Question about the Arado...

[Bill Silvey]

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.

[B2431]

>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

[Bill Silvey]

"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.

[B2431]

>>> 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

[The Blue Max]

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

[Bill Silvey]

"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.

[robert arndt]

"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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Pooh Bear]

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

[Pooh Bear]

Nikolaos Deligiannidis wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> excuse me my curiosity. Would you be so kind and
> tell my to whitch Arado aircraft these informations apply?
> Thanks.
>
> Nikos D.
>

http://www.simons-warbirds.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WWIIGermanyAradoAr234SpecsPage1.htm

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/arado234.html

A couple of nice links, Graham

[Nick Pedley]

"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

[The Blue Max]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>

Perfect. Thanks.

[machf]

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

[robert arndt]

> >>
> >
> > 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.

FYI, from 3/7-3/17/45 Ar 234B-2s from III/KG 76 hit the bridge several
times using the "Egon" blind bombing system in horizontal attacks from
16-26,000 ft. Their cumulative attacks weakened the bridge to the
extent that it finally collapsed 10 days after its capture. Some
Fw-190s and a few Me-262s from KG 51 also targeted the bridge but
failed to hit it. The Arados, however, did repeatedly. A total of
fifty-five Ar 234B-2s attacked the bridge over a 10 day span with a
loss of 5 aircraft.

> 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.

The Ar-234B-2s of III/KG 76 used both the 500 kg bombs and the single
PC 1400.


Rob

[The Enlightenment]

"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.
>
>

[Bill Silvey]

"machf" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:41:25 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> > wrote:
>
>> "The Enlightenment" > 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 book "Arado 234 Blitz" by J Richard Smith, & Eddie J Creek
>>> (Monogram Monarch 1) provides a lot of detail.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Fascinating.
>>
>> Along the same lines, have any of you ever visited the Luft'46
>> website?
>
> Yep.

MiG-15-like jet fighters armed with A-A missiles, slugging it out against
P-80's and Vampires over Europe! Fascinating "what-if" stuff with a good
grounding in reality...

--
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.

[machf]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:17:11 GMT, "Bill Silvey" >
wrote:

>"machf" > wrote in message

>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:41:25 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Along the same lines, have any of you ever visited the Luft'46
>>> website?
>>
>> Yep.
>
>MiG-15-like jet fighters armed with A-A missiles, slugging it out against
>P-80's and Vampires over Europe! Fascinating "what-if" stuff with a good
>grounding in reality...

Which, when comparing the Me 262 to other jets which saw further development
after the war was over (I won't mention names, but you know which I'm refering
to) should be accepted as valid...

--
__________ ____---____ 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

[The Enlightenment]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> "The Enlightenment" > 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 book "Arado 234 Blitz" by J Richard Smith, & Eddie J Creek
> > (Monogram Monarch 1) provides a lot of detail.
>
> <snip>
>
> Fascinating.
>
> Along the same lines, have any of you ever visited the Luft'46 website?


Yes,

I like luft46. It seems to be mirrored in multiple languages now
including chinese and russian. A mecca for model builders in
particular with some beautifull art.

You won't find anything on it regarding such aircraft as the Me 262 or
Arado 234 unfortunately.

Luft46 is nowhere near complete yet. There are for instance ranges of
Blohm and Voss aircraft that were all steel not included. (they were
suprisiingly light)


It's possible to conjecture on a number of situations where
overlord/D-day may have been delayed such that some of the luft 46
aircraft came into being.

On a technical level I can think of abandoning their magnetron work in
1940 (they had stable magnetrons that were limited to about 80W ie
only enough power for about 1km detection range) and far worse than
that disbanding those high frequency experts into the army becuase
they though that their excellent freya/worzburg radars were adaquete.
When they rediscovered the British magnetrons they couldn't even
analyse them properly till they got these personal back together
again.

