Blohm & Voss is the Keltec of the seaplane world.

Best RM reply to B&V. “Just because you can doesn't mean you should.”

Aah Blohm & Voss- the 'crazy uncle who never gets invited over at Christmas' of aircraft design... 🍄

Thank you for keeping all measurements in metric, we wouldn’t want the savages to understand what you’re talking about

What a great 1/48 scale kit this beast would be! I believe that there was a 1/48 resin kit of the BV 138 but it is a VERY rare (and expensive) kit indeed!

Maybe one of the RC airplane channels would build one if asked?

It makes you think these guys were competing with Blackburn to see who could come up with the weirdest designs.

Thanks for covering this obscure design! You're falling into the same trap as the RLM did with the Bv141, though - blinkered by conventional thinking ("if it looks right, it is right"). Richard Vogt thought outside the box, and was a meticulous engineer. The Bv141's shape was dictated by the specification, which demanded excellent all-round visibility but also a single engine, and I suspect a good field of vision was also responsible for the P.111, whose primary role was maritime reconnaissance. As for weight distribution, the Bv141 had no centre-of-gravity problems which is why it handled so well; I'm sure Vogt was equally meticulous in the design of the P.111. Having the rudder offset doesn't have a major impact, aerodynamically, as it only controls yaw. (The Bv141B's elevator was moved to the outside edge of the tailboom, remember, and worked just fine.) Incidentally, his use of a single tubular spar was inspired - in the Bv138 it acted as a fuel tank, in the Bv238 it provided engineer access to the engines and in the Bv144 airliner the wing pivoted around it to provide extra lift for take-off and landing. He was also responsible for designing the winglets that all modern airliners now feature.

At this point, I'm convinced Blohm & Voss' CEOs Rudolf and Walther, in true brotherly fashion, made a bet to see who could design the most ludicrous air aircraft and have it officially accepted into government service.

Burt Rutan gave it a go with the 202 Boomerang ....

Thanks for another B&M obscurity. Vogt was a genius - and a brilliant, meticulous designer - who had a big interest in exploring the wider possibilities of aerodynamics, and pushing the whole field forward. For all it's strange looks, my guess is that if Vogt designed, it would probably fly perfectly well. Maybe I wouldn't want be the test pilot, though. I've also got a sneaking suspicion that, though not a nazi himself, he had the measure of the Nazi party leadership. They were, generally speaking, ignorant when it came to science and engineering, but much in love with anything shiny new and distinctive. Hence, putting these 'mad' designs before the high command would get enough interest and traction to fund development, even if actual production was unlikely. That way, Vogt could try out and test his advanced ideas and experimental concepts, while remaining independent and avoiding being swallowed up by the ministry or other manufacturers. As I say, it's speculation. Time I read up a bit more about him. Suggestions?

I have always loved the " out there " designs and Blohm & Voss was , in my opinion, the " most out there " designers out there, especially the BV 170, though I really wonder about the field of vision, what with the cockpit fighting for space with the tail assembly. I imagine take off and landing would have been a nightmare. Thank you for keeping the weird alive. Take care, Paul from Florida.

The thought of all those flying control and engine control bellcranks alone has given me a rash. Lol

I made the BV P.111 on KSP a while ago. The game trims the aerodynamic surfaces in real time, so pulling up actually pulls up. The ratio and relationship of the control surfaces would had to be established in the real plane too.

Wiki says of Blohm & Voss.... "Blohm+Voss (B+V), also written historically as Blohm & Voss, Blohm und Voß etc., is a German shipbuilding and engineering company. Founded in Hamburg in 1877 to specialise in steel-hulled ships, its most famous product was the World War II battleship Bismarck."

The BV138's ventral gun mount was not included in the original design. It was added at the Luftwaffe's request to compensate for the restricted field of fire of the rear turret.

Blohm & Voss never let us down

Blohm had a think for asymmetrical designs, and weight never seemed to be a problem with any of them. He actually made a scout plane that was complimented for being excellent to fly despite being horribly asymmetrical as well. So your worries can be considered as covered. Check out the BV 141!

I think you do no want to underestimate Herr Vogt. He was a brilliant aerodynamicist, and many of his designs, wierd or not, performed quite well. Some were built, other did not quite get there., although some were later built as models (e.g. B v215), and fly quite nicely. Later in is life, in the USA, he helped developed the winglet. So, maybe he was joking with the P111, or maybe he was not...

Model 202 Boomerang is an aircraft designed and built by Burt Rutan…

Its like they had Pablo Picasso doing the initial sketches.

Regarding weight distribution, any cargo is likely to be stored in the main body of the aircraft. Thus adding or removing cargo will move the center of gravity. A small sideways change in weight distribution is something that pilot can probably deal with however a more conventional design would be simpler. I am not a pilot but one of my concerns with an airplane like this would be landing on water... Which ever pontoon contacts the water first will experience a substantial force opposite the movement of the airplane. Since the airplane is not symmetric this will try to turn the airplane. It might work but it would be simpler to choose a symmetric design.

