Germany's Podracer-esque Bomber: Blohm & Voss P 170
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- In this video, we talk about the Blohm & Voss P 170 , a proposed schnellbomber (fast bomber) design that (I think) strongly resembles the podracers from Star Wars. We talk about what the general concept of schnellbombers were supposed to be. We also talk about potential advantages and disadvantages of the P 170's strange design and why it would never be accepted or made in any capacity. Finally, we take a guess at how the P 170 would have performed if it had been made.
We got free coffee at my work. I doubt that whatever Blohm & Voss offered their employees was legal even at the time...
Never heard of Pervitin?
Of course! And someone has access to herr gorbubbles stash !
More likely BEER.
Meth? It was issued to soldiers so I wouldn't be suprised
Bet they were on Pervitin or chocolate with methamphetamine
If Kelly Johnson had designed it, there would be semi-circular winglets outboard of the end nacelles...
If Jack Northrop had designed it, the fuselage would be shorter, cockpit forward, and the powerplants reversed to be pushers.
If Nikolai Polikarpov had designed it, he would have been ''reassigned'' to the Gulag.
>> hey! don"t knock the Gulag! they got some great work out of the crinimal Tovarischs!
@@grandcrowdadforde6127 Zeks, gulag prisoners - certainly "58s" political prisoners - were forbidden from addressing camp staff as "tovarisch" or referring to themselves as "Bolsheviks".
@@realhorrorshow8547 >> i was being sarcastic!
That's an honest way to put it. Give that one design to others and you got a different one from each designer
@grandcrowdadforde6127 why double space all the words? Makes you look like you got a stutter or something.
Got to admit Blohm and Vost built some fascinating weird planes 👍
@@jzsbff4801"Mustard". 😉
They were definitely creative, and most of their designs from "outside the box" actually worked.
G'day,
Designed, certainly..., and they built some
Oddball Concepts.
But they
Never
BUILT any
3-Engined
Semi-Tailless
(Schnell)
Bomber.
(bummer...).
The
MOST
Correct
Answer, was
Of
Course...;
The
DeHavilland
Mosquito...
Such is Life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Cutting edge... especially considering the year of development.
Gotta admit nazies though we're evil built cool stuff and we're snappy dressers
German engineers - "lets see, what kind of bomber platform and we produce that will be really different. Hold my beer while I show you my idea."
There's a game I used to play called Crimson Skies...one of the planes was called a Curtiss-Wright P2 Warhawk.
Amazingly similar!
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Cool game on PC. The X-Box-Game i have never played.
Llooks like Crimson Skies devs took all wacky aviation live ideas and put them into the game.
it is not the first airplain from the game I recognize
That was a brilliant game, I remember my sons playing it as kids.
That game is still my favourite game of all time. Everything about it was just awesome. Would pay serious money for a modern version... They also used Henschel's Hs P.75 as the secret fighter you steal in that one mission.
@@seanmccann83682:30 2:30 2:3 2:31
Oh, so that's what inspired that one Crimson Skies plane. I always wondered if it was based on something real, but never thought to look at bombers - the game made it a heavy fighter.
The P2 Warhawk, yeah, tiz less the spitting image and more a bolt-for-bolt copy.
Gloriously powerful, if slow, though...
I just saw this vid and this is exactly what I was thinking.
As soon as I saw it I got serious nostalgia so that's the plane!!!
Came here to see if someone had already mentioned this lol
One caveat you totally forget to mention and a strong reason TO NOT MAKE the design, is that each frame uses up THREE ENGINES which could be used to build three fighters of which Germany desperately needed to fight the Reich from bomber raids. The three engine design is pretty much why the project would never take off (quite literally) because those resources are too precious to the war effort at that point.
Blohm and Voss had some of the wierdest designed aircraft that never made it past the drawing board. This shnell bomber is certainly no exception. There was another Blohm and Voss design where this plane was piloted from a pod at the wingtip. The second pod at the opposite wingtip served as a gunners station. Not sure how this odd aircraft would have flown. It appears that many of Blohm and Voss's designs were rather unique and ambitious.
Thats what you get when you order aircraft from a shipyard,,,
@@nox5555 Blohm and Voss brough Hamburger Flugzeugbau.
The deHavilland Mosquito was arguably the only successful Schnellbomber.
Dont forget the Arado turbojet Blitzbomber
@@Schlipperschlopper I didn't. The Arado was almost exclusively used for recon. The few times it was used as a bomber, it proved almost incapable of hitting anything.
Compared to the Mosquito, which was well-known as being very accurate.
@@anzaca1 untrue, but there were only very few missions flown with the Arado Blitz and only very few planes available at all due to turbine shortages. They waited for the stronger BMW 018 turbines that later became the french Snecma Atar) The old Jumos were not quite up to the task.
@@SchlipperschlopperAnd that's another reason why you can hardly call it successful...
The main problem I can see is the weight at the end of the wings. It would most likely result in a roll rate that is measured in minutes not seconds.
I could see some sort of interesting German overengineering to help with that, such as a complex auto throttle to induce engine torque as a roll rate booster.
More of a problem for a fighter. Bombers in WWII weren't exactly maneuverable.
The weight overall would be a problem. Wing-tip engines would call for a more robust wing, and the third landing gear puts on the pounds. And the issue of the pilot being that far behind the CG. Interesting concept though.
In a bomber that's a feature, not a bug.
you could have put the actual engines in mid-wing and just a connecting rod toward the end, so the propeller would be on the end doing its job regarding the vortexes and the main weight more toward the center, reducing the need to strenghten the outer wings. Also I don´t believe the rudders would have caused problems since many tailless aircraft designs ( not the flying wing ones obviously, the Rutan planes, SR-71 etc. ) had such rudders at or near the wings ... except not at or near the center of gravity which lessens their effectivity.
Remember that the British Mosquito was basically a "schnellbomber" and it was arguably one of the most successful planes of the entire war. This proves that the problem in this case clearly wasn't in the idea, it was in the execution. A lightweight tri-motor fast bomber could have been a fantastic idea if it had been executed more conventionally, with the two outboard engines mounted mid-wing rather than on the ends and a conventional tail.
The Soviet Pe-2 "Peshka" was a pretty good schnellbomber as well, as far as I know
But wing tip mounting has its advantages. It makes much lower interference drag, and propellers counters vortex formations. It also makes wing construction lighter - it is a flying wing approximation.
I think the Italians might disagree with you on that score and could give you multiple examples of their own more conventionally designed tri-motors that were less than successful.
@@rbilleaud that's because the sm79 was outdated by ww2 standards when it came out, and was very slow despite its triple engine design.
When the Mosquito appeared, Hermann Göring said "that's what I keep asking for!"
Something you didn't mention is that plane would have been weird to fly. The initial g forces would be opposite of a normal aircraft as the tail cockpit swings the other way around the CoG. Then It would immediately reverse to the g forces applied to the whole plane. I imagine it would be highly discomforting
Plus bad roll rate.
@@BlackMasterRoshi someone needs to do an analysis of the g forces santa would sustain in a dogfight.
Not true. Turn radius is always far greater than the wingspan, so from the point of g-forces it makes little difference. I imagine it would seen a bit odd to fly at first, as a touch of rudder would give you a sideways sensation. Not a problem though. At one time our local bus company bought busses that had the driver's seat about 5 m forward of the front wheels. I asked a driver if it seemed odd after driving a normal cab-over bus. He said, yes, until he had turned 2 or three corners and was then used to it.
@@keithammleter3824 yes, but wouldn't this design ten to "swing" the tail like a weight on the end of a string in a hard turn or bank and increase the G-force?
I look and my 1st thought is “… hmmm outside engine failure on takeoff” 😨
This aircraft has some beautiful lines; thanks for making this “what-if” video. With regards to vertical fin placement, Burt Rutan’s series of canard wing, pusher prop kit planes (the VariEze and LongEZ, etc) put the vertical surfaces out on the wingtips. Beautiful planes, and, like Blohm & Voss, Rutan designed some groundbreaking asymmetric and unconventional airframes. Now I’m going to find the video of the RC version one of your other viewers mentioned!
