Blohm & Voss P 192

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
31 May 2007
Messages
9,421
Reaction score
9,279
Hi! Blohm & Voss P 192

Blohm & Voss P192 assault aircraft

"Dr. Richard Vogt's efforts to remove the powerplant from the forward fuselage to improve visibility and provide weapons mounting options were reflected in the single-seat P192.01, a design dated February 1944. In an aircraft with a symmetrical appearance, Vogt relocated the engine and propeller behind the cockpit, which was completely separate from the fuselage itself. This concept had only been used in the FAG Chemnitz C-10 Motorsegler (motorized glider), which likely had some influence on the P192.01. This new engine and propeller arrangement was sufficient to force the RLM to reject the proposal, especially since there was no data on its effectiveness.

The design was developed as a Stuka (dive bomber) and Schlachtnugzeug (attack aircraft). The forward fuselage, cockpit, and onboard weapons were supported by two outriggers connected to booms protruding from the leading edges of the low-wings. The proposed powerplants were to be the Daimler-Benz DB603G for the P192.01 or the more powerful Junkers-Jumo 213E for the P192.02. Both the air intakes and radiator were located in the wing, and the propeller hubs were enclosed in a ring, which formed the outer contour of the fuselage at this point. The wing's leading edge was not swept, but the trailing edge had a noticeable reverse taper. This propeller necessitated a tricycle landing gear with a nosewheel, with the nosewheel retracting rearward and the main wheels retracting into the wing roots. The conventional armament could be significantly enhanced by adding the 5cm MK114.

Engines: 1x1900 hp BD603G (P192.01) or 1x2150 hp Jumo213E (P192.02)
Dimensions: 13.2x11.8x3.1 m, above ground – 4.3 m.
Wing area: – 26.2 sq.m.
Curb weight – 5700 kg.
Maximum speed – about 600 km/h."
Armament: 2xMK108, 4xMG151/20, 1x5-cm MK114 or 500-kg bomb, in the P192.02 modification – 1000 kg of bombs.
 

Attachments

  • 60533_1712997420487.jpg
    60533_1712997420487.jpg
    181.7 KB · Views: 6
  • 554525206_752523757786425_8791446926073001065_n.jpg
    554525206_752523757786425_8791446926073001065_n.jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 4
  • 552873847_752523767786424_7126501107495899589_n.jpg
    552873847_752523767786424_7126501107495899589_n.jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 4
  • 00095936.jpg
    00095936.jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Why make things simple when you can do complicated ones ? (old study office adage)
Joking aside, the question in my opinion would be whether, with all the constraints (aerodynamics, changing load factor, vibrations, landing shocks from the front caster, etc.), the airframe would not have had a limited lifespan ... The return on investment of such complexity must have convinced the RLM to abandon the project. It would be fun to simulate this with modern software to see how the elements would behave under limiting conditions of use, especially during a dive attack with a violent resource !
 
Hi!
Source : LUFTWAFFE SECRET PROJECTS, GROUND ATTACK & SPECIAL PURPOSE AIRCRAFT, Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode, Midland Publishing, 2003
 

Attachments

  • BV P 192.jpg
    BV P 192.jpg
    858.4 KB · Views: 4

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom