The W-Wing Jet Bomber: Blohm & Voss P 188
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2023
- In this video, we talk about the Blohm & Voss P 188, an experimental jet bomber design from Nazi Germany that was supposed to utilize a unique W-wing concept. We briefly discuss the history of Blohm & Voss and how they began manufacturing aircraft. We also discuss why they proposed such a bizarre design that, in the grand scheme of their design catalogue, may have been one of their more sane designs.
Also, here's that Smithsonian article mentioned in the video: www.smithsonianmag.com/air-sp...
I like the BV 138 flying boats. They were actually quite useful and often overlooked.
The flying Flip Flop :-)
@@Schlipperschlopper The Flying Flip Flop would be Joe Bidon't.
@@rhondohslade no the BV138 was called in Germany "Fliegende Schlappe" ;-)
Weren’t they too slow even by flying boat standards?
bv 238 is best flying boat
Update
Ikarus P-453MW The *W* at the end is for the W-shape of the wing. First flight was on 28 november 1952 in Yugoslavia. More information the author can find self or even make a video about it.
So far as I remember there was a jet fighter with the same W-wing. It was built after the war by somebody in Yugoslavia. They made 2 fighter planes with W wing and tested. Both planes had good flying capabilities but both crashed by landing. Two pilots could not understand how the landing process with this W shape wings.
If dear author can wait some hours I can find the name if the engineer and the plane.
Yes, please tell us.
@@arcanondrum6543 Ikarus P-453MW and the name of the engineer was Levachich ( Левачич origin. )
@@apokalipsx25 Thank you Very Much for telling me. You're right, it looks interesting...
Bloham and Voss wanted to keep their irreplaceable engineers working on important military projects so they wouldn't be drafted.
👍
That wing design is still used in gliders to help them fly level... I remember putting together toy gliders as a child and launching them from high up... they worked really well, could soar quite a distance if the wind was right... so this design has a useful purpose!
The wing stresses on a glider are so different that this is probably a good design, but putting jet engines underneath the wings and expecting to get a plane to outrun fighters would probably lead to catastrophic failure due to vibration plus airflow problems at the point where the wings angle forward, particularly with the construction materials available at the time.
The only notable w-wing in fiction I know of is the X-02 Wyvern from Ace Combat 4; its variable geometry outer wings swing inside the inner wings during high speed flight.
Aircraft of the Luftwaffe is my favourite book of all time, filled to the brim with these delightful one offs! I'm sure you have a copy, but if not, I implore you to find one!
I'm truly surprised some RC plane enthusiast hasn't made one and did some practical flight testing!!! 🤠👍
Great point
As a kid I had a model of the odd little BV-141. Several were built, a couple prototypes and five preproduction planes. But it never entered series production.
The 141 handled surprisingly well, but lost out to the rugged and reliable Focke Wulf 189.
For my part, I'm with you on this design. The 188 is interesting with a capital I, while it's rival 287 does seem pretty dull and pedestrian. Even with my limited engineering knowledge, I can see a confusing number of effects and concepts tumbling over each other in this wing form. Wishing somebody takes it up as a design project and can do some effective simulation - I'd love to see the results.
Also, despite their shameful wartime record, you're right about B+V: they couldn't see an envelope without trying to push it. I'm also one of those people with a love for flying boats, and B+V delivered a lot of the best.Thanks, and clear skies to you.
Another great video. I really enjoy your channel and think it deserves way more subs. Also your logo is pretty cool.
Very interesting, i never hear about this plane
Interesting. I like that B n V are really shipbuilders.
Modern software could easily predict the stall location, as you said likely in the middle.
Just discovered your channel. Right up my street so subbed.
Same. I skipped viewing many times because it looked a bit light , clickbaity, and probably narrated by ai . Pleasantly I was wrong 😂 #Subbed
Some advanced stralth drone designs for long endurance loitering munitions and loitering munition drone carriers, use this W wing arrangement for high endurance high altitude slow flight. Combined with stealth coating and composites, it makes for effective design with low radar cross section.
Any enterprising aeromodellers out there ?
When seen from above, the wings two boomerangs attached to a fairly straight forward fuselage design. I know that boomerangs fly as well as they do, because they create a high amount of lift. Boomerangs differ quite widely in design, not all of them are designed to return. They have many designs to do numerous different things. I wonder whether boomerangs may have been part of the design inspiration?
Armstrong Whitworth, in the UK, did some post war research into the ‘M’ wing. This included the transonic and supersonic AWP.13 and AWP.22, respectively.
Did not Bristol also consider the M shape before deciding on the delta for the SST?