A key difference with Rutan's Long-Eze canard is that main wing tips are swept well aft of the center-of-gravity, giving the outboard rudders significant leverage. This also positions those small vertical fins far enough aft that they can contribute to yaw (heading) stability. Finally, on Long-Eze, rudders only deploy outboard, making them drag-rudders ... similar to B-2 flying wing bomber.
@@robertwarner5963 Robert; I’d forgotten they only deflect outward. I thought that was a great design feature, to double as speed brakes. I never made it to Oshkosh for any of the fly-ins, would love to chat with the builders
The Handley Page HP75 Manx had the same wingtip rudders, in a pusher configuration.
The pc version of Crimson Skies had an inspired version of this. That game and Il2 1946 made me fascinated with prototype/never were planes.
Would be interesting to see a simulated view from the cockpit, very unusual. I imagine taxis and take-offs would have been, er, fun.
Definitely B&V getting deeply into weird designs. What a horror to land with all that fuselage in front of you. I would like to build an RC model to see if it would actually fly.
Someone else said they saw a video of an RC model so it may already exist
any RC will fly, since they make 1000+hp per ton. now replicate the power to weight ratio of the thing... i've seen bricks and non aerodynamic objects fly because foam is just a cheatcode.
@@comethiburs2326 oh the +real+ cheat code is “wing area grows by square, weight grows by cube” 🤷🏻♂️
Well, in larger planes the tail section tends to be the safer one so... 😅
I would like to see that!
Unusual aircraft designs are one of my favorite topics and the P 170 is certainly one of the most.
How about aircraft that actually got built? Not just some marks on a sheet of paper.
@@jzsbff4801 Rare alright. Just a few doodles on a sheet of paper.
this is a really cool design i don't think that gets talked about enough. same with some of the other Asymmetrical designs that Blohm und Voss came up with, like the P.163, or their asymmetrical flying boats.
I'm convinced these asymmetric designs where the inspiration for another Star Wars craft. The B Wing
More accurately, the Luftwaffe concentrated on shorter range, twin engine aircraft better suited to the roll of tactical bombing in support of land forces. And they may have concluded an unescorted long range bomber would be vulnerable to enemy interceptors as was the case with USAAF bombers before the P-51 came along.
Starting with the Spanish civil war theLuftwaffe were quite happy bombing civilian targets in just about every European country. They just weren’t very good at it.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Guernica
J7W1 Shinden and Curtiss XP-55 Ascender had mid span fin/rudder assemblies, both of which flew.
Yes, Shinden and Ascender both flew, but they both also suffered multiple problems with stability and control.
8:11 From what I know, having vertical stabilizers in the middle or front is very bad for side slip stability. Side slip means the plane is sorta "drifting" in the air, like it's moving to its left or right. This naturally happens when the plane rolls, for example. Intuitively, you want the rear of the plane to have more resistance than the back when it's moving sideway, so while slipping the plane has a tendency to turn towards the direction it's moving and stops the slip. Like how cars counter steer in the direction it's moving to stop drifting. Having a large tail in the back creates this sideway resistance due to having a large area on the side. A plane with a mid tail like this will have a hard time pointing towards where it's going
This is nothing more than a thought in someone's head. Nothing to write a critical report about.
Reminds me of both a Porax 38 and a Bellbabub-22. Let's remember that the Bellbabub actually has a central rudder, so a Star Wars fantasy ship apparently adheres more closely to aerodynamic requirements than this monstrosity did.
And the Porax 38 is based off the P-38
@@user-do5zk6jh1k in name, sure but I really don't see it. The elevator does remind me a lot of the cloakshape though!
@elisekehle8520 Was just thinking that this reminded me more of the Punishing One than a podracer.
Edit: Soulless one, not Punishing One. Grievous' fighter, not Dengar's ship.
@@minimalbstolerance8113 part of that is the angle of the thumbnail. Seeing the full 3-d model i get the podracer comparison a bit better- the aspect ratio is lower than it looks in this pic, but still, I think Soulless One is more like it. You meant Soulless one, right? Grievous' ship, not Dengar's?
