as below (from He219), but this is just imagination:

 

[osul]

Hi this is my model of the B&V 141. Made in Cinema 4d. I hope can be useful!

 

[Tophe]

Hi this is my model of the B&V 141. Made in Cinema 4d. I hope can be useful!

It can be very useful for me as a what-ifer (for a double 141 and so on - into the CGI forum: "Scale Modelling, CGI and Profiles", I am going to send you a PM about it), but this is not the main subject here, hoping historical sources, if available. Thanks.

 

[saturncanuck]

Hi this is my model of the B&V 141. Made in Cinema 4d. I hope can be useful!

I have the Airfix kit of this!

 

[BAROBA]

Hi this is my model of the B&V 141. Made in Cinema 4d. I hope can be useful!

Nice modelwork

Great job

 

[Tophe]

The very famous Bv-141 (single-engine reco) is not a secret project, the Bv-P.141 (3-engine transport) is. Sorry. ;D

 

[Tophe]

It seems I have another source (still picture-less) than Igor’s and Dan’s: the wonderful Putnam book “German Aircraft of the Second World War” pages 728-734:
Blohm-und-Voss P.18 : asymmetric fighter, one 540hp Jumo210
P.40: asymmetric ground attack aircraft, one 910hp DB600
P.44: asymmetric reconnaissance aircraft, one Jumo210 or Bramo329 or DB600
P.62: asymmetric naval dive bomber, one 2,700hp DB606
P.72: attack version of Ha-141 (Bv 141), one 725hp BMW132A
P.74 & 75: multi-purpose versions of Ha-141, one 1,200hp Jumo211 or 1,550hp BMW139
P.103: asymmetric airliner, three 1 ,580hp BMW801
P.112: development of P.111, three 1,500hp Jumo208
P.113: asymmetric seaplane, three 1,500hp Jumo208
P.114: heavy fighter version of Bv-141, one 1,600hp BMW801
P.128: asymmetric fighter
P.135: asymmetric fast bomber, one 3,800hp DB613
P.141: asymmetric passenger aircraft, three 1,000hp Bramo323
P.155: asymmetric dive bomber, one 2,500hp Jumo222 or 1,700hp BMW801
P.164: bomber, one 3,800hp DB613
P.176: armoured version of asymmetric Bv 237, one 1,700hp BMW801D
Heinkel P.1071: asymmetric fighter, two piston engines

 

[Tophe]

P.103: asymmetric airliner, three 1 ,580hp BMW801

This could be something like that (based on the Fw200 Condor):

 

[smurf]

Why build that? It seems to be simply making problems to overcome.
I can see the logic of a wide field of view from an asymmetric observation or even ground attack plane, but won't the asymmetric airliner just put off the customers?

 

[Tophe]

Why build that? It seems to be simply making problems to overcome.
I can see the logic of a wide field of view from an asymmetric observation or even ground attack plane, but won't the asymmetric airliner just put off the customers?

Well, I think it is neither a stupid design nor a genius one. A 3-engined asymmetric version of the 747 has been designed this way, and rejected because customers were not ready to accept it, but why desiging such things? I may explain:
Sometimes, a 3-engined layout is required, for instance because the required power corresponds to 3 times the biggest (or cheapest) available engine. From a 2-engined basis (one port, one starboard), where to put the third engine? Either:
- on the tail (Trislander, DC-10, etc): but the tail becomes more fragile or need extra weight to be solid enough
- in the nose (Ju52/3m, S.M.-79-II, etc): but the cockpit has less view forward
- on a pylon over the fuselage : but this is much dragging
- laterally: dealing with asymmetry... Well, the best is not the design above but the less-dragging design below, hiding the third engine behind one of the 2 others:

 

[smurf]

Thank you Tophe. I see some logic, and I don't think the designers stupid. But I still think an asymmetric layout makes needless difficulties. Wouldn't four engines (in in-line pairs if wanted) usually provide the power without the balance problems?

 

[Tophe]

You are right, and that is why asymmetric airplanes are so rare.
Anyway I love the oddity of the rare ones chosing such a layout ;D

 

[AeroFranz]

I've always been intrigued by asymmetric aircraft, as much by the physics behind them as the curious looks.
The May or June issue of "The Aeroplane" had a short article (not the main aircraft database article) by Alfred Price on the BV.141.
The author briefly described the balance of all the forces and moments which must obviously be zero for steady level flight. Does anyone have that article or can offer a similar explanation?

 

[Cy-27]

Issue 15 of the magzine Luftfahrt History is dedicated to Blohm und Voss designs, particularly Bv141 , Bv237 and Bv P194.
However, tucked away at the back is this drawing if the BV 111 asymetric flying boat mentioned in the first message in this thread.

Source: Luftfahrt History 15

 

[Maveric]

3view

 

[Wurger]

Issue 15 of the magzine Luftfahrt History is dedicated to Blohm und Voss designs

Hi Cy-27, does that magazine hold more B&V projects?

 

[blackkite]

The designer of this aircraft may be a paranoia. ;D
Perhaps he did every calculation what he can imagine.
I can't understand the necessity of this configulation. ???

 

[Maveric]

Hi Wurger, I have the magazine. Not more as B.V. 141, B.V. 237 and P. 194.

Servus, Maveric

 

[Wurger]

Thanks, Mav!