Ok, so it's early, and I just got up. My one sleep-addled idea is: What if we added vortex generators to the wingtips? I think I'll have to build a foam-and-shrinkwrap model, and power a cute little wind tunnel with a leaf blower. Imma wait till after work, though.
Your videos are very informed about German jet engine bombers and jet engine designs used in world war two.
In German "v" (mostly and, in fact, here) is pronounced like "f".
U.S. Airforce has a ton of a lot of very weird oddball aircrafts. Wonder if they tried that in a wind tunnel test and if results were very unsatisfactory???
Looks like something I used to doodle in study hall.
I like the Idea of this report-BlOHM & VOSS ( Like the creator said) made weird but cool planes--thx rollf
Just bought model BV138 great fun
Excellent stuff bro
This a really great channel
Check out the Bristol 198 SST design, one version of which which had rear-forward-rear swept wings.
Yes, the ' M ' Wing.
Nice videos, Sir. New subscriber.
Maybe a full scale jet engine bomber production model wasn't the best thing to test a radically new wing design on. The timing doesn't seem great to me either. It's interesting that the concept doesn't seem to get explored at all, there was some actual logic reasoning behind it. I mean today RC youtubers seems to explore every concept that they can think of, collectively in absurdum.
The biggest issue that I see with the 188 is structural divergence. As lift increases on the wingtips, they will try to twist and pitch further up, which will increase lift... Having the forward swept sections on the wingtips would tend to decrease the relative torsional stiffness (compared to the forward swept sections being inboard) and make the structural divergence speed lower. Structural divergence is one of the reasons you rarely see forward swept wings.
On the Ju 288 V3 The problem of aero-elasticity was handled with a two spar design and thick uninterrupted skins to form a torsionally rigid box. To eliminated the need for interrupting the wing skins the engines were podded. The pods were mounted such that the natural pendulum frequency damped out any arro-elasticity. It was a technique used in the B-47. The W wing was just a bit of both worlds. It was designed by Richard Voigt who did several asymmetrical BV.141. Of the top of my head the outer portion of the wing was to be hydraulically adjustable in pitch. I think I read that in "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, the Bombers".
I do no see how this wing could have been built in the 1940s. The forward swept portions would need to be so stiff, adding weight, so as to not twist. (Contributing to divergent airflow & aeroelasticity as discussed in another comment) The junction of the normal swept portion with the junction of the forward swept portion with different anhedral between wing sections. Unbuildable!
So good,nobody copied it post WW2
Good point!
I have a worldbuilding project on the backburner that is a dieselpunk setting for an RPG. I plan to basically rip off all of B&V's weird designs for the settings planes.
Just keep the swept wing design and it starts to look like a B-52 from the top plan
-But Walther, it’s wings are so long. It looks ridiculous!
-Well Rudi, what if I fold them like this.
-Yes Walther, that looks much more natural.
👍Interesting, thank you.
If you think about it, this be very much like a PBY Mariner. Or another example albeit much larger the Grumman Albatross
I feel like this design would be unstable in pitch with weird wing stalling. Also I think it would have bad roll control. Cool.
Is there any test data of the w-wing's viability?
It would seem to me as an ex-USAF pilot who restores antique aircraft that the intersecting airflow would cause a higher pressure and very turbulent sir with loss of lift but there would be no TIP VORTEX. But the Whitcomb Winglet seen on every modern plane takes care of that without the problems of the W wing.
The Germans did use anti vortex wing tip devices called Hoerner tips. You can see them on the He 162 but also used to compensate for the excessive dihedreral.. The issue for German aerodynamicist was taming the span wise flow problem of swept wings. After proving that swept wings dramatically reduced supersonic and trans sonic drag the low speed and subsonic handling became the problem. As you know the airflow across a swept wing (and even a plain wing) is not in the direction of flight but outward called "span-wise flow" this lengthens the flow path and thickens the boundary layer lead to flow separation at high alpha and wing tip stalling. In a swept wing it can lead to an irrecoverable pitch up and increased in drag that can lead to "sabre dance". Wing twist wasn't possible as it caused shock waves. German research came to a number of solution. The were 1/ Slats. 2/ Scimitar wings with reduced sweep at tips but thinner (there was a scimitar wing Arado 234 prototype being built captured by British), 3/ Leading edge flaps (pretty much a German invention), 4 Forward sweep As in the Ju 288. In this case the span wise flow is inwards and much easier to handle. The problem of aero-elasticity was handled with a two spar design and thick uninterrupted skins to form a torsionally rigid box. To eliminated the need for interrupting the wing skins the engines were podded. The pods were mounted such that the natural pendulum frequency damped out any arro-elasticity. It was a technique used in the B-47. The W wing was just a bit of both worlds. It was designed by Richard Voigt who did several asymmetrical aircraft. Of the top of my head the outer portion of the wing was hydraulically adjustable in pitch. Germans played with win fences as well. Even on a Bf 109.