Imagine getting into a PIO situation with this thing (Pilot Induced Oscillation). Would have been very odd looking forwards over the central engine, with a fin just to the side of you, and every stick input you put in backwards, or forwards, is magnified, by about 4 times what you are used to. Plus it is the elevator you are closest to so as you pull the stick backwards, expecting the nose to rise, instead it is the tail ie you that actually goes down!
The aviation version of the wayward shopping trolley?
Dry humor is the best way to handle most of the paper B&V designs. They were bound and determined to be remembered for their contributions to the air war and they got their wish. They were definitely remembered. For a few silly aircraft and a LOT of silly drawings.
A glass of beer can also help.
BV company was pretty known for its strange ideas but mostly that was for saving their workers to be not sent to the frontlines
Weird paper B&V designs *OR* the Eastern front and a rifle, The choice is self evident. :) B&V's *other* notable project was the Battleship Bismarck
there was another one with that mid mounted stabilizers. the Kalinin K-12 was a projected tailless bomber that had a semi-flying wing design.
Ah yes, the Warhawk from Crimson Skies.
Crimson Skies took inspiration of this plane with the Warhawk. What a lovely game.
I think the rudder position is thought to be improved by being in the thrust line of the engines, making the rudder more effective for its size.
Yes but .... its short distance aft of the center-of-gravity limits its leverage.
It would have been a pig to get out of a spin.
It's been rumoured that Unicorns are aerodynamically unstable too.
What were the designers smoking? It certainly wasn't tobacco.
The German designers always made it so easy for today's sci-fi nuts to imagine what aircraft would look like in some strange alternative future that takes place in the past.
fantastic looking
Blohm und Voss are my favourite aircraft company, such imagination, such an iconic style.
Despite your conclusions on the design, there was a r/c model of the aircraft built and flown at an event in New York State a few years back. The name of the builder escapes me at the moment but the plans for it are available on E-Bay. Therefore there was some soundness in the design. In fact there are a number of Bhlom & Voss designs that have been built as r/c models. I personally have 2 sets of plans for the B&V 208 and the B&V 215. You never know what will or won’t work until you try it!
While loosing the war, Germany still won the weirdest Aircraft Design Award 🏆
It's important to note that many twin engine aircraft of this time had opposing rotating propellers to balance out the torque. Notably the p38 lightning which was an oddball of its day as well and turned out to be one of the most successful aircraft in WW2. Considering the timing of its development coinciding with jet engine development, it would be interesting to know if this design could have been adapted to jet engines and what kind of performance that may have yielded.
I made this goofy bastige a couple years ago in Simple Planes! Was really fun to build. I even stayed true to the camo by having it bi-colored. Sadly, I never uploaded it, as depression got the best of me and murdered my motivation/desire to do things I enjoy.
Anyways... Nice to see this bird get a video made about it by someone! Well done.👍
Must have been cool! Hope you’re doing better now. Wouldn’t wish that feeling on anyone.
@@PhantomP63 Fun indeed! Especially when I slung a Pak 40 (75mm) HE cannon under each wing ☺️ _(instead of the rocket pods)_
And thank you. Headed to the cabin tomorrow, so 🤞 that will be a helpful escape!
I've said the same, that I don't wish depression on even my worst enemy! 😣
Sucks a bit extra for those of us where it's genetic, and not a temporary thing. Just taking it a day, a week, a month at a time. 🙃
Take care
Miles developed some atypical wing structures. Like the Miles M.39B Libellula. One feature was a swept wing. Also s forward canard wing. The Italian SAI-Ambrosini SS.4 had an unusual wing setup.
And the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender.
I'm guessing pilot vision for take off and landing nixes this design right off the bat?
If it doesn't had any periscope it would be big problem for sure
Excellent video my friend......
Old Navy Flying Shoe🇺🇸
I now need Deiselpunk 1930-1940s-esque version of pod racing.
In case of failure of one of the wingtip engines, the other wing tip engine can provide enough airflow on the rudder behind it to counteract the turning tendency. Likely, this was not possible if the rudder was placed in the tail.