Love blohm and voss

I think another point on the "pro" side would be that it brought the third engine down to the wing level, and thereby would increase lift compared to the BV 138 design. Being based so heavily on the previous design would have made it both quicker and much less expensive to put into production as well.

Consider this: What the idea behind it? Being able to gain maneuverability as soon as possible at take off - reduced range of take off - being a coast/river/estuary night-fighter/observer

On the asymmetry: There's 6 factors to consider, of which you mention only 2. As mentioned at 8:33, you first have the issue of the weight distribution between the two sides being (possibly) different. To me, the configuration seems to be _roughly_ balanced, though. Keep in mind that the singular float is under the left wing, and consider that the tail boom is much further from the center of lift than the middle engine and fuselage.) 2: The thrust is distributed asymmetrically, shifted towards the left. 3: The offset tail (specifically the horizontal and vertical stabilizers) will cause a greater drag on the left side. This seems to be compensating or over-compensating the asymmetrical thrust, though. 4: The fin is off-center and it isn't immediately intuitive that this wouldn't yaw the plane in flight. However, this is not a problem. How the moments that are generated by the vertical stabilizer act on the plane is only determined by its forwards/backwards and up/down positioning, and completely independent of it's left/right positioning. 5: As you mention at 9:12, the control surfaces on the tail are offset to the left, so applying yaw _or pitch_ will increase the drag on the left side, yawing it to the left. So yes, it would yaw more easily to the left than to the right, unless you applied some non-linear transformation to the inputs to counter this effect. 6A: The elevators are offset to the left (unless you only put one into the right half of the tail). Applying up pitch will roll the plane to the left and down pitch will roll the plane to the right. Even worse, this effect would be non-linear because it mixes with the quadratic perturbation mentioned in point (5) above, AND once you let go, you might experience a time-lagged effect in the opposite direction. 6B: Similarly, with the horizontal stabilizers being shifted left, rolling to the left might pitch you down and rolling to the right might pitch you up (although probably to a lesser degree). It _might_ be possible to counter the linear and immediate parts of these effects by mixing the elevators and aileron inputs (which can be done mechanically). In the worst case it could make the plane buck like a bull when you apply any controls, in the best case it can be largely cancelled mechanically and the remainder will be compensated for by the pilot developing a feel for the plane. With the positioning of the - left engine and tail - middle engine - hull and - right engine you have 4 degrees of freedom in the design. This can theoretically compensate for 4 balance factors, but the result would be forced to be a symmetrical plane. Thus you can effectively balance 3 forces (or sets of forces), without adding trim ballast. For example points (1) weight; (2) thrust vs (3) drag; plus one more. So yes, it should theoretically be possible to properly balance the plane (for straight flight). I don't know enough about WW2-era plane design technology to say if it would have been possible without re-drawing the plans after each prototype.

I feel like this plane would have had one hell of a roll couple...with the pitch controls so far off from the aircraft centerline, any pitch input would have probably needed an associated roll correction.

I swear if I as a multi-millionaire with money to burn I'd be funding an aircraft manufacturing plant, just to turn out some of these old weird designs to see how (or if) they flew

Good video. Some tips in pronouncing German, though. Blohm is pronounced like home. Voss is like Foss. The V = F Voigt is pronounced Fohkt, the O being like in home. Luftwaffe is looftvaffeh, W = V Or use pronunciation guides. It would make your videos sound all the more professional. Cheers!

i ❤ IHYLS's videos

Suggestion: pronounce Blohm und Foss. It is easy and accurate. Best

ty loved this

Asymmetry is no different than a two engine aircraft loosing one engine in flight. The BV-141 flew very well and had unobstructed view to the right, perfect for a reconnaissance aircraft.

I wonder if that 3rd engine in the is the main reason for this design, in the bv 138 it is mounted in an unusual place (on top of the fuselage) and ended up requiring a 4 blade propeller, something the germans rarely used, maybe BV designers were forced to use 3 engines instead of 2 because they were forced to use weak diesel engines but the central engine was undesirable, so maybe this whole design was an attempt to keep all 3 engines on the wings, and the off center tail was just a necessity to that end

Im suprised you didnt consider the effect pitching would have on the yaw or roll due to the placement of the elevators

The day IHYLS makes a bad video is the day i start flying. Keep up the great work ❤

Opening shot: Linbergh Field, San Diego!

I once heard a German say "What is looking good is flying good." Just had to share that.

This thing could have been a killer air support platform with that field of fire sideways. It could have been outfitted like a WW2 AC-130 with a big gun and machine guns in the back to destroy lightly armored ground targets.

