Blohm & Voss' Bizarre Stuka Successor: Blohm & Voss P 192

In this video, we talk about the Blohm & Voss P 192, a proposed dive bomber and ground attacker for the German Luftwaffe midway through World War II. We first talk about German ground attackers and dive bombers early on, with planes like the Dornier Do 17 and Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, and how the evolving war situation, opening of new fronts, and loss of air superiority made the former obsolete and the latter less effective.
We then look at the proposal from Blohm & Voss, a dive bomber with seemingly a set of canard-style wings at the front and a mid-body propeller. We talk about why they may have done this, what benefit it may have had, and what extra use the forward wing sections may have had. We talk about why the design was quickly rejected and how Blohm & Voss came back with a more conventional, yet still odd, proposal in the P 193, with a pusher propeller. We end by talking about the failure of both planes and how Germany probably made the right call in rejecting them.

[@philip1522]

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.

[@bigblue6917]

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

[@carloshenriquezimmer7543]

@@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]

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

[@terencefranks1688]

@@bigblue6917 that would indeed be another worry !

[@Munakas-wq3gp]

@@Neklar Hitler travelled to quite many countries, you're confusing the maritime aurveillance Condors to his personal planes... Those had armour shieldiing and luxury cabins.

[@lashutterbug]

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

[@johnnycab8986]

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

[@lancaster5077]

Let's make something really impractical.

[@spacecactus2788]

blohm und voss is the kel-tec of ww2 aircraft

[@xet1sw156]

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

[@dragonbutt]

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]

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

[@tomellis4750]

At least it kept personnel off more promising projects.

[@patrickstewart3446]

B&V is Germany’s Blackburn. 😁

[@channelsixtyeight068_]

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

[@josephglatz25]

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

[@Rom3_29]

They might’ve smoking meth instead.

[@carloshenriquezimmer7543]

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

[@fenfrostpaws2000]

​@@Rom3_29designers probably got into the forbidden chocolate xD

[@williamzk9083]

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

[@kewlwarez]

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

[@kaasmeester5903]

At least it's symmetrical...

[@Danse_Macabre_125]

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

[@jamesmonahan1819]

OMG

[@memofromessex]

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]

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

[@unclebobsbees4899]

Producing designs just to keep the SS at bay.

[@garyhooper1820]

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

[@michaelcagle5938]

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

[@Einwetok]

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

[@RyeOnHam]

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]

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

[@llamatronian101]

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

[@terencefranks1688]

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

[@wickedcabinboy]

@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.

[@KrakenIsMahB]

there would be a lot of points of attachment and I dont think it would be from center, Turnipstalk pointed out best option, planetary gearing would have left lots of points of attachments available, tho it would be potentially harder to service and manufacture than ordinary planes.

[@k75romeofive]

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.

[@RedXlV]

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.

[@unclenogbad1509]

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

[@davidjernigan8161]

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

[@laszlokocsi1825]

That is a perfect conparison

[@cafhead]

Hilarious

[@Ian-oe9wp]

finally a worthy opponent for blackburn

[@johnnycruiser2846]

Finally someone said it! Amen!

[@johnbuchman4854]

The college which produces firearms?

[@PhilRMcGregor]

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]

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

[@richardvernon317]

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

[@MrTmac9k]

@@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]

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]

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.

[@CrassSpektakel]

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.

[@kevanhubbard9673]

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

[@worldtraveler930]

I second that motion!!! 🤠👍

[@milesromanus7041]

Better than being taken a prisoner by the muricans

[@jakedouglas6796]

@@worldtraveler930 That was pretty much the elephant in the room, in the decision to nix it.

[@garfield850]

​@@jakedouglas6796An ejection seat would have solved that

[@TimTheInspector]

Those canard thingies were likely primarily to route controls through.

[@ikr9358]

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

[@festungkurland9804]

that would be a problem

[@ErikssonTord_2]

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

[@knoll9812]

I think structure as not needed on pusher variant.

[@Sugarmountaincondo]

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]

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

[@masteronone2079]

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

[@Yodelinthegully-d7r]

And definitely lighting farts.

[@Seadog..11]

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]

@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.

[@Seadog..11]

@@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 🤔

[@MattnessLP]

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

[@Tyrs_Finox]

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! 😆

[@ariq4209]

The wing guns looked more like MK 103 instead of 108, as it is long barrelled like the 103. 108's barrel is very short and wouldn't stick out.

[@Thekilleroftanks]

you dont even need to use looks for that. the mk108 and mk103 were the same gun but for different situations/purposes, the mk108(the short barrel) were for anti bomber usage, their low velocity but high rof meant they were great for taking down slow moving bombers, but their ap performance was atrocious, because of the low velocity. where as the m103 (the long barrel) were for ground attack primarily, but were a better all arounder gun for both against air and ground targets. mainly because its a low rof but high velocity gun, which in turns gives it good ap performance.

