Germany's Absurdly Asymmetric Seaplane: Blohm & Voss P 111

[@the_unrepentant_anarchist.]

Aah Blohm & Voss- the 'crazy uncle who never gets invited over at Christmas' of aircraft design... 🍄

[@mattwilliams3456]

Blohm & Voss is the Keltec of the seaplane world.

[@enalb5085]

lmao seems like you're right

[@TCW838]

😁😂

[@harveywallbanger3123]

B&V: Baffling & Vexing

[@matthewmillar3804]

😂😂😂

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

Best RM reply to B&V. “Just because you can doesn't mean you should.”

[@jonmcgee6987]

It makes you think these guys were competing with Blackburn to see who could come up with the weirdest designs.

[@williamzk9083]

Richard Vogts asymmetric designs harnessed these forces rather than pretend the aircraft was symmetrical. 1 Circulation of the airflow of a propeller which will make one wing stall ahead of another and load it more due to toque. It will effect the tail. Aircraft often have an extended wing span on one wing, stall strips on one side, canted fins and canted engines. 2 P-Factor. A propeller when the aircraft has a high angle of attack will have one blade at higher angled of attack than the other causing it to veer. 3 Gyroscopic precession means that a clockwise rotating prop (from rear) will swing to the right when the aircraft pitches up etc.

[@exharkhun5605]

Ha ha! You get the impression that B&V were just working up the courage to name one of their planes the Blohm & Voss Blohm & Voss just like Blackburn did with the Blackburn Blackburn.

[@itowmyhome797]

Thank you for keeping all measurements in metric, we wouldn’t want the savages to understand what you’re talking about

[@michaeldy3157]

the russians use the metric system. And they butcher children .

[@thisisnev]

Thanks for covering this obscure design! You're falling into the same trap as the RLM did with the Bv141, though - blinkered by conventional thinking ("if it looks right, it is right"). Richard Vogt thought outside the box, and was a meticulous engineer. The Bv141's shape was dictated by the specification, which demanded excellent all-round visibility but also a single engine, and I suspect a good field of vision was also responsible for the P.111, whose primary role was maritime reconnaissance. As for weight distribution, the Bv141 had no centre-of-gravity problems which is why it handled so well; I'm sure Vogt was equally meticulous in the design of the P.111. Having the rudder offset doesn't have a major impact, aerodynamically, as it only controls yaw. (The Bv141B's elevator was moved to the outside edge of the tailboom, remember, and worked just fine.) Incidentally, his use of a single tubular spar was inspired - in the Bv138 it acted as a fuel tank, in the Bv238 it provided engineer access to the engines and in the Bv144 airliner the wing pivoted around it to provide extra lift for take-off and landing. He was also responsible for designing the winglets that all modern airliners now feature.

[@williamzk9083]

Richard Vogts asymmetric designs are ridiculed but this is a bad thing and will only come from those that don't understand aerodynamics. His designs handled well. Propeller aircraft intrinsically are asymmetric because of the following factors: 1 Circulation of the airflow of a propeller which will make one wing stall ahead of another and load it more. It will effect the tail. Aircraft often have an extended wing span on one wing, stall strips on one side, canted fins and canted engines. 2 P-Factor a propeller when the aircraft has a high angle of attack will have one blade at higher angled of attack than the other causing it to veer. 3 Gyroscopic precession means that a clockwise rotating prop (from rear) will swing to the right when the aircraft pitches up etc. Vogt harnessed these forces rather than pretend the aircraft was symmetrical.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

According to Eric Brown, RN, who test-flew the Bv141B, it had no vices, and the idea of flying with the wings held more or less vertically when getting attacked seemed to work as well (the idea was to give the rear gunner a better field of fire). His test flight was short as the engine seized up during the flight.

[@stephengardiner9867]

What a great 1/48 scale kit this beast would be! I believe that there was a 1/48 resin kit of the BV 138 but it is a VERY rare (and expensive) kit indeed!

[@enalb5085]

all the cool shit is hard to find and expensive

[@onieyoh9478]

Maybe one of the RC airplane channels would build one if asked?

