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

[@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..."

[@lancaster5077]

Let's make something really impractical.

[@spacecactus2788]

blohm und voss is the kel-tec of ww2 aircraft

[@M0b1us_118]

I’d love to see what B&V would come up with if they were dropped into the Ace Combat universe.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@unclenogbad1509]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@r3ynolds_ow581]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@MattnessLP]

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

[@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

[@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

[@PunkinsSan]

Thanks for next bizarre B&V 🎉🎉🎉

[@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.

[@Seadog..C5]

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..C5]

@@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 🤔

[@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.

[@anyone-f2r]

And definitely lighting farts.

[@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 !

[@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?

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@AcroAirwolf]

Nice video, thanks. The front wing of the P.192 might add additional lift, so that the main wing can be made smaller in size (wingspan and wing area). This would reduce the drag and rise up the speed. That´s why the Piaggio Avanti has a similar layout. Its wing on the nose is mixed with the flaps, it´s not a canard wing with elevator control. Maybe on the P.192 it was similar. Further it allows to move the CG more to the front so heavy guns can be fitted inside the nose. P.193: The rudder on the lower side of the fuselage has the advantage that the rolling moment it causes moves the plane to the according side. On a conventional tailplane the rudder input causes a rolling moment to the opposite side (in counter direction of the yaw movement).

[@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!

[@AntonyTurner14]

Love those quirky ideas folks had.

[@Red-rl1xx]

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

[@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.

[@AxelPoliti]

Very instructive. Thanks

[@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.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@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!

[@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.

[@dongordon9378]

If you look, you’ll see that the front of the fuselage was essentially a freestanding structure. I believe that the structural support between the wing mounted guns, was designed to add rigidity to that section of the fuselage as the propeller behind it would’ve limited the structural support. However, I would also assume that they would’ve acted as canards improving the angle of attack management of the plane and probably could help increasing the ability to pull out of a dive.

[@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!

[@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.

[@tmutant]

Blohm & Voss always thought outside the box.

[@Bluecedor]

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

[@tlum4081]

What box?😀

[@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

[@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! 😆

[@janmale7767]

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

[@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? 🤔

[@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.

[@forgivemenot1]

2 cannons in the nose, alright, so where does the ejections of the shell casing go, though the props?

[@Aahmpower]

Good question

[@RemusKingOfRome]

That prop in the middle of the fusilage is a good idea as the inner part of any prop produces little forward thrust, just enough to cool a radial engine, maybe ?

[@williamzk9083]

The design was to use either the Jumo 213 or DB603 engine. 2000hp class V12s.

[@docstahl]

love the closing comments

[@Tara-xp6ki]

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

[@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?

[@peterwassink]

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

[@jvc6489]

That is bez dez castle at the 1:44 mark behind the Ju 87?

[@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.

[@JustinEastTheWerkmeisterDragon]

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

[@marcwilke2521]

Arming a ground attacker with MK 108 seem to be a strange choice. Any idea why they would choose that gun instead of the MK 103?

[@kevinoliver3083]

The barrel length of the wing guns suggests that they were Mk 103. Not Mk 108. The greater muzzle velocity compared to the Mk 108 would certainly make the Mk 103 a better choice for ground attack against AFV.

[@Cerby1365]

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

[@Brommear]

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

[@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

[@subpilot1000]

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

[@306champion]

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

[@Deebz270]

5:37 - No... Lol.... The 'canard-struts' are not 'dive brakes or flaps. B&V wind-tunnel testing would likely show that they would have little effect on dive speed due to their small surface area. Moreover, if these structures were rotatable, which they would have to be to offer any kind of air resistance - as dive brakes, then their placement would hamper airflow to the coolant radiator situated directly behind. The 'canard-struts' are there to support the cockpit, given that there would be very little structural support forward of the propeller boss. This is actually a very good design, though any damage to the prop itself might prove disastrous for the cockpit and its occupant. Also 'bailing-out' might prove awkward, if the means of egress was the conventional - open canopy - method. A hatch in the cockpit floor, that allowed the seat and pilot to drop out of the bottom of the cockpit might prove a safer option.