After detecting submarine conning towers in 1935 using their radars
the Germans failed to develop submarines which emphasised submerged
performance and endurance soon enough. Type XXI u-boats could have
changed the course of the war if they had of been available 12-14
months earlier.

The Jet engines were delayed by a year by the need to develop low
nickel and chrom alloy usage engines. (Essentialy the Jumo 004A to
Jumo 004B was a conversion of materials). The important Heinkel HeS
011 engine was however meant to not require any strategic materials at
all. Ernest Heinkel wasted much of the engineering talent available
to him by dispersing it in all sorts of parrallel developments such as
ducted fans that distracted development of jet engines.

Even in the case of the the atomic bomb, which would have rendered
many of these developments mute, might have fallen into German hands
early enoough to provide a crude deterent to the threat of an allied
bomb. The Germans tested graphite as a moderator but found that it
was poor. This was due to contaminated graphite however. This meant
they set of on a tangent of extracting heavy water as their moderator
which delayed their progress.

At they end of the day, despite some flawed procurement structures and
excessive secreacy they however lacked the resources in both people
and material of the allies to engineer all of these things and in the
end that wins out in most cases.

[steve gallacci]

> The Jet engines were delayed by a year by the need to develop low
> nickel and chrom alloy usage engines. (Essentialy the Jumo 004A to
> Jumo 004B was a conversion of materials). The important Heinkel HeS
> 011 engine was however meant to not require any strategic materials at
> all. Ernest Heinkel wasted much of the engineering talent available
> to him by dispersing it in all sorts of parrallel developments such as
> ducted fans that distracted development of jet engines.
>
The HeS011 would have likely not have panned out in any case and other
more promising designs, like the 006, ran afoul of bureaucratic and
personal bias. Probably the greatest self-inflicted handicap the Nazis
had was its clumsy centralized socialist bureaucracy which was further
compromised by being thoroughly corrupt.

[robert arndt]

> I don't think anyone questions whether Arados mounted attacks on the bridge
> during March, 1945. However, is there any specific information that they
> actually HIT the bridge or even scored "near misses"? Obviously, any
> validation would need to come from Allied sources, simply because the
> Germans were not in a position to know. I find it exceedingly difficult to
> believe that a circa 1945 aircraft with a blind bombing system from that era
> was able to hit a target as small as a bridge from 16-26k feet.
>
> KB

There are numerous sources available that either stick to one version
of the story or the other. I personally think the truth lies somewhere
in between. During the crucial 10 days the Remagen bridge was taken
until its collapse on 3/17/45 the Allies put a severe strain on the
weakened bridge with all the traffic put across it. The Germans for
their part tried everything to collapse the bridge. Of the three
concentrated attacks the Germans put up this we DO know:

- the 11 V-2 attacks failed to hit the bridge, but some near misses
were believed to have sent shock waves into the structure... small
probabilty of contributing to the structural failure of the bridge...

- the frogmen sent to attack the bridge with demolitions were caught
with no possibility of contributing to the structural failure of the
bridge.

- the jet attacks launched from KG 76 succeeded in hitting the bridge
with 1000 kg bombs several times from March 12-14. A total of 48
Ar-234 jet bombers were used in these 3 attacks and 55 over all from
Mar 9-14. The earlier raids were failures due to the few jet bombers
used and the dive bombing tactics employed. However, the strategy
changed with in the latter raids with medium alt. horizontal bombing
of the bridge. The Arados made several hits using the "Egon" system
which is believed to have contributed heavily in the structural
failure of the bridge 3 days later. I am not suggesting in any way
that the Arados by themselves caused the eventual collapse of the
bridge. Allied heavy traffic increased to such an extent that it was
inevitable that the bridge would collapse. But the Arado hits meant
that it collapsed sooner rather than later.

To be fair, let's just say that a combination of Ar-234 strikes and
the heavy Allied traffic on the weakened bridge caused its collapse on
Mar 17, 1945. But history is written by the victors...

Rob