[@PunkinsSan]

These ridiculous planes are great ideas for flitetest 😂😂😂

[@budgiefriend]

Fits like a glove.

[@fredbecker607]

Let's make it happen. Everyone forward the link.

[@no-legjohnny3691]

At this point, I'm convinced Blohm & Voss' CEOs Rudolf and Walther, in true brotherly fashion, made a bet to see who could design the most ludicrous air aircraft and have it officially accepted into government service.

[@unclenogbad1509]

Thanks for another B&M obscurity. Vogt was a genius - and a brilliant, meticulous designer - who had a big interest in exploring the wider possibilities of aerodynamics, and pushing the whole field forward. For all it's strange looks, my guess is that if Vogt designed, it would probably fly perfectly well. Maybe I wouldn't want be the test pilot, though. I've also got a sneaking suspicion that, though not a nazi himself, he had the measure of the Nazi party leadership. They were, generally speaking, ignorant when it came to science and engineering, but much in love with anything shiny new and distinctive. Hence, putting these 'mad' designs before the high command would get enough interest and traction to fund development, even if actual production was unlikely. That way, Vogt could try out and test his advanced ideas and experimental concepts, while remaining independent and avoiding being swallowed up by the ministry or other manufacturers. As I say, it's speculation. Time I read up a bit more about him. Suggestions?

[@Spawn-td8bf]

I have always loved the " out there " designs and Blohm & Voss was , in my opinion, the " most out there " designers out there, especially the BV 170, though I really wonder about the field of vision, what with the cockpit fighting for space with the tail assembly. I imagine take off and landing would have been a nightmare. Thank you for keeping the weird alive. Take care, Paul from Florida.

[@CarcharothQuijadasdelased]

I made the BV P.111 on KSP a while ago. The game trims the aerodynamic surfaces in real time, so pulling up actually pulls up. The ratio and relationship of the control surfaces would had to be established in the real plane too.

[@glitchedmatrix55]

How did it handle?

[@CarcharothQuijadasdelased]

@@glitchedmatrix55 It flew no problem, BUT it had overpowered engines and KSP automatically moves all aerodynamic surfaces in the correct way to stabilize you... I made a video (very old, bandicam watermark included), and my pc wasn't able to really move KSP so I was forced to use a low parts count and the general design concept (distribution, number of engines, shape...). Just compare my last video "Antonov AN-70" final result with the BV P.111 XD, the BV looks like megablocks trash made by a 3yr old XD

[@tauncfester3022]

Might be interesting to port this into Flightgear I've got the BV-138 in Flightgear with the 600 HP Jumos. It's water handling is pretty good and it's also adept at flying.

[@guaporeturns9472]

A game😂😂😂😂

[@CarcharothQuijadasdelased]

​@@guaporeturns9472 Yep, I would like to build models (regular foam, not wood or carbon fiber level), fly them, ... like FliteTest, PeterSripol, rctestflight, ... but I don't have the money nor the space to fly them, so my only choice is a very basic low level "simulation" on Kerbal Space Program 😭

[@ashifabedin]

Blohm & Voss never let us down

[@kevinoliver3083]

The BV138's ventral gun mount was not included in the original design. It was added at the Luftwaffe's request to compensate for the restricted field of fire of the rear turret.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

Why did the no.2 engine have a 4-bladed prop?

[@thisisnev]

@@PORRRIDGE_GUN IIRC, a three-bladed central prop caused vibration problems.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

@@thisisnev That mkes sense. I can imagine that at certain revolutions it could be quite uncomfortable, even nausea inducing for the crew.

[@tauncfester3022]

A ventral gun mount would be a little hard to implement on a seaplane hull, I think you mean dorsal turret.

[@kevinmarsden4750]

Burt Rutan gave it a go with the 202 Boomerang ....

