Arado Ar234A (skid fitted version) early recon jet

[Shessi]

Hi Folks,
I'd like to pick the collective's brains about this. I have searched high and low for info/pics of the rear underside of the early A model 234.

The V or A models were fitted with two recon cameras in the tail, facing directly downwards. They were angled at 12 degs right and left to get full coverage, BUT I cannot find any pics or definitive info of the cameras ports from the underside. There are plenty of the mock-up versions and even shown fitted from the top in use, but nothing from below.

The rear fuselage surely cannot be open to the elements, as the tail would get presurised and over stressed, also this would allow water/condensation to get in? So were there fixed perspex panels fitted, or perspex panels with covers that were opened when the cameras were activated?

In Erich Sommer's book (an Ar234A pilot), he states he 'opens the shutters' on several occasions, now is that opening shutters/covers to expose the camera lenses or does it mean to operate the cameras and take pictures ie a camera shutter??

If anyone can help, many thanks.

Shessi

[Bjoern]

The Ar-234 didn't have a fuselage pressurization system, did it?

[Shessi]

Hi B,
No it didn't, but if there were open camera ports in the tail, and as this ac did 460mph/760kph, air would have be caught by these open ports and forced into the tail, it wouldn't have been able to escape and therefore may have damaged the tail etc.

Think what it's like at just 60mph/100kph in a car with the window open!:onthego:

Cheers

Shessi

[COBS]

Hi

This link covers the recon cameras fitted to the Me 262 jet , indicates that glazed cover used ,
would be worth a read as the 234 fit would be similar .

https://www.scribd.com/document/270925527/Recon-Me-262

Cheers
Karol

[Shessi]

Many thanks for that Karol.

And yes, it goes to confirm (and makes sense) how I think they were fitted, with glazed panels.

Cheers

Shessi

[COBS]

The best shot of the two glazed windows , is from a plastic model kit ,
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=70310&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=70311&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=70312&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=70313&stc=1

Cheers
Karol

[Shessi]

Thanks again Karol,

Ha ha ha..I appreciate your help, and I've done the same and got pictures/photos and several model build reviews (where did the kit manufacturers get their information from??!!)..BUT not that elusive and confirming underside photo or manufacturers description or diagram...grrr! :banghead:

Cheers

Shessi

[Bjoern]

Hi B,
No it didn't, but if there were open camera ports in the tail, and as this ac did 460mph/760kph, air would have be caught by these open ports and forced into the tail, it wouldn't have been able to escape and therefore may have damaged the tail etc.

Think what it's like at just 60mph/100kph in a car with the window open!:onthego:


If there's vents to alleviate the pressure difference, open portholes (and car windows) aren't much of a problem. Otherwise, the open waist gun positions of WW2 bombers and jet bombers in general (bomb bays!) wouldn't have been possible.

In terms of additional drag, however, open portholes are less than ideal.




Ha ha ha..I appreciate your help, and I've done the same and got pictures/photos and several model build reviews (where did the kit manufacturers get their information from??!!)..BUT not that elusive and confirming underside photo or manufacturers description or diagram...grrr! :banghead:


Just go with the perspex/glass covers. It looks like the most plausible solution.

[mooringj]

Hi,

Does this help?

[Shessi]

Hi,

Does this help?

M,
You absolute star!

At last confirmation that they used perspex/glazed panels...:jump:

Many thanks

Shessi

p.s B, I appreciate the B17/24 etc had open gun positions and bomb bays, and as you say these are big birds full of 'vent holes'. The Ar234 was small and not full of 'holes'. As for jet bombers with open bomb bays. Yes they has internal open bomb bays but they were sealed off from the rest of the pressurised ac, even the B29 had this system.

[Bjoern]

M,
p.s B, I appreciate the B17/24 etc had open gun positions and bomb bays, and as you say these are big birds full of 'vent holes'. The Ar234 was small and not full of 'holes'. As for jet bombers with open bomb bays. Yes they has internal open bomb bays but they were sealed off from the rest of the pressurised ac, even the B29 had this system.

Pressurized or not, if accounted for in the design, any "pressure traps" shouldn't cause problems.

And again: Was the A234 pressurized?

[WarHorse47]

Pressurized or not, if accounted for in the design, any "pressure traps" shouldn't cause problems.

And again: Was the A234 pressurized?Yes... with one exception. "The Ar234V10...the ninth machine (and second machine for the B-series)..had no provision for cabin pressurization.."

Researched from Famous Bombers of the Second World War - Volume Two, by William Green.

[Shessi]

Thanks for the input folks, has got me a little further on.

W,
Well yes and no. The early series only had partial cabin pressurisation; most, if not all, of the pre-production ac did not have any. Production aircraft were mixed with some having partial cabin pressurisation others none, whilst the few later C models had full cabin pressurisation. :dizzy:

The rest of the ac was not pressurised.

B, ''And again: Was the A234 pressurized?'' If you read the posts you'll see I did answer/state that in my second post.

Cheers

Shessi

[Bjoern]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

The early jets were intriguing machines and I would love to have a few of them for that other simulator with an "X" in it, but I figure they need some degree of engine stress and damage simulation to deliver the proper amount of fun.