[@Astrawboy_NameAlreadyInUse]

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.

[@RealOlawo]

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.

[@tmutant]

Blohm & Voss always thought outside the box.

[@PaulAngileri]

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

[@tlum4081]

What box?😀

[@Tom-Lahaye]

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.

[@90lancaster]

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

[@bigblue6917]

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]

seems that way !

[@r3ynolds_ow581]

I have always loved Blohm & Voss's plane designs.

[@bigemugamer]

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

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Thinking outside the box isn't always a good thing just because it's thinking outside the box. Sometimes the box exists for a very good reason.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

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.

[@lordterra1377]

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]

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!

[@Spawn-td8bf]

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.

[@falloutghoul1]

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

[@erloriel]

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

[@MadCDeeJay]

Doubt it, they invented the ejection seat after all.

[@mate5571]

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

[@1maico1]

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

[@wolfen1628]

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

[@PunkinsSan]

Thanks for next bizarre B&V 🎉🎉🎉

[@Cerby1365]

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

[@PHDarren]

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.

[@lqr824]

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]

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

[@lqr824]

@@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]

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]

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]

@@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!

[@ceemosp]

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? 🤔

[@tommytwotacos8106]

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]

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

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

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]

@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]

@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]

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

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

The Horten was not the inspiration for the B-2. The YB-49 was. Also, there is no evidence the Horten had any stealth design features whatsoever, besides having a wingshape that happens to have a lower radar crosssection.

[@kiereluurs1243]

So what wat was the inspiration for the YB-49, and YB-35?

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

@@kiereluurs1243 You're asking this like the Horten brothers invented flying wings. The Soviet Union, the US, Great Britain, France, and i would assume many others aswell, all experimented with the design independently of one another, in some cases going back into the 1920s (it should be mentioned here that Junkers patented a flying wing passenger plane back in 1910, though the concept never actually went anywhere) The YB-35 and YB-49 in particular go back to Jack Northrop, who had been working on flying wing designs since the 30s, developing his concepts in parallel to the Horten brothers. The YB-35, specifically, started development all the way back in 1941, as a competing offer to the B-36, though it ultimately lost out in the competition.

[@clockdva20]

The flying wing concept offered less drag and better range that the standard layout. No body really was thinking about Stealth or reflecting Radar signals in Aircraft design to much. The fact that several designers were thinking about flying wings both before WW2 and both during the cinflict and for a short time afterwards. All limited by the lack of tech that would make such a Aircraft work .even saying that Flying wings are still rare as in only the USA can currently afford such advanced systems. Though some comercial Aircraft producers are starting to look into such Aircraft or other blended wing cocepts

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

@@clockdva20 I doubt flying wings are rare because of the technology needed to make them. The bigger problem was that they are pretty unstable, but the existance of fly by wire has all but solved this. The much bigger issue is that it's quite a departure from traditional airplane design. You essentially need to build up an entirely new production line. And so far, it simply hasn't been worth it for most applications. That said, since stealth design is the new meta, i'd say it's only a matter of time until flying wings become a lot more common. Once military aviation has worked out all the kinks, civil aviation is probably soon to follow. Afterall, airlines will spend billions to achieve a 1% reduction in drag. An entirely new aircraft design that blows the efficiency of anything flying today out of the water would result in a Dreadnought effect.

[@michaelold6695]

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.

[@AntonyTurner14]

Love those quirky ideas folks had.

[@Tara-xp6ki]

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

[@Brommear]

I suppose that the winglets were there to stop the cockpit rotating?

[@SawdEndymon]

I love this channel.

[@cyberfutur5000]

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

[@bigblue6917]

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

[@alm5992]

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!

[@albertwolanski7688]

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?

[@captain_commenter8796]

Most sane B&V aircraft proposal:

[@AsymptoteInverse]

That weird circumferential propeller is DEFINITELY the kind of thing I would've drawn on a plane as a kid.

[@peterwassink]

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

[@Red-rl1xx]

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

[@docstahl]

love the closing comments

[@rofl0rblades]

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.

[@StuartH922]

11:21 Looks very A10.

[@shannonkohl68]

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.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

The SPAD A.1 of WWI had the gunner in a "pulpit" in front of the engine. It wasn't as unsafe as its general reputation but the prop efficiency was horrible. If you disturb the air in front of or behind the prop you don't lose too much but disturb the air in front and behind and it just doesn't work.

[@sakkra93]

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

[@DuelingBongos]

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!