[@billy4072]

The thought of all those flying control and engine control bellcranks alone has given me a rash. Lol

[@draconian6692]

Love blohm and voss

[@lancerevell5979]

Wiki says of Blohm & Voss.... "Blohm+Voss (B+V), also written historically as Blohm & Voss, Blohm und Voß etc., is a German shipbuilding and engineering company. Founded in Hamburg in 1877 to specialise in steel-hulled ships, its most famous product was the World War II battleship Bismarck."

[@ArfurFaulkesHake]

This is because the aircraft production was done by the Hamburger Flugzeugbau GmbH (HBF) which was founded as a subsidiary of Blohm & Voss, to keep it seperated from the ship building parts of the operation. You'll find Wikipedia entries for them.

[@trevormillar1576]

I thought the P.170 was barking mad. This thing is HOWLING AT THE MOON INSANE!

[@VictorLonmo]

Regarding weight distribution, any cargo is likely to be stored in the main body of the aircraft. Thus adding or removing cargo will move the center of gravity. A small sideways change in weight distribution is something that pilot can probably deal with however a more conventional design would be simpler. I am not a pilot but one of my concerns with an airplane like this would be landing on water... Which ever pontoon contacts the water first will experience a substantial force opposite the movement of the airplane. Since the airplane is not symmetric this will try to turn the airplane. It might work but it would be simpler to choose a symmetric design.

[@timbrwolf1121]

As far as water handling goes we have examples. Catamarans often use a very similar hull design. I imagine it would be fairly stable on the water.

[@Pystro]

On the asymmetry: There's 6 factors to consider, of which you mention only 2. As mentioned at 8:33, you first have the issue of the weight distribution between the two sides being (possibly) different. To me, the configuration seems to be _roughly_ balanced, though. Keep in mind that the singular float is under the left wing, and consider that the tail boom is much further from the center of lift than the middle engine and fuselage.) 2: The thrust is distributed asymmetrically, shifted towards the left. 3: The offset tail (specifically the horizontal and vertical stabilizers) will cause a greater drag on the left side. This seems to be compensating or over-compensating the asymmetrical thrust, though. 4: The fin is off-center and it isn't immediately intuitive that this wouldn't yaw the plane in flight. However, this is not a problem. How the moments that are generated by the vertical stabilizer act on the plane is only determined by its forwards/backwards and up/down positioning, and completely independent of it's left/right positioning. 5: As you mention at 9:12, the control surfaces on the tail are offset to the left, so applying yaw _or pitch_ will increase the drag on the left side, yawing it to the left. So yes, it would yaw more easily to the left than to the right, unless you applied some non-linear transformation to the inputs to counter this effect. 6A: The elevators are offset to the left (unless you only put one into the right half of the tail). Applying up pitch will roll the plane to the left and down pitch will roll the plane to the right. Even worse, this effect would be non-linear because it mixes with the quadratic perturbation mentioned in point (5) above, AND once you let go, you might experience a time-lagged effect in the opposite direction. 6B: Similarly, with the horizontal stabilizers being shifted left, rolling to the left might pitch you down and rolling to the right might pitch you up (although probably to a lesser degree). It _might_ be possible to counter the linear and immediate parts of these effects by mixing the elevators and aileron inputs (which can be done mechanically). In the worst case it could make the plane buck like a bull when you apply any controls, in the best case it can be largely cancelled mechanically and the remainder will be compensated for by the pilot developing a feel for the plane. With the positioning of the - left engine and tail - middle engine - hull and - right engine you have 4 degrees of freedom in the design. This can theoretically compensate for 4 balance factors, but the result would be forced to be a symmetrical plane. Thus you can effectively balance 3 forces (or sets of forces), without adding trim ballast. For example points (1) weight; (2) thrust vs (3) drag; plus one more. So yes, it should theoretically be possible to properly balance the plane (for straight flight). I don't know enough about WW2-era plane design technology to say if it would have been possible without re-drawing the plans after each prototype.