@@williamzk9083 Hi William. I think the droop tips on the He-162 weren't really for anti vortex. (I'll discuss why momentarily) They were for stability and stall recovery like washout. And to reduce the need for excessive dihedral. to counteract the instability of such a high center of pressure and parasitic drag from the nacelle.. That's why it needed more dihedral than other planes its size, hence the droop tip as you mentioned. But they weren't for induced or vortex generated drag reduction, Droop tips. unlike the Whitcolm "winglets" are pretty draggy. That's why you never saw them on airliners like winglets.They were more like the washout you correctly mentioned. and washout, while improving stall performance adds a lot of drag due to thew lift lost by the lower angle of attack.Every one of my five wooden winged Bellancas I flew and restored had a "Bellanca airfoil" (actual NACA designation) that had such pronounced washout it was very obvious, especially with that with wood. (Well, smooth except for the eventfully; shrinkage that made the top look like a starved horse) Before I became a USAF pilot I grew up next to at LRAFB where the ystationed some of the last B-47s. The pilots would tell me about the ailerons making the wings twist so far in the opposite direction from flexibility that the ailerons became literally useless. It was years before they figured out the correct way to how to keep deeply swept wings from flexing. while still being light. Thus the B-52! thet B-52 structural research paid for by the USAF laid their ground for Boeings KC-135 and the civilian offshoots. This early Boeings were actually civilian versions of the military planes. nit vise versa as most believe. Those twist forces were just not seen before. I also remember the sonic booms from B-58 Hustlers. They'd test those monster GE's several miles from my house and you could still hear the rumble and roar in my bedroom window. I don't think the B-47 is there any more because the base became MAC instead of SAC but they used to have one on static display which I'd climb all over until the MPs ran me away. I relived that youthful fun when i fly my plane to Davis Monthm in the mid 70's. They still hand literally hundreds of B-29s there. At that time Pima Co Air Museum was right next to the USAF base and I climbed through a hole in the fence and up the whee wheel into the cockpit of the B-29 to sit behind that Roosevelt Wheel" under that massive greenhouse.. Unfortunately I had shot all my film at Pima. ;-( Anyway,, I digress. Back to the discussion. The Komet was too small for the structure to be so flimsy that twist to be an issue. And the Heinkel 162 didn't even have swept wing so the droop tip wasn't for tip vortex drag reduction. Again, probably stability because of the engine nacelle making the center of pressure so high and blanketing the empennage. Probably caused Dutch Roll. If you really compare the Hoerner to the He-162 you'll see there's very little similarity than the direction. Even though duraluminum process of cold hardening was a German invention, they couldn't get enough alloying metals to make quality material either. Hoerner wingtips were really nothing like the Heinkel wings, You'll notice they were on put on SLOW planes and so not really needed for vortex generated drag reduction..Instead, they were used to boost lift for short filled take off. And we all knw increased lift means increased induced drag. This means any vortex drag reduction would have been negated. fIfthey were for vortex drag relief why were they only seen on slow Piper TriPacers and not on every airliner like the Whitcolm are now. I've been flying and restoring antique aircraft since I was 22YO in 1975 and was a USAF pilot and instructor. Well, I've rambled on way too long. .Sorry about any typos, I'm on Prednisone and i can't see worth shit right now. Nice chat, it's fun to yarn with another plane guy, thanks. If in Phoenix look me up. I'm restoring a 1940 T-Cart and a 1951 Bellanca Cruisemaster,14-19, the only one from the true East Coast factory with a prototype high compression O-435. that made 225HP at 2900RPM.
@@airplaynNice read William ◇
2000 kg = 2 tonnes. Almost exactly 2 tons. American weight convention systems do not apply to the metric system. For example, 250,400 kg is expressed as 250.4 tonnes, for ease of use. Otherwise, the rest of the world would suffer from serious confusion and be forced to do multiple conversions in perpetuity.
Imagine W-Wing Jet Bomber meets the American X-Wing Jetfighter
I mean… Technically there was an Aircraft created with a W wing design…
Su-47, the leading edge is swept, and wing tips are forward swept. Same with the X-29. However, if we are taking half & half that’s only been seen in Ace Combat with the “Wyvern”!