Plus ground handling would have been a bloody nightmare! 😂😂
Very interesting and the models were excellent . Let's hope the model companies realise more of the fascinating Bloom und Voss aircraft in kit form .
Rutan Long EZ has wingtip rudders but many other differences. Thanks for the video. I'd never heard of this A/C design.
The B&V aircraft make me think of the outside-of-the-box designs of Burt Rutan.
Except that the EZs in their various iterations were successful.
I remember there was video game where you could fly something like this. Wacky but fun game
Crimson skies maybe?
@@VictorGarciaRI was going to say the same thing.
I had the board game. Good stuff.
@@VictorGarciaRexactly that
kerbal space program
the p 170 is the kind of whack you make in KSP.
Gotta love Herr Doktor Voght!
Genius and lunacy.
Such a thin line between the two.. 😂😂
This looks like General Grievous's star fighter
Thank you for a great video on yet another German design I had not heard of. I think the reason having the rudders behind the engine pods ls to improve the rudder authority by putting it in the slipstream of the prop just like most single engined aircraft. There is no doubt, as you say, the poor test pilots would have had their hands full if it had been built. It's yaw characteristics would have been interesting. I would hat to have tried to side slip it into a field.
At last! An aircraft I had no idea about. Thank you for a look at a fascinating idea.
Fun fact.
On YT there is few vids of flying RC models. That means this plane could fly somehow
Nuts, you can fly a rock with enough horsepower on a FV aircraft.
@@oscarjonesxxx2893 that a true. Most of the looked pretty similar to that what you said.
One of the reasons multi-engine bombers tended to have twin vertical stabilizers is that it improves ground handling because the stabilizers are in line with the back thrust from the engines. At high speeds this doesn't matter because the airflow past the fuselage gives plenty of bite to a single vertical stabilizer, but when taxiing the airflow is too slow so having the engine thrust directly hitting the stabilizers helps the plane turn. On the PV170 having a standard central stabilizer would have been a problem because it would have been so far back from the center engine; the two stabilizers behind the outer engines would have been even more effective for ground handling because they were so close to the engines.
The only other aircraft with such a rudder placement that i can come up with, is the Long EZ, by Burt Rutan.
The stress on that wing would be ridiculous!
The jet-powered Vickers 559 had wing-tip rudders
Although it does look like a podracer, it reminds me more of General Grievous' "Soulless One" starfighter based on the Belbullab-22 which were often used either as a heavy fighter or tactical bomber.
Agreed it kinda looks like the CIS bomber
The model @6:15 has all 3 props rotating in the same direction, based on the spiral paint on the spinners. :) And yes, the mechanicals of controlling the rudders would have been bad - cables up the fuselage, then out the wings, then back thru the engine nacelles. No fly-by-wire back then.
Re. Schnellbombers. It is ironic in that it was the British who made the concept work VERY well during WW2 with the DH Mosquito.
It is also interesting to note that since WW2 we have moved away from the heavy bomber idea & more toward the schnellbomber concept (aided by various detection avoidance strategies).
The vertical stabilizers being so close to the wingtip engines would have the potential for additional control authority via the high speed (if somewhat dirty) air coming from the propellers.
Speaking as someone who's involved in the Star Wars fellowship, I'm always surprised when folks say they've never seen any Star Wars movie. The video was interesting and I learned a lot. I'd love to put together a model of this aircraft.
I've flown "Scale" and "Funfly" Radio control A/C for a long time. One of our best "events" is the Warbird fly In. If you've got a scale Warbird, bring it weather it 's airworthy or not. Blohm & Voss were a favorite among R/C'ers who wanted something different other than a P-51, Spitfire, ME 262 or Corsair. It's one thing that R/C'ers do pretty well and that is to build all the weird, one off or drawing board A/C that never became popular. This A/C is fascinating and though I've never seen a model of one, I'm sure there's one out there somewhere that's flown at least once ! (flying a R/C airplane once is easy, anybody can do that . . flying it twice is the hard part ; )
6:28 - Weight distribution - Actually, if most of the plane's weight was in the middle, the wings would need to resist more bending loads than if the weight was more evenly distributed along the span. Putting the engines at the tips would actually help, though not as much as if the engines were halfway between the fuselage and the wingtips. There is the issue of bending loads when the airplane is on the ground, but they've taken care of that by putting landing gear under the fuselage AND in the nacelles at the tip. The thing though, is - where to put the bombs? I suppose I can see them on pylons under the wings, which would help even out weight distribution even more...
Sort of related, but the CRJ has limitations on how much fuel can be in the fuselage tank when the wing tanks are below a certain value for exactly this reason.
0:27 I designed something like this as Concept Art for a steampunk game (without knowing about this design)… pretty cool. The 40s-50s was a great time to be in aerospace.
Wow that's a seriously cool machine
Your logo is so cool~!
Went back to see his loge 😂
Ace and Gary would have loved this!
I had a microlight with the odd tip rudders on it, no tail but a canard at the front as an elevator. It was called a Pterodactyl, the tip rudders basically just induced yaw. It was an odd thing to fly and I was pleased to sell it and get something more conventional.
The ruder at the wing tip can help further reduce the wing tip vortices, potentially eliminating them entirely.
Beautiful design and engineering
Whenever I think I've seen all of German designs there appears new video of another unknown amazing design. The abundance of aeronautics ideas from that era is mind blowing. They had tried and tested everthing available.
There is also the issue that this plane uses 3 very valuable BMW 801's, with not even double the payload of a FW190 fighter-bomber. The FW190 fighter-bombers can also be pressed into fighter roles in a pinch, something this plane cannot do.
The Romanians asked for BMW 801's to upgrade their IAR 80's. This excerpt from wikipedia says it all:
"But, as always, the Germans were unable to supply the engine as every example coming off the line was needed for installation in a German airframe. Licensed production was likewise out of the question, the engine production was in the midst of being ramped and the demand was so great that not even one set of jigs could be spared. "
Spins would have been brutal, being so far back.
I love the far out designs of WW2 the Triebflügel is my favourite by far but this is amazing as well.
Oh, c'mon. My easily-distracted habit is kicking in. I'm trying to finish my first Blender model of a plane for 3D printing and Yotuube showed me this beauty.
The pod racer looks like the aircraft, Lucas being a WW2 aviation enthusiast
It might well fly but I would think it would be a right swine to land and take off with the pilot's view from the cockpit. Even the Spitfire was noted as being difficult to taxi due to the nose taking up all the forward vision when she was on her tail wheel. Things evolved so quickly in the late '30's - even the Fairy Battle which was a true 'Schnell Bomber' when it first came out being faster than any fighter then in service was disastrously outclassed by the start of the war just a short time later.
The vertical rudder positions make sense. Frequently, at the time, rudders were placed directly behind engines. This ensured optimum authority for minimum surface area of rudder. The benefits being lighter weight and minimised drag.
That's *almost* the coolest looking thing *ever!*
I wonder if any model kits of it exist..?
🤔
🍄
Our Cavalry and Infantry Generals who were in charge of the Army Air Force made the same stupid mistake with the Brewster Buffalo that Corporal Adolph Mede with the 262, they loaded them down till they couldn’t fulfill their intended function. Our Generals insisted on loading the Buffalo with self sealing tanks and armor, which the Zero wasn’t burdened with and Hitler insisted that the 262 was a bomber.
People seem to massively overrate how difficult adding bomb racks to the 262 was. As for the Buffalo, I don't think being lighter could have saved it. It's really cool an charismatic plane, the Finns had success with it, but against poorly coordinated early Soviet types. Be interesting to know if those had the self sealing tanks and armour or not.
@@agdgdgwngoEarly Soviet planes had an armor plate behind the pilot, about 7-8mm
The Brewster F2A was a Navy fighter, so those above-mentioned gentlemen would've had no input. But the [Navy] Bureau of Aeronautics did load it down with silly stuff like pilot armor, more MGs, self-sealing fuel tanks, flotation devices [ping-pong balls], tailhooks, and all of that did slow it down. Finns stripped that stuff off and kicked VVS' a$$ with the Buffalo. [But, yes the Surface Navy thought they were Top Dogs before LtCmdr Genda, Minoru, IJNAS proved them wrong,]
The late Fuehrer of 3rd Reich Germany was only ever a Lance Corporal. [Never an NCO]. He did have a chance at promotion, post-war, by going undercover to spy on a weird political workers party for the German Army, but he blew it by buying their line of guff, and adding his own fiery rhetoric. They liked it so well they made him their Fearless Leader.
Imagine if this was a six engine plane with three rear mounted pusher engines
"Heavy" man 😉
This design looks like one of the best candidates I've seen for swept forward wings.
it would shift the center of gravity to the rear.
The first time I heard of the P.170 was when Squadron listed the 1/72nd scale resin model of it in their monthly catalog just once before 2004 It sold out immediately even though it was expensive. Despite, my doubts that the plane ever flew, I dutifully added it to a book on trimotor airplanes of the world where I documented 355 types aircraft that I was working on at the time. I spent too much time trying to find a photo of the plane and finally decided that it had only ever existed on paper. Based on aircraft like the DeHaviland Mosquito which achieved a higher top speed than contemporary fighters by using multiple Rolls Royce Merlin engines with a very clean aerodynamic design, I concluded since it was meant to use 3 BMW 801D radial engines of 1,860 hp each that the designers speed estimate of 510 moh may have been feasible depending on the load. If not, certainly 470 mph.
“Why can’t you just be normal?!”
Blohm & Voss: _screeches_
Nicely explained --thx rollf
Blohm & Voss thought outside the box.
The Japanese J7W1 had wingtip mounted rudders as did the McDonnell XF-85 though to a lesser extent since it also had a rear-fuselage mounted vertical stabilizer.
What The P38 shared a common configuration with that twin rudder, And it was a success, But they put those twin rudders at the aft end of the aircraft!
I bet this thing was real fun to bring in on the landing strip!
the lack of of a rudder behind the cockpit is weird. the lever effect on that position would be amazing. they could easily safe the mass of both these siderudders
The Rutan Long EZ has a similar rudder design but the (single) engine is in the back of the fuselage. The pilot is further forward and the stabilator is a canard type in front of the pilot.this a/c is exceptionally stable and it suggests that the B&V design was not particularly well sorted out.
If we put the cockpit further forward, just behind the central engine, we might be on to something. But with this cockpit, basically in the next aircraft, will not work well.
I like it. It prolly wouldn't ta worked very well, but it sure looks neat! It wasn't mentioned, but it looked to me that from wing tip to wing tip, it seemed exceptionally wide. If I'm correct, that would be another disadvantage. Good show!!
Shame they didn't get built, seriously cool looking design. Reminds me of something from the 90s cartoon 'TaleSpin'
Wow, you really missed out then. I was a teenager when Star Wars came and it was fantastic, the start of good special effects. Then came Alien, what a time to be alive.
The twin fin design helps with the control issues in case of an engine failure you mentioned. You have a vertical tail in the propwash of the still operable engine, making it more effective.
Blatantly inspired the Curtiss-Wright P2 Warhawk from Crimson Skies
Great video
The X-20/Dyna-Soar had vertical stabs and rudders only at the wing tips. While they never flew one (due to project cancellation) there were six airframes under construction at the time of termination. 14,000 hours of wind tunnel design showed that it was stable in subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic, all the way up to Mach 20 (which it did at reentry).
Blohm & Voss never fail in some very weird designs........
Ten years ago I never would have said this, but you're not missing much when it comes to Star Wars. Just more corporatized schlock for the lowest common denominator.
The main reason for the fins being behind the two outer engines is two-fold. First.... the propellers will automatically blow air over the fins making them highly efficient. Second... with tose three engines being very big the tail fin would need to be massive - which is negatively affecting storageability of the aircraft (it's already quite big). The P38 had a similar design. The lockheed constellation (and super constellation) had three small fins instead of one big. The stability problems of the SAM-7 are more related to the lack of elevator - which the P170 clearly has. In addition the SAM-7 is a Single Engine Aircraft with the fin not being affected by any force created by the propeller. this affects the manouverability at low speeds in a massive way.