[@andrewpease3688]

I see that you have given the aerodynamic factors a lot of thought.Now imagine what would happen when one of those asymmetric hulls inevitably touches down fractionally earlier than the other or hits a wave that affects the other slightly less

[@benx6264]

I swear if I as a multi-millionaire with money to burn I'd be funding an aircraft manufacturing plant, just to turn out some of these old weird designs to see how (or if) they flew

[@qmt1610]

Honestly that's how older aircraft started to take flight i believe. Some rich mfs actually interested in seeing some prototypes fly so they put in money for the bitches to designed some then fly. In some case, those rich mfs are the government.

[@sim.frischh9781]

Blohm had a think for asymmetrical designs, and weight never seemed to be a problem with any of them. He actually made a scout plane that was complimented for being excellent to fly despite being horribly asymmetrical as well. So your worries can be considered as covered. Check out the BV 141!

[@eivindlunde7772]

I think another point on the "pro" side would be that it brought the third engine down to the wing level, and thereby would increase lift compared to the BV 138 design. Being based so heavily on the previous design would have made it both quicker and much less expensive to put into production as well.

[@aykutdogan2158]

Consider this: What the idea behind it? Being able to gain maneuverability as soon as possible at take off - reduced range of take off - being a coast/river/estuary night-fighter/observer

[@trevormillar1576]

"Oh mein Gott, Blohm und Voss have come up with another flugzeug design!" "Ja, they really ought to stop taking the funny mushrooms!"

[@giorgiotoso1039]

I think you do no want to underestimate Herr Vogt. He was a brilliant aerodynamicist, and many of his designs, wierd or not, performed quite well. Some were built, other did not quite get there., although some were later built as models (e.g. B v215), and fly quite nicely. Later in is life, in the USA, he helped developed the winglet. So, maybe he was joking with the P111, or maybe he was not...

[@AxelPoliti]

Suggestion: pronounce Blohm und Foss. It is easy and accurate. Best

[@mochabear88]

ty loved this

[@jacinthorvath1962]

The day IHYLS makes a bad video is the day i start flying. Keep up the great work ❤

[@driftertank]

I feel like this plane would have had one hell of a roll couple...with the pitch controls so far off from the aircraft centerline, any pitch input would have probably needed an associated roll correction.

[@michaelgarrow3239]

Model 202 Boomerang is an aircraft designed and built by Burt Rutan…

[@raymondromanos1479]

Good video. Some tips in pronouncing German, though. Blohm is pronounced like home. Voss is like Foss. The V = F Voigt is pronounced Fohkt, the O being like in home. Luftwaffe is looftvaffeh, W = V Or use pronunciation guides. It would make your videos sound all the more professional. Cheers!

[@YouTube_user3333]

English language doesn’t have a German accent. That’s why the pronunciation is the way it is.

i ❤ IHYLS's videos

[@matthewbittenbender9191]

Makes me think that Blogm and Voss were both fans of Dr. Seuss.

[@nullterm]

It’s the “Well, if it isn't my old friend Mr. McGreg, with a leg for an arm and an arm for a leg!” of aircraft.

[@HotelPapa100]

Weight distribution could certainly be managed simply by shifting components around, without adding dead weight. Yaw control is not really a concern, as there is no serious asymmetry concerning the affected axis experienced. There is some resistance associated with a rudder deflection; that would create an asymmetry, but the lift component out of axis does not really affect the result around the vertical axis. What would be a concern is pitch input, though. Every deflection of the elevator would also give a roll input, which would have to be compensatied by aileron.

[@garetz2011]

My family is german, but I must recognize... germans have some kind of problem. I recall something I heard on an episode of Southpark "Genetic engineering exists to fix mother nature's mistakes, like the German people!". I learned a lot about the StG44 playing world of guns... lots of torsion springs and spacers on its lockwork. Germans are nuts.

[@tauncfester3022]

What the author of this hit piece is ignoring is that; both the BV 141 and the BV138 were successful in their assigned roles. Just because they look weird doesn't mean there wasn't a bit of genius in their design and their ability to complete tasks. The P-111 is just another way to assemble a trio of Jumo 205C aero-Diesels around a much better aerodynamically, higher aspect wing planform. Since this, like their other Luft'46 designs were largely just on paper, they never really got to prove their worth, so this video is a bit specious.

