Germany's Crooked-Wing Jet Fighter: Blohm & Voss P 202
2024 ж. 22 Мам.
90 571 Рет қаралды
In this video, we talk about the Blohm & Voss P 202, a jet fighter design with a variable-sweep wing, but with a twist. Instead of having two individually moving wings, it had the entire wing moving on a single pivot. We discuss the reasons for variable-sweep wings and swept wings in general. We also discuss later testing and experimentation with the P 202's oblique wing design concept and how it may actually be a decent idea.
Blohm and Voss really did have some of the most interesting concepts of the war, the fact that some even made it into service (I.E. the BV-141) makes their work that much more impressive.
The biggest problem with this type of wing is that the side that sweeps forward has to deal with structural stress factors and flexing that the other wing does not. These issues would not be properly overcome at speed until the early 1980s with the X-29.
As I recall, X-29 testing concluded that the wings stop producing identical lift as the sweep increases too. An interesting design, but ultimately they concluded that it wasn't yet worth further pursuit. Edit: Correction, the AD-1, not X-29. I was making an assumption about why you mentioned it.
I suspect that the tail should also swing, probably in the opposite direction.
One major issue with the AD-1 was that with wings swept, a left aileron input meant that the forward aileron deflected down and gave a a pitch up force and a right input gave a pitch down force. Made the AD-1 rather tricky to fly.
If they gave the design an all flying tail/elevons that would fix the roll problems.
Is this Ted R. Smith of Aerostar fame? I always loved the Aerostar and I remember seeing one of the originals. The AD-1 might not have been a great platform for fighters or interceptors with a lot of "bank and yank" but it may have been a good platform for aircraft or probes that would not do a lot of extreme maneuvering. I've always been interested in oblique wing aircraft and I had a flying model of one when I was younger and I have a copy of the Robert T. Jones book Thinking Obliquely. If the controls were locked on the main wing and control was maintained through thrust vectoring and all-flying tails, it could be an effective aircraft or sensor platform.
Blohm and Voss really did have some of the most interesting concepts
I do love Blohm+Voss and the way they'd go out on a limb with these wild designs that look bizarre but are actually well thought out and point the way to future concepts. Voght was definitely a genius and visionary.
It would be very interesting to get an idea into the thinking at Blohm and Voss as their designs are so different to what everyone else was doing.
Maybe because they put non-aircraft engineers to work. Everyone loves the MG-42. It was specifically not designed by a weapons-engineer, but by a general engineer who had zero baggage concerning what a gun should look like.
Blom and Voss's perchant for unique designs makes them an interesting subject.. And when you look at some post war aircraft some of the designs csme swing wingd for one. During the war Grrmany had better wind tunnels for testing. I refer you to the videos by Capt. ERIC BROWN,he was the RNs chief test pilot. His views make interesting listening.
The swept wing of the Me 262 was not chosen for aerodynamic reasons, but to adjust CG. That it was beneficial for high speed performance was serendipitious
Bloom and Voss had some very brilliant engineers and all their various design studies kept them busy. I need to get out my book ww2 German experimental aircraft designs. Its absolutely incredible all the ideas coming out of Germany at that period. Many ended up being used in various ways. The US shuttle lifting body design came from German experiments
Your channel is one of the best aviation designs history channels out there, and is criminally undersusbscribed to!
I'm sure someone is asking "Why?" As far as I can remember, it was because it was mechanically simpler than having both wings pivot at the fusilage. They wanted to solve the compressibility issue to get closer to the speed of sound, and this was one of the proposals presented. What they apparently chose was the Me P1101, because that's what was found after the war. It was brought to the U.S. and became an ""X plane", either the X-5 or the X-4, I'd have to go look.
LOL, wonderful context-less speculation on the BV drawing.
your channel needs way more love. Please keep going with any planes you find interesting. Why this has 11.7K while terrible AI bots are over that is depressing, but your content hits the sweet notes that AI never can.
Love these Blohm &Voss videos.
Great video and presentation.
Thanks. Been waiting years for a good video about this aircraft.
