Blohm & Voss P 178

The Blohm & Voss P 178 was a German jet-powered dive bomber of unusual asymmetric form, proposed during World War II.

Blohm & Voss P 178
Role Dive bomber
Manufacturer Blohm & Voss
Designer Richard Vogt
Status Design project

Overview

This asymmetrically-designed dive bomber had one Junkers Jumo 004B turbojet located under the wing to the starboard side of the fuselage. The pilot sat in a cockpit in the forward fuselage, with a large fuel tank located to the rear of the cockpit.[1] Beneath the fuel tank, there was a deep recess in which an SC 500 bomb could be carried within the fuselage, or an SC 1000 bomb which would protrude slightly out of the fuselage. Two solid-fuel auxiliary rockets extended from the rear, used for take-off. Two 15  mm (.60 in) MG 151 cannons were located in the nose.[2]

Specification

900 kilograms-force (8.8 kN)

Data from Masters (1982). except where noted.[3]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1
  • Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Junkers Jumo 004B turbojet, 8.8 kN (2,000 lbf) thrust (900 kg static thrust)
  • Powerplant: 2 × (unknown make) rockets

Armament

  • Guns: 2 × 15 mm MG 151/15 machine guns
  • Bombs: 1 × 500 kg or 1 x 1,000 kg
gollark: Consequentialist-ly speaking (yes, I am aware you don't subscribe to this) a technological development could be "bad", if the majority of the possible uses for it are negative, or it's most likely to be used for negative things. To what extent any technology actually falls into that is a separate issue though.
gollark: You can show that 2 + 2 = 4 follows from axioms, and that the system allows you to define useful mathematical tools to model reality.
gollark: If you're going to say something along the lines of "see how it deals with [SCENARIO] and rate that by [OTHER STANDARD]", this doesn't work because it sneaks in [OTHER STANDARD] as a more fundamental underlying ethical system.
gollark: I don't see how you can empirically test your ethics like you can a scientific theory.
gollark: I'm not sure exactly how you define "moral relativists", but personally I've never seen a convincing/working argument for some particular ethical system being *objectively true*, and don't think it's even possible.

See also

References
  1. Blohm & Voss P.178 - Luft'46
  2. Jean-Denis Lepage, Aircraft of the Luftwaffe, 1935-1945: An Illustrated Guide
  3. David Masters; German Jet Genesis, Jane's, 1982, p.26.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.