[@randytolle6706]

I once heard a German say "What is looking good is flying good." Just had to share that.

[@TinyBearTim]

I’m genuinely convinced half the companies were just making some bs to not get sent to Russia

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Probably yes.

[@TinyBearTim]

@@comentedonakeyboard and I still don’t understand how nobody went to any of them why tf are you doing this stupid shit at any point

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

🤔 dunno bubba. The tail boom would have to be between the fuselage & inboard starboard (port depending on negative reversal) engine to ease stress loads when directional changes were needed...IMO.

[@Cavethug]

If the goal here is to make a plane with a wider field of fire in the rear, which appears to be the primary purpose, then why not eliminate the booms entirely, lengthen the fusilage, and then putting the stabilizers (tail) ahead of the gunners position? Then you'd have an even better field of fire, and a far more practical plane. That would just be my design solution.

[@LarsAgerbk]

Nothing beats German WW2 planes

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Except for greater numbers😂

[@LarsAgerbk]

lol@@comentedonakeyboard

[@danielknauss5019]

This thing could have been a killer air support platform with that field of fire sideways. It could have been outfitted like a WW2 AC-130 with a big gun and machine guns in the back to destroy lightly armored ground targets.

[@engi.2]

Im suprised you didnt consider the effect pitching would have on the yaw or roll due to the placement of the elevators

[@owenlaprath4135]

For several reasons, propellers cause asymmetric thrust, which needs to be compensated by counter "steering". Trimming with controls always introduces drag! If you design an aeroplane with that in mind, and account for this asymmetric thrust, you end up with a more efficient design, which wastes no power, has better performance, and better fuel economy. The approach never caught on, due to conservative thinking in most makers, just like it took 50 years for winglets to finally become standard, or several years for swept back wings! I also doubt we will see lifting body designs any time soon, which would be superior in many ways that have been known of for a century! In the end, most modern airliners and military craft are now built with jet engines (which have no asymmetric thrust problem), and the turbo-prop machines are now being introduced with counter-rotating props on several engines that cancel any asymmetry, like the Airbus A400M Atlas, so the problem went away for larger aeroplanes. The market for smaller prop aircraft is limited, with very few new designs appearing in a segment that uses many used airframes, relying on the tried and proven, and with next to no R&D funding capabilities.

[@gryfandjane]

This would be a good project for an RC modeler.

[@gdutfulkbhh7537]

Saving resources... but also less drag, presumably (less floats and tailfeathers). Unless constantly correcting via control surfaces, because you’re desperately asymmetric. Hmm... fuel management is going to be “fun”.

[@danmcdonald9117]

Imagine trying to "Roll" that thing

[@lithobreak3812]

I wonder if that 3rd engine in the is the main reason for this design, in the bv 138 it is mounted in an unusual place (on top of the fuselage) and ended up requiring a 4 blade propeller, something the germans rarely used, maybe BV designers were forced to use 3 engines instead of 2 because they were forced to use weak diesel engines but the central engine was undesirable, so maybe this whole design was an attempt to keep all 3 engines on the wings, and the off center tail was just a necessity to that end

[@scratchy996]

Blohm & Voss designed weird stuff, because hey, why not ?

[@trevormillar1576]

This thing makes the Airspeed 31 look sensible by comparison.

[@Pijawek]

Soviet pilots used to say, that the name LaGG stands for akirowannyj garantirowannyj grob - varnished guaranteed coffin.

[@tankertom3243]

Asymmetry is no different than a two engine aircraft loosing one engine in flight. The BV-141 flew very well and had unobstructed view to the right, perfect for a reconnaissance aircraft.

[@mandoprince1]

Would perhaps make an interesting project for a radio control model enthusiast?🤔

[@roberthuntley1090]

That's radical, I didn't realise something so asymmetric was considered. Having said that, I've often wondered if more conventional propeller driven craft were slightly asymmetric, with the propeller torque acting in a known direction, would it make sense for one wing to give slightly more lift than the other when neutrally trimmed (say just enough to counter the mid-throttle torque). Was this ever considered?