[@chris_hisss]

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.

[@selfdo]

The Soviet Il-2 Sturmovik was also shot down in droves despite its deserved nickname, "The Flying Tank". America never deployed a purpose-built ground attack aircraft in any significant numbers, but the P-47 "Thunderbolt " proved very good in that role, and it could take care of itself against enemy fighters.

[@russkinter3000]

Gotta wonder if the Luftwaffe high command had a running bet on what B & V would come up with next.

[@AxelPoliti]

Very instructive. Thanks

[@mattwilliams3456]

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.

[@subpilot1000]

Does that cockpit and nose configuration look familiar much?... A10 Warthog perhaps?

[@justineast1539]

the forward wings could also be there to break up the air flow as it approaches the air intake for the radiators so to create less drag, basically making the air flow more over the wing and not straight into an opening. Plus the structural strenghtening

[@fredtedstedman]

I think she looks great , very cutting edge !

[@gusloader123]

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.

[@janmale7767]

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

[@306champion]

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

[@williamsoltes1658]

I had a thought. Is it possible that the strange canards on the front of the aircraft could have been there to house the ammo belts for the two MG 151 20 mm cannons in the nose?

[@m0rvidusm0rvidus18]

Their designs, whether hit or miss, are just evidence of the radical and abstract creativity that sets Europeans apart. People can mock some of these designs all they want, but thinking outside of established models and patterns is what creates innovation.

[@patricklemire9278]

We have too many pilots bailing out too soon. Sorted.

[@moistmike4150]

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

[@2150dalek]

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.

[@angry_zergling]

Haha I love B&V. They're just so nutty you wouldn't believe they're real designs half the time.

[@Astrawboy_NameAlreadyInUse]

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.

[@CraigCholar]

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

[@johncartwright8154]

Similar configuration was tried in the previous World War with poor or disastrous results. The last airframe featured; was that the inspiration for the wonderful A-10? Certainly resembles it!

[@Ryzard]

I like to think that B&V were time travellers that realized "hey, killing hitler would probably butterfly effect us out of the timeline, huh?" So they just took a bunch of their childhood drawings and started designing planes in germany for funzies

[@Flies2FLL]

Nobody was more creative than German aeronautical engineers in WWII- The ONLY advantage of this heavy design that I can possibly see is if they can put the propellors in disc or even reverse during a dive. Either would stall the propellors, causing all sorts of yawing, making precision bombing difficult. This was a fascinating flight of fancy- The forward fuselage would HAVE to be connected to the engine, This raises questions. One has to wonder if these "wonder weapons" were not serious, but designed to appease Hitler-

[@33vortex]

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.

[@WorkerDroid]

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

[@Make-Asylums-Great-Again]

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 .

[@ericholder2026]

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

[@dukeofwar1003]

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.

[@combtkid]

You wouldn't want to have to bail out of this crate unless you wanted to end up as a plate of sliced salami

[@airplayn]

I would assume the front struts kept the cockpit from shaking apart and spinning opposite to the engine torque! Dive brakes or flaps that far forward would result in horrible stability issues, such as flipping ass forward! I would assume the vertical stabilizers woulds have explosive bolts for wheel up landing and bailing out!

[@michaelogden5958]

Those guys (B&V) came up with some stuff that, had we been so motivated, would have befitted any number of herbal-influenced "ideas" that my buds and I might have entertained during our college (mid-70s) days.

[@gener-all5177]

The front mini wings appear to be for support the nose because the inner propeller doesn't gives were to attach it to the main body. Regards from Venezuela

[@grahvis]

I am reminded of the BE.9 of WW1, that for various reasons, went nowhere.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

Thanks for that, I couldn't remember the name of it. The one with the open gunner's position with the prop right behind his head.

[@ikr9358]

It seems like these guys just positioned the systems in random places. "Hey, we haven't tried putting the propeller in the 'middle' of the plane yet!"

[@comentedonakeyboard]

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

[@stephenkneller6435]

It makes me wonder if this BV design influenced the RFB Fantrainer.

[@lqr824]

11:16 The thing I totally do not get on this plane is: with the engine in back, YTF aren't the 30mm's in the main chassis so that they can be used at any range? Putting them that far out on the wing means only a single range will converge.

[@personman8404]

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

[@ashifabedin]

i love Blohm & Voss' stufff

[@johnking1896]

B & V were good at building ships, I say it would be better to have a twin engine design so the prop is not an issue when aiming at ground targets. The 110 was a starting place with many directions to go.

[@stevenmccormick9918]

Just me, or does this thing look like an A-10 just a little bit? Especially the redesign with the pusher prop.

[@michaelperry4308]

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.

[@panther105]

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