Blohm und Voss P.185

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
47
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Dear Wurger suggested that I present also this one, Bv P.185
Tophe said:

has never been discussed here according to the Search tool. I discovered it in Herbert Léonard’s book (of 1997, out of print alas now), discussed in the EF82 topic:
Tophe said:

I am the happy owner of a copy of the book "Stukas!"* by Herbert Léonard, Heimdal publ. 1997... and I don't find inside the Ju EF82, even in the many unbuilt projects that are presented, and even in the "false Stukas" chapter of airplanes having dive bombing as secondary mission, despite their big weight and big wing loading. I may ask Herbert Léonard if the EF82 was still unknown in 1997 or if it was rejected for some good reason, that may be interesting for all of us.
* : http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/521885/Leonard-Herbert-Les-Stukas-Livre.html (8 times cheaper than on another site...) out of print it seems, but wonderful!
There are 20 unbuilt projects in the index, apart of the built ones
I am going to translate/summarize the text with it in this book.
 

Attachments

  • r_p185.JPG
    r_p185.JPG
    35.4 KB · Views: 1,545

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
47
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Tophe said:
I am going to translate/summarize the text with it in this book.
P.185-01-01.
Project of Stuka and ground attack, dated 1943, to replace Ju 87 and counter the Soviet assault. Wing in W shape seen from front. 2 engines BMW 323 of 1,720hp or 2 BMW 801. Main landing gears in the engine pods and tail wheel at the rear. The fins direction is uncommon, the tailplane position is very high. 2 MG 151 in the nose. Another crew member is in the tail, commanding 2 remote MG 131. A belly pod was considered for a 75mm gun or 2 MK 103. The load is three 500kg bombs or one of 1,800kg, under the fuselage. Weight for flight 7,690 kg (dive-bombing) or 7,640 kg (ground attack). This project was performed at the same time as the Bv 237.
 

Wurger

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
986
Reaction score
137
Tophe wrote:
2 engines BMW 323 of 1,720hp

There must be an error, either in the designated horsepower or the engine ID. The BMW (Bramo) 323 in all its versions never gave more than 1200hp.
 

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
47
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Sorry, the mistake is partly mine. What Herbert Léonard wrote was "1,720 ch (1,283kW)" what I translated as 1,720hp the dictionary saying that the French "cheval-vapeur" is the English "horse power". Today I have checked Wikipedia to confirm the 1/1 status and… the English article is not clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower with 5 discrepant definitions… But the French version is clear with only 2 :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval-vapeur
1 ch = 736W ; 1hp = 746W
So… 1,720 ch = 1,266 kW = 1,697 hp
But 1,720 hp = 1,283 kW… So, this is not clear. I may ask Herbert but he is very busy currently with his other (famous) job, sorry.

Anyway, it is confirmed the BMW 323 has been read with either 1,720hp or else: 1,697hp, not less than 1,250hp. Either the 323 was a mistyping of the source, or this concerns another version.

In Jane’s all the World Aircraft 1945-46 I read pages 44c-d:
323A & B: 1,000hp; 323C & E: 1,000hp; 323P & R & T: 1,000hp; 323R-2: 1,200hp with methanol/water injection (confirming your words, Wurger).
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Hi
may I ask for confirmation with regard to the number of crew please?
Is there the pilot and as mentioned the rear gunner only, or is there a third crew member sharing the cockpit with the pilot?


Many thanks
P
 

Wurger

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
986
Reaction score
137
Yes, too much glazing for just one aviator :) !
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Thanks Tophe.
2 man it is.


But I agree with Wurger, my oh my that's a large bit of glazing for one.
Looks like the pilot has room to spare...rather like a conservatory. ;)


I'll get the Fw Scnellbombers finished and this one will be the centre of my attention.


P
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
I couldn't resist.
Base keylines laid down.


I loosely based the wing detail/panel/flaps on the BV P194 to try and keep it in the Blohm and Voss family.
If anyone has better suggestions I'm all ears and eyes. Or any other component placement advice would be much appreciated, fuel tanks, undercarriage etc.


Many thanks
P
 

Attachments

  • BVP185 BASE.jpg
    BVP185 BASE.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 1,249

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
47
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Very nice! Thank you for this enrichment to the subject. :)
I will not argue about Reality (about panels): I am a what-ifer :-\ , even if I read Realist books (like this one by Herbert Léonard) :)
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Thank you Tophe.


A little more progress.
P
 

Attachments

  • BVP185C.jpg
    BVP185C.jpg
    45.8 KB · Views: 1,083

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
170
I... don't get this design. Of course its a Vogt design, so... not entirely unsurprising - but riddle me this:

Why have down-turned vertical stabilizers if your defensive guns are mounted behind the tail (and your gunner is mounted in the tail)? If there were provisions for a third crew member with a dorsal gun - that would make sense (otherwise it seems odd).
 

