I'm sure manyof you are familiar with this design??

I've always wondered how having a 1 sided horizontal stab would effect roll and yaw with a hard elevator input? Is having the lateral balance offset compensating for this, or is it not an issue? Would some sort of mix be needed to offset any tendancies from having the horizontal one sided?

Thanks,

It was not an aerobat --
many of these "interesting" WW11 German designs were either drawing board or XP things
Some were however , brilliant designs -especially compared to the outmoded stuff the Allied guys got for the majority of the conflict-
Our approach was - we can out produce and out spend em - which we did

The offset was everywhere on that sucker. The stab/elevator was offset to the fuselage, but think about the fuselage. Was it actually on the centerline of the wing? of the total of all the parts? or just positioned to work where the work was needed?

It was supposed to be a very nice flying airplane.

Rock,

It is my understanding the centerline of the wing was along the right side of the main fuselage (engine and tail boom). The Glasshouse (pilot, observer and gunner cockpit) was offset enough to help balance the main fuselage. A symmetrical stabilizer/elevator was used on the original Ha 141, 3 BV 141V prototypes and 5 BV 141A models. Five BV 141B models had the β€œnew” asymmetrical tail. If you look at the plan form (top view) the port wing is larger than the starboard wing with a short center section to help with the balance. The crew nacelle position also helped counter act the torque. The Bv 141 is actually a pretty aero dynamically balanced plane and is reported to have flown very well.

Production was halted as the Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu was chosen by the RLM due to its more conventional design (and was favored) compared to the BV 141s asymmetrical design. The BV 141 was scheduled to have at least 1 operational unit but was canceled as the Fw 189 Uhu had been chosen and operational for about a year.

In a quirk of fate, while the BV 141 meet the original requirements for a single engine (about 850 hp at take off) observation aircraft with outstanding all-around vision, the Fw 189 was accepted even though it did not meet the requirements being a twin engine aircraft.

I was fortunate enough to watch Nick Ziroli fly his 54” BV 141 many years ago and it flew just fine with the early Wankle .30 engine he used. The plans are Model Airplane News plans # FSP06723.

Burt Rutan built something like it about 10 years ago in a corp jet size package. I think it flew well too.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...n/1289166.html