[@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.

[@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.

[@stephenhood2948]

Do you know if the forward winglets?/Canards were intended to be rotatable??

[@johnbuchman4854]

Where is the model kit available?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@rodbrown8306]

That 2nd one looked a bit like the A10 Warthog's predecessor to me, pretty cool looking stuff, they could've been on the right track.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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 .

[@squiremc]

Thank you for using the term 'large caliber'. So many pretend historians still use the term 'high calibre' demonstrating their ignorance of ballistics. I have unsubbed from them all. I have faith in your accuracy and precision in your diction. Subbed.

[@Steven-p4j]

I would really appreciate an explanation of this automatic pull-up feature What principle did it use, such as pressure sensor, or a manual setting prior to diving etc.

[@allangibson8494]

The Ju87 used a gyro autopilot with altitude lock to recover the aircraft to straight and level at 5000ft altitude.

[@fredtedstedman]

I think she looks great , very cutting edge !

[@bertrand64delage6]

tres sympa comme concept

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@3d1e00]

Not sure you want dive brakes before the prop? You could stall your prop? Would this not be a tunnel vision attempt at improving pilot visibility for ground attack?

[@gort8203]

Those were not dive brakes.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@iffracem]

Apart from the engineering issue of that prop placement (not insurmountable.. but added complication for sure) The big issue I see is how does the pilot escape if they have to bail? With a "normal" pusher at the tail there is some chance, especially if the prop is discarded with explosive bolts. But with the prop so close to the pilot seat? Even a decent ejector seat of the time would have problems clearing it. There was method in the "madness" of BV's asymmetrical designs, they were an attempt to overcome the problems of "P factor" (the tendency of an aircraft with a propeller to yaw when pitched up or down) along with the spiral airflow from the prop impacting with the wings, tail plane and fin/rudder. Conventional designs used simple trim adjustments, or offset fins and similar to counteract it partially, with some effect on performance. The asymmetrical design had very little performance penalty. I think eventually contra rotating props largely solved the problem of P factor with the massively powerful piston engines at the close of the war and the centripetal effect of the huge propellors they turned. (Merlin went from around 750 hp at it's conception to well over 2100hp at the end) Jets of course got rid of the issue entirely.

[@williamzk9083]

The Germans had ejection seats. In fact their ejection seat program started before 1939 as a way to support bail out from dive bombers.

[@user-bv1wt7zx4s]

Thank you!

[@stevenmattson3164]

Those smaller wings would also have to carry all of the wiring, engine and control surface controls. Unless they could have squeezed that all through the propeller hub/driveshaft.

[@FlorinSutu]

The Germans also designed a dive bomber with jet engine. It had a single jet in the upper part of the frame, but unlike He-162, the engine was blended/included in the body. About 2...3 full size prototypes were in very advanced manufacturing stage. That factory fell in the Soviet occupation zine. The Soviets moved the unfinished prototypes to Soviet Union, then finished completely one of them and tested it.

[@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.

[@BV-fr8bf]

For a conventional Blohm&Voss design, try the Battleship Bismarck!

[@CraigCholar]

The ship and airplane divisions were apparently vibing as polar opposites.

[@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!

[@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

[@russkinter3000]

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

[@stevenmccormick9918]

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

[@TallDude73]

What would the undercarriage/landing gear look like on the P192? The landing gear would have to be pretty tall to avoid the propeller striking the ground.

[@kimrnhof107]

I think the canard like things - gave structural stiffness to the cockpit sector as the propeller rotating around behind the cockpit wold have weakened the front cockpit sector - and you could rute wires and through them to.

[@SMDoktorPepper]

It would be interesting to see if such a design would be practical, or even airworthy.

[@AsymptoteInverse]

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