Nice to see a picture of one of J W Dunne's flying wings (around the 1:10 mark). They were flying around 1910, long before the Hortens invented the flying wing, lol.
I mean, it kinda goes against the issues of flying wings in that it does have a vertically placed rudder... As well as being a a biplane. I'd argue it's more comparable to the drakken, also not a flying wing, than the 229.
@@D_U_N_E and who says a flying wing can't have a fin?
@@neiloflongbeck5705 just googled, and I'm wrong with it can't have a vertical stabiliser. Though it still isn't a flying wing unless it was just one singular wing with everything housed within. Googling the plane, it's classified as a swept wing biplane.
The American army actually bought three of these (or something like that). As I understand, Dunne was trying to do 2-axis control, i.e. pitch and roll, relying on a combination of these to effect turns.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 The Northrop YB-49, anyone?
Excellent stuff bro
I see the problem, and it's not that those that tried went to far, but rather they didn't go far enough. Swing the wing all the way to 90, align with the fuselage and get your lift from the body at high speed
Excellent content 👌🏼 Please keep it up
I lived next door to Robert T. Jones in the 70's and 80's. One of the things that Robert told me was that, "People are hung up on bilateral symmetry, and that it was doubtful that the oblique wing would be accepted because of this." Of course, he was right. The really interesting thing that Robert's research revealed was that the oblique wing would not generate a sonic boom. We also talked a lot about the German scientists who came to the US following the war. I was under the impression that it was Jones' collaboration with Alexander Lippisch and others that brought forth the 'simple sweep back" wing as well as the oblique wing.
I find it funny that 40 years later burt rutan built and tested this. Years later i would build his lifting body ROC stratolaunch for about 7 years in mohave CA.
Fascinating, thanks!
That was a very worthwhile report. Thanks. I've sub'd.
German 1920-1940 fascinating aeronautics designs are a generartion ahead of its time. We see these designs later in American midern X planes. How did they come so advanced in this field is still a mystery.
Blohm & Voss on their way to make the most insane, whacky batshit crazy plane designs of all time:
Yesterday we had Blohm & Voss today we have the company founded by Burt Rutan(Rutan Aircraft Company).
I wonder if the design HAD to only sweep one way, as one could either reinforce the FSW part to make it not break so easily or design it so the life time of the wing could be shared between left or right sweep. the other advantage is with the wing being just "stuck on" and having very little major parts they could make a modular wiring loom and just pop the old wing off put a new one on an then strip the old one for spare parts onto a 3rd wing ready for the next replacement and put no serious parts in the wing that don't need to be in there. Perhaps canards could be used to compensate for the asymmetrical handling too. BUT if this design was really as good as it seems it is for transports, it might make a great design for a Navy Sub hunter on an Aircraft carrier and it also opens up a sprint potential for planes that might otherwise ONLY be subsonic. great for storage too. I think it must have some merit otherwise there wouldn't be Cruise missiles that used the design too. Also I can see some possible use as a means to make a drop plane that can be stored on a very large aircraft perhaps something Nuclear or a gigantic airship. They could be all huddled up real close or even dropped from a wing of something quite ordinary like a B-52 Bomber. I can see it being useful for VERY fast Planes too. where the wing would retract entirely into the top of the fusilage leaving a lifting body design & thrust only to keep it up in the air. It might even work for a space shuttle design for that reason too. If you wanted one that could slowly decrease it's speed and land normally. But moving parts on a space ship might not be the best idea perhaps.
Very cool!!!
I would really love to see this as an event vehicle in war thunders future
The AD-1 was not the first oblique-wing aircraft tested by NASA, though it was the first jet-powered, manned version. When I arrived at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (now Armstrong FRC) in the late 70s, I interned with engineers in the Remotely Piloted Research Vehicle lab and they had previously created a remotely piloted oblique wing "model" (BIG model - over 20' long) to test out flight performance. Since the Oblique Wing RPV was propeller driven, it was of course sub-sonic. I assume they got enough good data from that project to give the green light to the AD-1 program, which was built a couple years after I ended my internship. There were a lot of brilliant engineers there at the time and quite a few amazing model makers. I consider it a privilege to have learned my early electronics and software skills from these guys!