[@gerennichols6075]

The direction of the rotation of the propellers causes torque and it cause the prop was either to the right above the wing and to the left blow the wing (if the rotation is counter clockwise when looked at from the front) or the opposites if the rotation is the opposite. Ideally engines would have counter rotating propellers as that would balance everything but counterrotating propellers is apparently a bitch to get to work, the gearing is heavy and appaerntly likes to shake itself apart so you do not get that until the 60's aand then only on the Soviet/Russian Bears and som truboprop military heavy lifters. You did get some multi-engine planes that had 1 counterclockwise engine aand one clockwise which balanced the torque notably the P-38. But most multi-engined planes had all engines rotating the same direction which meant that one wing was being lifted aand the other pushed down from torque. This was compensated by adjusting the aileron trim. But if the plane was slightly asymmetric careful weight placement could make neutral trim, which is more efficient, possible. The other issue , and the one that screams look at me, is the tail placement. At low speed the tail is much more efficient if it is directly in the propeller was. The propeller wash, which is above the wing, is not directly behind the propeller but is either left or right of it depending on propeller rotation. Is the propeller above the wing moving left to right or right to left. If the propellers on the model above move right to left above the wing than the central engine prop was should hit the tail; if it goes the other way then all of the propellers miss thus certainly the former is the way that the propeller rotation would be. That would also lift the right wing due to torque. From the photo at 2:00 the BVV 138 propellers rotate opposite but with a different engine and reduction gear the 110 presumably could be set right for weight balance and propeller force on the single tail..

[@fallingwater]

10:13 I don't know how you missed it - it being the second YT result for "rc blohm voss 111" - but there is at least one flying model of it in Italy. Or there was, anyway, since that video is 13 years old. Check out video VWebOqocMZY - seems to fly fine. There's another video of someone making another 111, but unfortunately all they posted is making the wing. Oddly, they too are Italian.

[@kylegoldston]

The only negative I can see, other than the odd looks is a higher amount of torsional loading of the wing center section, between the fuselage and tail boom.

[@mathewkelly9968]

The B&V 138 was a fine rugged and useful design .......... This thing is " logic and proportion fallen floppy dead " to quote Jefferson Airplane

[@geekpoet7443]

Blohm & Voss had a lot of brilliant engineers and a lot of time to design amazing unorthodox aircraft. In my opinion, it's foolish to think they were wasting their time. Instead I believe that they were pushing the limits of what was possible. I have a brilliant book that I purchased years ago from Europe that shows most of the experimental aircraft designs coming out of Germany during WW2. What I learned is that the allies were no where close to matching German engineering. Had the war gone on for another 5 years, it's possible that the Germans might have won or at least negotiated a peace treaty where some countries may no longer exist

[@flatcapfiddle]

Ah the Crazy World of B&V

[@alm5992]

The only way I could make one of these is by sitting them on a single point of pivot to test the balance constantly, while creating the asymmetry; obviously being able to lock it.

[@trevormillar1576]

But you want to see REALLY mad, see the British Airspeed AS-31. When three Air Marshalls saw a model, they ran down the street shouting,"Help! Police! Escaped looneys!"

[@emanemanrus5835]

B&V had alien technology knowledge or they were hippies (LSD) 😁

[@BV-fr8bf]

Those Germans are chemists!

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Looks like the offset pitch and yaw control surfaces could induce some “interesting” handling effects.

[@inyobill]

Opening shot: Linbergh Field, San Diego!

[@bigblue6917]

Am I the only one that believes that Blohm & Voss never got the book about how to design an aircraft. Not that I'm complaining.