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
47
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Maybe plans have changed during designing:
- first: dorsal turret (with useful down-turned fins)
- then: change in the design (keeping all but installing a crew member in a lengthened tail)
No? (I don't guarantee but this seems possible)
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
A bit more on the profile...
But the more I work on it...I still can't get my head round the size of the cockpit for just the pilot. That's a hell of a lot of glazing.
Maybe it was originally meant for two as mentioned; pilot and rear gunner and he was moved to the tail? But would they have left the cockpit so big?
I'm tempted to say the crew was 3: Pilot, rear gunner (as per Ju87) and the tail gunner.
Then the down-turned fins make sense again too.


Ah well..... :D
P
 

Attachments

  • BVP185E.jpg
    BVP185E.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 1,031

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,226
Reaction score
766
Flitzer, I admire and envy your talent and swiftness at that sort of thing... Wow!
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
151
Website
cluttonfred.info
I agree with Stargazer that Flitzer does lovely work on the illustrations. On the question of the downturned fins, i believe that many designs deliberately placed the fins in the propeller slipstream to improve rudder authority at low speeds without needing excessively large and draggy fin area. The overall impression of the design is very much that of a big brother to the B&V Ha.137 dive bomber/ground attack aircraft. In fact, I suspect that it would have used the same steel tubular spar/fuel tank design.

Blohm_Voss_Ha_137_front_view.jpg
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
I went for just pilot in the big cockpit after all.
Finished or there abouts.

Got to do a few little fiddley bits and maybe add a bomb load or the gun pack.


Good point Mole.


Glad to be of service.
Many thanks
P


Ah...I almost forgot...what of antena, associated cables and wires etc? Any ideas as to where they may be located or arranged on this?
 

Attachments

  • BVP185F.jpg
    BVP185F.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 695

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,379
Standard radio set was the FuG 16, I think, using a wire antenna, a rod aerial
and loop aerial for direction finding.
No need for more sophisticated radio sets in a dive bomber/attack aircraft,
to my opinion.
 

Attachments

  • antenna.jpg
    antenna.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 619

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Applied...


This is as far as I've got.


Many thanks
P
 

Attachments

  • BVP185G.jpg
    BVP185G.jpg
    52.7 KB · Views: 564

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,379
And again: Great !
Just had the idea, that this design would have been ideal for carrying a big
fixed gun in a gondola under the fuselage. Maybe this would have been the role a
the third crew member: Loader for such a gun, and without it, his seat would
have been empty ?
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Thanks lads.


I usually do a few different schemes, so one or more could easily take a gun gondola. ;D ;)


P
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Hi all...


I'm busy finishing this off, so could I please ask if there might have been guns/cannon mounted in that solid nose?


And as its a Stuka design, where would the bomb mountings have most likely been located?
Would they be directly on the underside of the fuselage or one to each underside inner wing panel?


And would a tank-killer version have been a possibility, aka Hs129 with gun pod?
Just thinking about the gondola suggestion.


Many thanks.
P :D
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,379
Flitzer said:
.. where would the bomb mountings have most likely been located?
Would they be directly on the underside of the fuselage or one to each underside inner wing panel?

Maybe it would have depended on the type of bomb? Smaller ones (up to 500 kg) on wing racks, similar
to the Ju 88, larger ones (up to 1800 kg) on the centerline ? The P.185 would have had a good ground
clearance and as a twin engine design it should have been able to carry the largest bomb types, I think.
About the guns in the nose: Certainly, similar to the Me 210/410. And for the big guns, the Ju 88P perhaps
would be a good example. AFAIK, guns in the nose would have served here the additional purpose for aiming.
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Thanks Jens...
just the encouragement I needed.


And Stéphane...yes exactly like that. Excellent. ;D

P :D
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
1,379
Skyraider3D said:
How about some Lichtenstein and Schräge Musik? ;)

Don't think, it would have been used as "conventional" nightfighter, but perhaps as a make-shift
one against the Po-2 night raiders on the eastern front, as some modified Fw 189 ? Perhaps the tail
gunner could have used his weapons even after an over-shoot, which was a real problem for the night
fighter pilots there.
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Stargazer2006 said:
Flitzer said:
And Stéphane...yes exactly like that. Excellent. ;D

??? Exactly WHAT??


Sorry Stephane...
It should be Ronnie. Thank you Ronnie.
I was referring to his link.


Excuse No. 49. Too much sky and my dilsexia.


Also, I have already included forward firing guns. What's wrong with me today....it's been one of those... :)
P ::) ;D
 

Flitzer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
42
Could I ask for estimates on wing span, overall length etc. please?
Oh and date of design if possible or have I missed it?


Many thanks
P ;D
 

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
47
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
If the scale is the same as the P.192 of the same page (13.0m for 11.35cm), the 10.7cm of the P.185 drawing's span mean 12.25 meters span.
 

Similar threads

Top