Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Blohm & Voss BV 141.....a weird one

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by PzJgr, Apr 8, 2016.

  1. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    890
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    [​IMG]

    While Blohm & Voss (or "Blohm und Voss") aircraft firm will forever be linked to their many successful floatplanes and flying boats used by the German Luftwaffe throughout World War 2, it is the Bv 141 that will forever be remembered as their most unique aircraft project. The Bv 141 made use of a wholly unorthodox asymmetrical design layout in which the crew was set within a nacelle offset to the starboard side of the aircraft while a portside boom held the powerplant and tail unit. Both sides were joined todgether at the forward portion of the boom by the wing element making for a truly unique and identifiable plane. Despite proving to have excellent handling, the aircraft saw much working against it and was only produced in prototype and pre-series forms by the end of her run.

    Read more:
    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=781
     
  2. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I remember making a 1/72 plastic Airfix kit of this strange aircraft when I was about 11. Very much one of those intriguing 'Luftwaffe '46'-type designs.
     
  3. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Member Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    678
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    What possible advantage could be foreseen by the aeronautical engineers that designed this truly intriguing plane. ? There has to be some rational for it.

    Gaines
     
  4. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,740
    Likes Received:
    820
    If recalling- it was to be an observation craft. Gave excellent views directly below, although vision to its left would have been hampered...Couldn't find my book that 'splained it.
    I also built a model of it as a kidlet...recall the pieces being a light baby blue. It met an unfortunate end, filled with lady fingers (FLAK).
     
  5. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    yes, huge blind spot left...no radar...appears you need 4 wing roots instead of 2,<> meaning more parts/ more difficult/different engineering and manufacturing........ and drag would be non-symetrical...possibly more fuel stored in middle, instead of cockpit taking up that room....?.
    big difference in views from standard cockpit and this might make the difference in critically needed recon and information

    more pics and information
    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=781
    above says better vantage point for crew....? and talks about air flow

    http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Blohm-Voss-BV141.html

    Poppy correct
     
  6. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    In the end they preferred the FW 189 that had a very similar crew layout but two engines, IMO the visibility on the engine side will not be that much worse, the area to be observed was down not level with the plane.

    Possibly a parasol design with the engine above the wing might have worked bur would have been impossible to defend from attacks from above unless you put the gunner in the engine nacelle like they did with the B&V 138 and from there he would be of little use as a ground observer.
     
  7. Triton

    Triton New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Germany
    The designer was obsessed by asymmetric designs. He wanted to build an asymmetric ground-attack plane too as a replacement of the Ju 87 with no logical reasons whatsoever.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_P.194
    Generally Blohm&Voss effort for the Luftwaffe wasn't very helpful. It was a ship-building company with very little experience in building aircrafts.

    A typical design of the late interwar/early war - period when german engineers often wanted to achieve something completely new and usually were trying to kill two birds with one stone. The BV 141 has to combine excellent visiblity with a single engined layout. Even the later FW 189 was favoured because it could use the low-powered and otherwise obsolete french engines.
    The He 177 has to be a a 4 engined bomber with only two propellers and a dive-plane too. A reliable, fast and working heavy bomber seemed to be not challenging enough.

    Other examples: The Graf Zeppelin has to be an aircraft carrier and a cruiser too. The Engelmann submarine tried to replace the submarine and the speed-boat. The Walther U-Boots should be faster and get rid of the batteries with their limitations.

    Even the german assault guns/tank killers were designed to use bigger guns in smaller tank chassis, were faster to produce an had a lower profile. The MG 34 replaces the light and the heavy machine gun. And not to forget: The StG 44 replaces the Kar98K and the MP40.
     
    Poppy likes this.
  8. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,740
    Likes Received:
    820
    Nice bit Triton.
    Often good ideas are made average by trying to do too much with a design.
    "The He 177 has to be a 4 engined bomber with only two propellers and a dive-plane too. A reliable, fast and working heavy bomber seemed to be not challenging enough."...good point and funny as well - if i caught your meaning.
    Just thinking out loud- did B&V make some OK sea launched planes for the navy in WW1?
     
  9. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    why does the cockpit look like it's facing backwards?
     
  10. FalkeEins

    FalkeEins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    75

Share This Page