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

Interesting post. Do you know of a link to a profile view of this aircraft?

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message

"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 Ar 234 had not been designed as a bomber; the original
requirement was for a fast reconnaissance aircraft that could
cover the whole of Britain. German intelligence on events in
Britain was bad, as conventional reconnaissance aircraft could
not penetrate the strong air defences. (And because British
counter-espionage was very effective.) So the Arado E 370
design featured two cameras, 4000 liters of fuel and two jet
engines, in the smallest and most streamlined airframe that
could be designed. Even conventional landing gear was omitted
in favour of skis and a take-off trolley, to get more speed and
range. The Ar 234B had a slightly wider fuselage to accomodate
retracting main wheels, with a rearrangement of the fuel tanks.

The bomber version was an afterthought, so there was no bomb
bay. The camera bay was too far aft to be used for bombs. The
best Arado could do was semi-recessed carriage of bombs
under the fuselage and the engine pods. A substantially larger
fuselage would have been necessary to carry both bombs and
fuel internally.

Thanks, Emmanuel. I knew about the skis and whatnot; the info I had gleaned
from Discovery Wings seemed to imply it did have garner interest initially
as a bomber, *then* as a recon bird.

--
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.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"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...



To enable the original recon machine loaded with fuel to outrun enemy
fighters at 461 mph. But at least the Ar-234 has one small claim to
fame. In March 1945 B-2s repeatedly hit the Remagen bridge with 2,000
lb bombs until it finally collapsed. The Germans had tried everything
from frogmen to V-2s to collapse the bridge but failed until the
Arados did the job.

Rob

In article ,
(robert arndt) writes:
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"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...



To enable the original recon machine loaded with fuel to outrun enemy
fighters at 461 mph. But at least the Ar-234 has one small claim to
fame. In March 1945 B-2s repeatedly hit the Remagen bridge with 2,000
lb bombs until it finally collapsed. The Germans had tried everything
from frogmen to V-2s to collapse the bridge but failed until the
Arados did the job.

Bob,
The Ar 234s never hit the Remagen Bridge, although they attacked it
on a number of occasions. They sure as shootin' couldn't carry
2,000# (or more tp the point, 1,000 lg/2200# bombs.) - there just
wasn't enough clearance between the racks & the ground. The Ar
234 wasn't a very big airplane - it's about 2/3 the size of a P-38
or Me 110.
Heavywieght 234s could cary 3 500 kg/1100# bombs, one
under each nacelle, and one semi-recesses under the fuselage, but
I've seen no credible evidence that they were ever used on
operations.

What brought down the Leudendorff Bridge was the ground shock of an 8"
Gun equipped Field Artillery Battery, firing in support of the
U.S. advance. (That's 8" gun, not 8" Howitzer, btw. The 8" Gun
was the U.S. Army's long range contribution to the Superheavy
Artillery category. It was a companion piece to the 240mm How,,
much like the relationship of the 155mm Gun and 8" How.. The 8"
Gun/240mm How was transported in sections, and every battery had
the equivalent of a Heavy Engineer Company, with cranes and D-8
class Bulldozers to dig the emplacements. (THey had to be mounted
in special pits, with ballasted bases about the size of a swimming
pool) Artillery of this size turned out to be not so very useful,
and was essentially discontinued after WW2, as tactical airpower
was more flexible, could deliver a heavier load, and was more
accurate. (It's no use firing against a target 20 miles away if you
can't observe the target or the splash)
Guns of this size, emplaced in that way, deliver a serious
sharp-edged shock to the local tarrain. (In fact, one of the
location means developed during WW 1 was seismographs. The
Ludendorff Bridge had stood up to many demolition attempts,
ranging from teh emplaced charges to, as you mention the jet and
V-2 attacks, and had been
carrying a lot of heavy traffic. The artillery was enough to
finally push it over.
Not that it really mattered. By hte time the Ludendorff Bridge
fell, we'd already built 2 or 3 other bridges at that site, since
the Ludendorff couldn't handle the volume of traffic.
When the German General Staff cursed those "verdammt Engineers". it
wasn't just for blowing things up, it was for making mobility for
the Allied troops, by building roads, bridges, and railroads,
possible on a scale that the Germans couldn't imagine.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(robert arndt) writes:

A correction to my earlier post - apparently the underfuselage rack on
the heavywieght 234s could, in fact, carry 1,000 kg, rather than 500.
Due to the limited ground clearance, they could only carry AP bombs of
theat weight, though, which limits the effectiveness against most
targets, such as bridges. I still have no references that show that
1000 kg bombs were used on any actual missions.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

The Blue Max wrote:

Interesting post. Do you know of a link to a profile view of this aircraft?

Is this what you want ?

http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ite/ar234.htm

ttfn, Graham