[@colintwyning9614]

The Bonkers 111. There must be a reason (over all) why they did this surely. Great salesmanship ? we have this or something wierder 😅

[@rogerreimer6787]

We have the Boomerang by Rutan as a modern days off set plane

[@FallNorth]

I see Blohm and Voss are still going. Has anyone considered that they came up with all these asymetric designs to appeal to Hitler ... what with him only having one ball? :)

[@leifvejby8023]

:-D

[@MrJdsenior]

I can see where those designs with the motors on the front of low frontal area booms would be at least slightly more efficient, just due to less redirection of propwash. The truly screwy looking asymetrical would have some not insignificant roll induction with elevator pitch force, unless you somehow put some coupled differential countering ailerons in the linkage. Personally, it looks like a really foolish answer to a design specification. I would hope that the gunners did not have to 'be careful' about hitting their own plane. If there weren't lockouts where structure was in the line of fire, they DESERVED to have their own planes shot up, by not even friendly fire, but self generated fire. Basically shooting yourself in the foot, figuratively.

[@jamielacourse7578]

Germanys problem was they couldn't just PICK ONE......of anything. Look at the T-34 and you'll see my point.

[@whackedoutpoobrain]

0:40 Worse? More like better!

[@Faelen_furry]

11:50 Imagine he made the 138 for the government to prefer the 111 x)

[@gitfoad8032]

Surprised to hear they made it. 0:30 ...

[@erikvan9582]

Wouldn't this be better if this was a flying wing instead of a single tail/boom design?(I have no clue about aeronautical engineering by the way)

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

How was this their fallback?! Oh u didnt like my plane? what if I shuffle the parts?

[@RemusKingOfRome]

" ..Wish it in the Corn field ! ..WISH IT IN THE CORN FIELD !!! ...AAuughhh ! "

[@herbertbielefelder341]

Did I hear "Luftwaffle" ?😅

[@steffenrosmus9177]

Is it so hard to pronounce Blohm & Voss right?

[@jerrybailey5797]

If that Blohm and Voss P111 ever got of the ground or the sea I this case , l think it would be a miracle , that's taking aesemetric design to the next level

[@Faustrecht2010]

B&V the only company that made smoking pot while working mandatory ... or so it seems

[@Manuelslayor]

These planes look well yes but they where aerodynamically stable.

[@michaeldy3157]

Ship builders

[@kyle857]

I know the angle I would attack it from. Fighter pilots are not stupid.

[@ARockRaider]

looking at this thing makes me feel like im having a stroke or something. its ugly and really cool looking at the same time.

[@rontonkin7751]

Anyone built an RC model of a P111? Be fun to see it fly!

[@captainsensiblejr.]

Someone needs to build an RC model to see if it could fly.

[@tonyanderson-ln9gl]

Can't anyone see what B+V's intent was? It's so obvious! It's nearly impossible to aim and fire an AA gun while gasping for breath, convulsed with laughter. Seriously, though, thank you for showing us these strange and wonderful flying machines.

[@Jegcy]

I've lost brain cells

[@sharg0]

If I'm not misinformed landing on water is in itself already rather difficult doing it with asymmetric floats on purpose seem insane. I seriously doubt this was a serious idea.

[@thisisnev]

In flying boats, you take off and land on the main planing hull. The floats are really only there to keep the plane upright at low speeds and when it's stationary.

[@cosmic_cupcake]

​@@thisisnevit's probably not that simple when the main hull is offset from the center of mass though. some weight has to rest on the float

[@thisisnev]

@@cosmic_cupcake That weight is supported aerodynamically by the wing at take-off and landing speeds. It's what wings do.

[@cosmic_cupcake]

@@thisisnev yes, and if you're just slightly below takeoff speed that float is going to touch down and become load bearing.

[@michaelwebber4033]

I think the rudder effectiveness would have been off and probably unworkable.

[@32shumble]

They were only a couple of steps away from making a plane in the shape of a swastika!

[@deathsheadknight2137]

somebody fire up KSP and build this baby

[@BarrettSlimmer]

Balancing out fuel as it is consumed in a asymetrical design .

[@thejackal5099]

Time to load up Kerbal Space Program...

[@frederikhein4195]

If the P170 looks like a podracer, then this is a ww2 era b-wing

[@kidmohair8151]

well. if nothing else the thousand (12) year regime sure did foster some truly weird (most of them deeply flawed) humans.

[@liamoliverdarroch6482]

👍