While obviously never intended to land without the wing being perpendicular to the fuselage I would still love to know how it handled at high angles of attack with sweep. I take the reference to transport aircraft for wind tunnel tests as a recognised maneuvering limitation before testing began. I remeber seeing photographs of it when it came into being but was not surprised or curious when it faded away.
I had a book of paper airplanes you would cut out/glue in the 90s that had this model. I never knew it was based on a variable geometry wing plane let alone on a real design.
You are probably thinking of the White Wings collection of planes. I remember the tailless model with the oblique wing.
I have one too. Uncut
@@Tubes12AX7kI loved my White Wings, and the oblique was one of my favorite non-typical designs.
Another of my favorite White Wings models was the Rutan Voyager model with the long, long wings.
@@Tubes12AX7k Yes. The Voyager model. I remember when the round-the-world flight happened, and I built several free flight models of Voyager, including the White Wings version.
4:52 "1x MG151/20 200mm cannon"? I don't like the sound of that... Great video though, I did learn some new things, keep it up!
It might work well as a dog-fighter, with the angle of the wing enabling a low-velocity tight turning circle. Typically forward swept wings also help this. I had hoped/guessed that aspect would have been looked at here...
Really strange but very interesting concept. And great video. Did you considered to include some background music?
In a televised interview Barns Wallis proposed this wing scheme for an SST. He said that the Concorde was a terrible design, and went on to say that this interview should not be shown until after his decease. Incidentally, wasn't that a Dassault Mirage G swing-wing prototype you showed? How ever did you come by that? They didn't progress beyond three prototypes.
To my mind, a bi wing design, where each wing pivots on the same axis but in opposing directions, could solve several of the pivot wings issues while only adding an acceptable amount of complexity. It would, at least, be an interesting experiment.
Reject modernity, embrace biplane
@@LocalDiscordCatgirl The box wing? Square biplane. The toroidal propeller? Biplane on a stick. Nasa's truss-braced wing? Fore-shortened Biplane. Darpa's x-65? Flattened biplane. Embrace the biplane. 😄
Wide spaced strong swing wing box, wings could pivot forwards some amount ...?
Other than the weird wing, the 202 was a nice looking design.
I wonder if anyone ever considered making a plane like this for aircraft carriers. If they could turn the wing all the way parallel with the fuselage, it would be really compact.
B&V really where the MS Paint creators of their time
How many ionic motors do you to levitate - that's something I would love to know and that's my idea for a future theme
The patent may have been French, but he never got it from paper to reality unlike Whittle and Ohain.
Metallurgy wasn't ready.
@@wbertie2604 it wasn't ready fir Whittle either, hence he went for the centrifugal compressor first.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 yes, for both Whittle and Ohain. Although axial flow (Jumo, Metrovick) became viable in roughly 1939 with metalurgical advances, when Whittle was first trying to get things going five years earlier, it was not. Of course it took a while to get finding and build a prototype, hence April 1937 as the first run.
Would its nose cannon cause similar issues like the Mig 9? My 7th grade Science teacher mentioned this Aircraft and the NASA one a few times. When I was much younger I thought it was for crosswind landings. BV certainly did have some strange designs. I think they started as a Ship building company.
I wonder what switching the sweep from left to right, back and forth, would do for maneuverability?
Try it and see what happens. Make sure you come back and let us all know 😂
A very inefficient oar.
The lift coefficient for the aircraft in the thumbnail would be insane. It would cause the airframe to roll or yaw if not corrected for by another control surface. Which would reduce performance dramatically.
Keep learning, you're not quite correct
NASA has literally built this design, and works very well.
@@wowdanalise I'll have to try it out. Rc scale of course.
@@FINNIUSORION I also enjoy printing models and testing this stuff. Please share your results with me, I'd love to hear how your models turn out!
@@anzaca1 : Built which design, a slew-wing? Yes, they built it, but it really did want to tilt over as the sweep was increased. That can certainly be dealt with, but NASA's approach was to move on to other projects instead.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider taking suggestions for replacing your 'Cool Logo', which I presume is a placeholder for an actual future cool logo?