I’m genuinely convinced half the companies were just making some bs to not get sent to Russia

Soviet pilots used to say, that the name LaGG stands for akirowannyj garantirowannyj grob - varnished guaranteed coffin.

For several reasons, propellers cause asymmetric thrust, which needs to be compensated by counter "steering". Trimming with controls always introduces drag! If you design an aeroplane with that in mind, and account for this asymmetric thrust, you end up with a more efficient design, which wastes no power, has better performance, and better fuel economy. The approach never caught on, due to conservative thinking in most makers, just like it took 50 years for winglets to finally become standard, or several years for swept back wings! I also doubt we will see lifting body designs any time soon, which would be superior in many ways that have been known of for a century! In the end, most modern airliners and military craft are now built with jet engines (which have no asymmetric thrust problem), and the turbo-prop machines are now being introduced with counter-rotating props on several engines that cancel any asymmetry, like the Airbus A400M Atlas, so the problem went away for larger aeroplanes. The market for smaller prop aircraft is limited, with very few new designs appearing in a segment that uses many used airframes, relying on the tried and proven, and with next to no R&D funding capabilities.

My family is german, but I must recognize... germans have some kind of problem. I recall something I heard on an episode of Southpark "Genetic engineering exists to fix mother nature's mistakes, like the German people!". I learned a lot about the StG44 playing world of guns... lots of torsion springs and spacers on its lockwork. Germans are nuts.

Would perhaps make an interesting project for a radio control model enthusiast?🤔

This would be a good project for an RC modeler.

The only way I could make one of these is by sitting them on a single point of pivot to test the balance constantly, while creating the asymmetry; obviously being able to lock it.

🤔 dunno bubba. The tail boom would have to be between the fuselage & inboard starboard (port depending on negative reversal) engine to ease stress loads when directional changes were needed...IMO.

Looks like the offset pitch and yaw control surfaces could induce some “interesting” handling effects.

The direction of the rotation of the propellers causes torque and it cause the prop was either to the right above the wing and to the left blow the wing (if the rotation is counter clockwise when looked at from the front) or the opposites if the rotation is the opposite. Ideally engines would have counter rotating propellers as that would balance everything but counterrotating propellers is apparently a bitch to get to work, the gearing is heavy and appaerntly likes to shake itself apart so you do not get that until the 60's aand then only on the Soviet/Russian Bears and som truboprop military heavy lifters. You did get some multi-engine planes that had 1 counterclockwise engine aand one clockwise which balanced the torque notably the P-38. But most multi-engined planes had all engines rotating the same direction which meant that one wing was being lifted aand the other pushed down from torque. This was compensated by adjusting the aileron trim. But if the plane was slightly asymmetric careful weight placement could make neutral trim, which is more efficient, possible. The other issue , and the one that screams look at me, is the tail placement. At low speed the tail is much more efficient if it is directly in the propeller was. The propeller wash, which is above the wing, is not directly behind the propeller but is either left or right of it depending on propeller rotation. Is the propeller above the wing moving left to right or right to left. If the propellers on the model above move right to left above the wing than the central engine prop was should hit the tail; if it goes the other way then all of the propellers miss thus certainly the former is the way that the propeller rotation would be. That would also lift the right wing due to torque. From the photo at 2:00 the BVV 138 propellers rotate opposite but with a different engine and reduction gear the 110 presumably could be set right for weight balance and propeller force on the single tail..

B&V had alien technology knowledge or they were hippies (LSD) 😁

That's radical, I didn't realise something so asymmetric was considered. Having said that, I've often wondered if more conventional propeller driven craft were slightly asymmetric, with the propeller torque acting in a known direction, would it make sense for one wing to give slightly more lift than the other when neutrally trimmed (say just enough to counter the mid-throttle torque). Was this ever considered?

The B&V 138 was a fine rugged and useful design .......... This thing is " logic and proportion fallen floppy dead " to quote Jefferson Airplane

Nothing beats German WW2 planes

If the goal here is to make a plane with a wider field of fire in the rear, which appears to be the primary purpose, then why not eliminate the booms entirely, lengthen the fusilage, and then putting the stabilizers (tail) ahead of the gunners position? Then you'd have an even better field of fire, and a far more practical plane. That would just be my design solution.

Wouldn't this be better if this was a flying wing instead of a single tail/boom design?(I have no clue about aeronautical engineering by the way)

We have the Boomerang by Rutan as a modern days off set plane

Ah the Crazy World of B&V

If that Blohm and Voss P111 ever got of the ground or the sea I this case , l think it would be a miracle , that's taking aesemetric design to the next level

10:13 I don't know how you missed it - it being the second YT result for "rc blohm voss 111" - but there is at least one flying model of it in Italy. Or there was, anyway, since that video is 13 years old. Check out video VWebOqocMZY - seems to fly fine. There's another video of someone making another 111, but unfortunately all they posted is making the wing. Oddly, they too are Italian.