Why didn't they just flip the wing over? That may have worked. I would have added a flipped wing design to their options package. We are only 50ish years since the wright brothers so strange designs are to be expected. War is a catalyst for evolutionary designs.
can you talk about the coanda 1910 jet biplane?
Blohm und Voss were famous for their flying boats, definitely not for the BV141.
When you say wing sweep was in its infancy, it is true, and had the Germans not invented & developed the knowledge needed to employ such concepts on aircraft. It was not a secret, (the Germans revealed their developments in 1937) -but rather something the allies never attended to till after the war, where compressibility issues forced their hand.
You know, B&V did produce some successful designs, right They were the main supplier of German maritime patrol flying boats, no doubt due to their origins in building ships. Their BV 138 was analogous to the US PBY and, honestly, didn't really look any weirder. B&V also made a few of the much large (and totally conventionally looking) BV 222, mostly used as transports. They also made the BV 238, and up-scaled BV 222 that was, in its day, the heaviest plane to have ever flown. It only flew a few times before being strafed on the water but it that's better than the more famous "Spruce Goose" designed for essentially the same job.
Plane looks badasss…
It seems to me akinci drone comes closest to this wing albeit it is still trational forward sweep.
kel-tec of aircraft.
well.... its probly wrong. but my guess of the W wing design is to send the airflow around the central wing surface. making it in a way like a Biplane design without the additional drag of the conventional layout.
something that could have been done is to put the engines in that point to use the airflow with the engines to get additional thrust and to even create a better transition of surface for a higher speed and better low speed handling.
again i can be entirely wrong so take this as a theory from what i understand it
It's to control the problem of spanwise flow.
@@williamzk9083 Ok so I was completely wrong
The flying wing in Raiders of the lost Ark looks like it could have been a Blum und Voss design.
At this point in history you could design the plane and put into a virtual wind tunnel and then have the viability be proven.
I would have thought that NACA (the forerunner for NASA) researched the feasibility of the W-wing design...among other things they designed an optimized engine cowling for radial engines that was widely used by US plane designers (and copied by others).
send this vid to flight test they can build n test models of it wi radio control ect w wing d make a great build for them
Looks like something you'd see on the Fantastic Plastic web page
"I know, let's design and spend years developing a ridiculous bomber that our collapsing economy has zero chance of ever producing, but at least it'll keep us safe from being conscripted and sent to the Russian Front!"
"Winner of a proposal, Hans! Here, lemme pour you another schnapps and you can tell me about that death ray idea..."
Crazy as the idea of putting a man on the moon!!!
OH! Wait that was a German idea too!
If only the RLM had adopted BVs more creative designs, any allied pilot reporting the sightinh would have been grounded for psychological reasons. If only 😂
What was the Nazi plane in "Raids of the Lost Arck"
I love Blohm and Voss.
The Junkers Stuka had a 'W'-wing, as did the Vought Corsair (from head-on). This one was Way bigger...
Erusea building the x02 wyvren : yes yes
What was that plane in Indiana Jones? The one that chops that guy up.
It would have been one of the versions of the Arado E.555. If you look at the video he did about it, one the artist’s conceptions is almost identical.
In same way...have similarities with the B52...
The B-52 is based on German technology too.
Ki-43 had forward swept wings!
I like how the W-wing is just like 🤷🏻♂️
idk but the bottom right looks the coolest imo
Blom & Voss schuold be pronuncet: "Bluum und Fos"
I pick the 3rd design
Cool if someone made this craft rc
the boeing bird of prey used a M wing successfully
Had to've been inspired before a sea bird.
Why after 75 years should the company be paying restitution? Is the company expected to pay for an indefinite period? Why is there no restitution for descendants of the Atlantic slave trade?
They set the bomber to W for Wumbo!
Nice video. I'd only wish you'd pay more attention to pronunciation.
Imagine if the war still went in 1946 ...
Huh, someone should make a Starship design for it and call it a W Wing.
This "video" (really more of a slide show) strikes me as an incomplete work. Lacking narration, movement and greater variety of photos, this really left me wanting for additional information.
For a non-produced 1940s design from Germany - think you just need to be satisfied with the thin visual material. I enjoyed it ❤😎
I really like your content, really. But the sing song sing song narration is more than I can bear. Please, this can be cured and you will have more viewers, I promise
The 287 jet, has got to be the most ugly aircraft of WWII? The wheel spats are thoroughly ridiculous, from a practical viewpoint, and would have been working against any improvement due to the use of jet engines.
The opposite 'M Wing' was considered by Bristol Aircraft of the UK for a supersonic transport and rejected in favour of the delta which was the foundation of the Bristol-BAC/ Sud Aviation Concorde.
@Jay Jay Paper concepts are not aeroplanes.
Germany was many years ahead of Britain in aerospace technology...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 On paper planes - a few of which struggled into the air. The 'jets' needed engine changes every few sorties.
SO 80££0X.
@@uingaeoc3905 And piston engines didn't??? Surely you jest lad?
The Messerschmitt Me-262 was a massive, quantum leap in aviation technology... the Allies had absolutely nothing comparable to the Me-262.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 No I do not jest, you just repeat the usual twaddle. The UK had the Meteor which was more than comparable, flew further, faster, had more fire power and proved more adaptable. The Me 262 never held the World Air Speed record ie sustained flight, not some 'spurt' . The Me 262 was NOT a quantum leap'; indeed it was often out -fought by UK advanced piston types, Tempest, Spitfire late marks, and US Lightning, Thunderbolts, late Mustangs in intercept and dogfights. The JUMOs were useless after a few sorties. The Soviet's took some of the design principles of the Me 262 but realised the engines were useless. They then bought Rolls Royce Derwents and created the MiG 15.
So stop repeating the guff.
How is prison labor supposed to mean they were bad guys?
We use well over one thousand times more prison labor today in modern America than the Germans of the war did.
If you believe wikipeadia, all those incredible buildings with marble and pillars, from the 1800s, were built by prisoners. Magnificent stone masons, prisoners back then, apparently.
@@JohnnyRocker2162
I guess I need to get sent to prison. Maybe the prison gangs can get me a marble cutting apprenticeship if they get some time off their busy schedules curing cancer.
Good point, though you may want to check on numbers.
"The numbers are different, but the crime is still the same" - the Selektor.
Unfortunately, Facts are going to make your Nazi friends look bad. 1939 Germany had 52 million people. By the end of WW2, at least 16.5 million people died or were killed in Nazi Concentration Camps (that's 1/3 of the population of Germany) in part because Germany would invade countries and imprison, including ordinary Russians and Russian Soldiers. Russia did not sign. The Geneva Convention with Germany. Stalin had instead; signed a Peace Treaty with Hitler but then; Hitler invaded Russia.
For more on Nazi Germany :"Between 1933 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its allies established more than 44,000 camps and other incarceration sites (including ghettos). The perpetrators used these sites for a range of purposes, including forced labor, detention of people thought to be enemies of the state, and for mass murder"
Now "1/3" IS NOT exactly the case here in "modern day America", now is it?
Oh and that's the number of people who died in the Camps so when you fact check me, go ahead and find out how many people were sent to Nazi Concentration Camps. The result will make Nazi Germany sound, you know; BAD.
Yo the wumbo plane
It could have worked! It could! If it weren't for that verdammt man with the shield ...
The Australians have an aircraft with this type of wing...I think it's called a boomerang.
They squandered money and time for ridiculous designs and wasted resources especially when the tied of war turned against Germany
Correct, despite their radical and promising designs, they couldn't afford the money or time needed to develop them properly. They could hardly afford to even fuel the ones they had!
Indeed, The British company Miles Aircraft was charged with 24 counts of fraud and embezzlement related to the M.52 fiasco... and ridiculous and wasteful attempt to build a supersonic aircraft with inferior engine and aerodynamic technology.
@@intercommerceermany developed jets in part, as a direct response to fuel shortages.. German jet engines were multi-fuel and could run on J-stoff made from plentiful coal reserves.
Dam b-29 with jets added the air to air missiles .... this would be deadly
This has to get into War Thunder.
Why 4 BV P188 proposals? I you weren't busy as an educated aircraft designer, you would literally be transferred to the Eastern Front.
Restitution from anyone other than the actual guilty parties, is stupid and unfair, and one of the causes of the biggest war in human history.
If you don't try it, you won't know it doesn't work.
HANS: 'W' for Wiktory!!!
GUNTHER: HAHA, nein nein, Hanz. 'W' for Weissbier!!!
*No wonder the Germans lost...*
This is important to you, isn't it?
The Wumbowaffen
You kinda have to respect Germans for handling their nazi past in a responsible manner. Meanwhile the Japanese only seem to only remember the A bombs that their govt had every opportunity to avoid.
Voss is pronounced "Foss"...😊
It is very disconcerting that if Germany had defeated the Soviets, the war for the allies would have been over, D-day would not have happened & Germany would have been able to progress almost unhindered in its development of radical jet aircraft, they were years ahead of the allies, but that never happened, & operation Papercliptook place which gave the US as huge surge forward in jet military aircraft
..."the most optimal performance"...good old American "English"🙄
Of course they still pay, its an extortion racket.