Technically the oblique wing would reduce the radar cross section for aircraft heading straight for the radar antenna.
Wasn't it an X test plane later on that tried this to. Didn't go so well if I can remember.
enlighten me, you move a centre of lift of portside side of the plane forward while starboard side backwards. How do you intend to stop plane from banking starboard all the time?
3:15 . . . . . the first jet Engine had a Hand Crank Starter like the Model T .
So, I can see one major design flaw: How do you land if the wing is jammed in the swept position?
Unless the wheels were made steerable so they could be turned into the forward position I think it would have to be a belly landing. Unfortunately that is going to cause a lot of problems for the engines.
Well, yeah,, that thought occurred to me too, but it would only be nesassary if the wing got stuck for some reason. The entire purpose.was to offer a straight wing for landing with as little complexity as possible. They were still unable to make the more complex variable sweep P 1101 type wings that could be changed while in the air.
@@peterkordziel7047 Mounting the wheels on the fuselage still seems like a much more prudent option.
@@malusignatius Absolutely. If they had actually built one, I think it would have had landing gear similar to the Ar 234 . I built a model of the P202 and after studying it for a while, I made the rudder a lot bigger, because another huge problem it would have had was a tendency to fly at an angle to compensate for the oblique wing.
I don't know if I'm imagining things or if it really existed, but I have this vague thought of a plane that had wings that separated and rotated to make an X shape. If such a plane actually existed and someone recalls its name please tell me.
It seems to me if these wings were to be in continuous motion would be great for maneuvering. Like you see birds do in turning. Makes no sense to me for anything but maneuvering. Thrust vectoring engines wouldn't be needed or could be enhanced greatly. I always wondered by swept wings didn't employ independent geometry to do what these wings could do. I know there were accidents do to unintended malfunctions. But with fly by wire planes with independ sweeping wings could make at least drones capable of maneuvering in ways that human piloted aircraft would be impossible... Imagine like the A 10 having independent geometry wings. Turning radius near 0 anyone? A battlefield advantage if I ever saw one...
Do you have any video or info on that huge ass bf109 kinda thing with long wings and turboprop exhaust? Was called P.1101 or something like that
P.1091 was the name
@ihyls The R.T. Jones Oblique Flying Wing (OFW) concept has enormous potential to be the most efficient supersonic or transonic transport, with hydrogen or ammonia fuel it could decarbonize aviation transport better than tube a wing. It would be much simpler to build than BWB,and more efficient. Only airport runway width would limit destinations. Without carbon taxes, aviation will not decarbonize fast enough.
I tried this type of wing in a game, it has some undesirable roll characteristics and I couldn't find a fix
Barnes Wallis designed a similar high speed jet concept in the 1960s. I don't know if he was influenced by the B and V concept at all.
Very likely, he would have had access to the Blohm und Voss blueprints and test data.
Blhom and Voss is the definition of the German “Wunderaffe”
Was there any aircraft with variable swept wings that could adjust one wing at a time? If so, would there be any advantage to that?
The plane would loose lift on one side and bank over, all birds do it, watch them.
Would give a deflection gunsight something to think about . . .
The Europeans are a innovative people in general and the Germans in particular!
What about the valveless BMW 803 ?
So, did mister Blohm and Mister Voss finally win their game of weird plane bingo?
Ah yes, another Blohm & Voss moment.
could we PLS get a "Weirdest USSR´s/Tsarist Tanks Ever Designed" Video?
How did I guess, Blohm & Voss purveyors of weirdness to the Luftwaffe.
Blohm & Voss aircrafts feel like they were developed by alien who already knew this design would work because he saw it in his homeworld.
What a weird weapon. Like the rolling Catherine wheel designed for D-Day it was a vanity project. Given that NASA built a prototype speaks volumes about applied science. Is this where our taxes are going? Somebody made a mint and it wasn’t me. I agree having Cool Logo at the end is not ironic.
The Panjandrum. Good videos on youtube
Saab 35...when? Topic: What if someone shot and did hit your vulnerable parts?