Am I the only one that believes that Blohm & Voss never got the book about how to design an aircraft. Not that I'm complaining.

Blohm & Voss had a lot of brilliant engineers and a lot of time to design amazing unorthodox aircraft. In my opinion, it's foolish to think they were wasting their time. Instead I believe that they were pushing the limits of what was possible. I have a brilliant book that I purchased years ago from Europe that shows most of the experimental aircraft designs coming out of Germany during WW2. What I learned is that the allies were no where close to matching German engineering. Had the war gone on for another 5 years, it's possible that the Germans might have won or at least negotiated a peace treaty where some countries may no longer exist

Surprised to hear they made it. 0:30 ...

The Bonkers 111. There must be a reason (over all) why they did this surely. Great salesmanship ? we have this or something wierder 😅

What the author of this hit piece is ignoring is that; both the BV 141 and the BV138 were successful in their assigned roles. Just because they look weird doesn't mean there wasn't a bit of genius in their design and their ability to complete tasks. The P-111 is just another way to assemble a trio of Jumo 205C aero-Diesels around a much better aerodynamically, higher aspect wing planform. Since this, like their other Luft'46 designs were largely just on paper, they never really got to prove their worth, so this video is a bit specious.

Imagine trying to "Roll" that thing

How was this their fallback?! Oh u didnt like my plane? what if I shuffle the parts?

I can see where those designs with the motors on the front of low frontal area booms would be at least slightly more efficient, just due to less redirection of propwash. The truly screwy looking asymetrical would have some not insignificant roll induction with elevator pitch force, unless you somehow put some coupled differential countering ailerons in the linkage. Personally, it looks like a really foolish answer to a design specification. I would hope that the gunners did not have to 'be careful' about hitting their own plane. If there weren't lockouts where structure was in the line of fire, they DESERVED to have their own planes shot up, by not even friendly fire, but self generated fire. Basically shooting yourself in the foot, figuratively.

" ..Wish it in the Corn field ! ..WISH IT IN THE CORN FIELD !!! ...AAuughhh ! "

Anyone built an RC model of a P111? Be fun to see it fly!

Saving resources... but also less drag, presumably (less floats and tailfeathers). Unless constantly correcting via control surfaces, because you’re desperately asymmetric. Hmm... fuel management is going to be “fun”.

Is it so hard to pronounce Blohm & Voss right?

Did I hear "Luftwaffle" ?😅

I love these unusual design concepts put out by Hitler's aircraft manufacturers, but surely any moderately hard landing at sea would severely damage or snap off the tail boom ?

0:40 Worse? More like better!

I suppose this is conceptually just an outrigger boat? Otherwise it just hurts my brain

Balancing out fuel as it is consumed in a asymetrical design .

These planes look well yes but they where aerodynamically stable.

👍

They were only a couple of steps away from making a plane in the shape of a swastika!

I know the angle I would attack it from. Fighter pilots are not stupid.

One of the potentially successful asymmetrical plane B&V could have developed was the P 171. It seems that it was designed as a fighter maybe a bomber, you never really know what to believe

If I'm not misinformed landing on water is in itself already rather difficult doing it with asymmetric floats on purpose seem insane. I seriously doubt this was a serious idea.

Germanys problem was they couldn't just PICK ONE......of anything. Look at the T-34 and you'll see my point.

Someone needs to build an RC model to see if it could fly.

The 138 makes me think Russia took the idea for it Mi-24 & Mi-28.

Looft-vaffuh

Can't anyone see what B+V's intent was? It's so obvious! It's nearly impossible to aim and fire an AA gun while gasping for breath, convulsed with laughter. Seriously, though, thank you for showing us these strange and wonderful flying machines.

forget dividing the plane down the middle. ask, where is the center of gravity (CG)? the CG is the true dividing point.

somebody fire up KSP and build this baby

Time to load up Kerbal Space Program...

looking at this thing makes me feel like im having a stroke or something. its ugly and really cool looking at the same time.

I see Blohm and Voss are still going. Has anyone considered that they came up with all these asymetric designs to appeal to Hitler ... what with him only having one ball? :)

B&V the only company that made smoking pot while working mandatory ... or so it seems

well. if nothing else the thousand (12) year regime sure did foster some truly weird (most of them deeply flawed) humans.

To try if it could fly: kerbal space program

If the P170 looks like a podracer, then this is a ww2 era b-wing

You have to experiment with designs. No one knows it be successful. Just look at the Super Guppy…

I'm guessing there's a form of autism/ocd where even looking at something that asymetric makes them feel .. bad.

I've lost brain cells

Your mispronunciation of Luftwaffe is jarring. Please try (looft' - vaffuh)