Question about the Arado...

Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it had the
capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling two bombs
underwing...



--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it had the
capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling two bombs
underwing...


The bombs were slung under the engines. No space inside since the Jumo engines
were gas guzzlers and there were fuel tanks inside. Three IIRC.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message

Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it
had the capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling
two bombs underwing...


The bombs were slung under the engines. No space inside since the
Jumo engines were gas guzzlers and there were fuel tanks inside.
Three IIRC.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Ah ha. Did it have a wet wing, also?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it
had the capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling
two bombs underwing...


The bombs were slung under the engines. No space inside since the
Jumo engines were gas guzzlers and there were fuel tanks inside.
Three IIRC.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Ah ha. Did it have a wet wing, also?

--

That's it, make me look it in my picture book. Wings were dry and there were 2
internal tanks; 2000 litre behind the wing and 1800 litre forward of the wing.

I don't know if I'd want to fly in an aircraft made with slave labour and all
that fuel sitting right behind me. It would be nice if someone made a full size
replica and flew it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
. com...
Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it had
the
capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling two bombs
underwing...

Where would you fit a bomb-bay in a biplane? Between the pilots feet?
Underwing bombracks were the only place to put the bombs.

Nick

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:36:41 +0100, "Nick Pedley"
wrote:


"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
.com...
Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it had
the
capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling two bombs
underwing...

Where would you fit a bomb-bay in a biplane? Between the pilots feet?
Underwing bombracks were the only place to put the bombs.

The Ar 234 -the one they've been talking about- certainly wasn't a biplane...
But of course, not specifying *which* Arado model in the original question
wasn't a good choice.

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
. com...
Why didn't it have an internal bomb-bay? It certainly looks like it had
the
capacity. The only photos I've ever seen have it hauling two bombs
underwing...

The book "Arado 234 Blitz" by J Richard Smith, & Eddie J Creek (Monogram
Monarch 1) provides a lot of detail.

It had 3 weapons racks. One semi (more like quarter) recessed under the
fuselage. One under each engine nacelles Jumo 004B or in the case of the
rare 234C under the paired BMW 003 nacelles.

It also had hard attachment points for RATO packs outboard of the engine
nacelles. These might also have become available for weapons racks as the
latter Arados (like the 234C) or the HeS 011, Jumo 004D turbojet versions
had sufficient power to lift a full bomb load without RATO. Certainly the
Turbo prop version (Daimler Benz DB 021) might have used these.

For level bombing the patin pds-11 3 axis auto-pilot flew the aircraft while
the human pilot pointed the sights cross hairs of the Lofte 7K computing
bombsight on to the target. The sight automatically tracked the target
according to the aircrafts velocity and height above target. The pilot only
making adjustments fine for drift. A computer in the sight controlled the
autopilot and directed it to the correct release point and released the
bombs at the right time according to their ballistic properties. After bomb
release the bomb sight was swung out of the way.

For dive/slide bombing the PV1B periscope sight was used. This was tied to
the BZA computer. It was only neccesary to keep the cross hairs on target.
When not in use this swung around to point rearwards to give the pilot some
rear vision which was limited otherwise.

Although farily heavu bomb loads could be carried many attacks were
conducted using a single SC500 or SD500 or AB500(which dispensed SD 15
submunitions) presumably to get adaquete range and speed and avoid need for
RATO. Typical attacks being a 4000m to 2000m glide attack using the BZA.
At Altitudes of between 30,000-36,000 feet the Lofte 7K level sight could be
used safely. (The use of a sight such as this was controversial since the
pilot could not keep a lookout and some pilots were very passionatly pro and
some were dive bombing enthusiasts)

Apart from the teething problems of the Jumo 004B and their low thrust
(which were progressively been solved) the Arados biggest flaw was pilot
egress in an emergency which was not easy as he had to climb out through the
roof of the cockpit. The Arado 234 Prototypes (like all German prototypes)
used Heinkel Compressed Air Ejection seats. Unfortunately this seat was
only standard in Heinkel He 219s and Do 235s and some He 177s. presumably
becuase of its weight, cost and maintenance requirements; latter version
would have recieved the lighter Pyrotechnical style ejection seats seen in
the He 162 Salamander.






--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.