Cessna made a prototype asymetric high wing
Do the ailerons work at all when the wing is tilted all the way? I guess you wouldn't need to roll at the highest speeds, but still curious.
this is so weird. But if it reduces drag at high speed, why haven't we seen more of it? I know you mentioned the project from the 90ies and the drones a decade ago.
My assumption would be the added complexity of having to attach wings to a pivoting point, that also needs to be made very strong to withstand the G-forces applied. Also having to retrain pilots and drone operators on how this system works may not be seen as worth the cost for minimal increases in speed.
Also hard to include hardpoints for ordnance.
The USA version of this 'Scissor Wing' could have failed because they eliminated the round extension in center of wing. A problem with similar cause was solved in variable swept Wings, as in prototype Me-1011, with an small, fixed swept extension in wing root. Without this, the F-111 would have been unfliable. Someone with the courage and resources to test this? Gesund +
What about the british lightning jet
I want what the dudes at Blohm and Voss were smoking back then
I believe that these outlandish designs may not have ever been intended to enter service, but instead to keep their engineers busy and not on the front fighting a losing war
the mg151/20 is a 20mm cannon not a 200mm one it not a battleship gun :P @4:42
The expected speed must have been over 500mph otherwise there would be no need to handle transonic shockwaves. This is also why the ME262 was swept back, because of a max speed of 560mph, nothing to do with weight distribution
Are you sure about this? Don’t transonic soundwaves only happen just before mach 1? I’m also 100% sure the Me-262’s wings were for weight distribution, not to have better handling to stress.
The other perk would be increased roll rate from having a shorter 'wingspan' relative to the axis of rotation.
@@robertoroberto9798 At 30000ft, the speed of sound is 670 mph. Max speed of the Me262 is 560mph or over 80% of the speed of sound. Same reason modern airlines also have swept back wings= transonic effects
Messerschmitt "we're working on a flying wing design, powered by a rocket, whose fuel will explode if jolted, and will melt the pilot on contact " Blohm and Voss... challenge accepted
The United States airforce and nasa designed a aircraft like this and it was great.
The target speed would have been higher than 500 mph since a swept wing was not going to gain any benefit. Figure around 600 mph. The oblique wing didn't work very well.
B&V- the Doc Brown of aircraft designers... 🙂 🍄
Methinks, those designers were dipping too heavily into the Jaegermeister.
A bunch of yeas ago this this was called the scissor wing .
looks a bit like the later corsair.
I love how absolutely disconnected from the reality of war the german inventors were
if keltec made planes
Gaijin when
There was no value in swing-wings in WW2, so this design was always going to be a dud. The engine configuration could have been adapted to the Me-262, though, and I think it would have reduced drag and improved handling.
Besides the oblique wing, this odd aircraft resembles the A-6. Just saying...
YT,IDLS!
Nobody knows nowadays how much experimental planes the Nazis built which never got into recognition. A lot of these were built and just scraped in late 44 or early 45 as things got worse and the technicians didn’t want the allies to have examples they could test and draw conclusions without their support. These Nazi technicians knew that after war’s end they lost their jobs so they had to do something for their future. Paperclip is just one operation, planned in 44 without exact knowledge what’s really going on in weird Germany. Later on France and UK also had their operations to get modern weapon technology as they realised these Nazis were decades ahead.
The real reason this aircraft was created was to down enemy aircraft by causing the pilots to suffer an OCD panic attack and losing control of the aircraft
Looks totally weird - BANNED ! Very German. Give me a F111 anyday :D
All of these weird Blohm und Voss aircraft ideas come from an office christmas party raffle in 1944‼️ (Until proven otherwise, that's my hypothesis 🙃)
The BV Design Engineers were probably on copious amounts of amphetamines when drafting new designs
That IS podracing.
A comment
Lunatic idea. It pushes one wing tip to the epicenter of the shock cone and takes the other wing tip clear out of it. Moreover it completely removes all wing subsidiary functionality.
Ahh, the P 202; The plane that would have been able to give the Nazi salute.