Arado 240

[leyreynolds]

Can anyone recommend a good reference book on this aircraft please?

[Graham Boak]

I'd love to, but there isn't one.  There are a number of different accounts which are attempts to patch together a coherent story from often contradictory "facts".   I spent some years puzzling over this aircraft, including writing long letters to a number of the German authors mentioned below - and getting long answers back!  By far the best account was given by Dr. Heinz Mankau in a multipart article in Flugzeug, starting October/November 1997.  He did add a brief summary as an appendix to Petrick's work on the Me210/410, which is worth looking at.  Both book and appendix!  Just about every other account, certainly the earlier ones, has major faults, mainly due to a lack of understanding of the final (DB603) versions.  If you need some good photos, the Flugzeug profile by Manfred Griehl, is an excellent source, but the text is dodgy.  The first decent account was Krantzhoff's history of Arado aircraft, but even it failed to get things quite right.   Or at least, as right as it appears we can get with some significant gaps still existing.  Of the more available references, you can actually pick out much of value in Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich, just not always in the order that he could manage.

 

If you are looking at doing a model, drop me a line, but do specify which.   The Revell Ar.240A is a pretty good start that needs some rework, especially around the spinners/engines, turrets and the tail.  The night fighter is another matter, lacking almost all of the real features of the DB603 variants other than the total span.  It was never a very serious project anyway.  Getting a realistic DB603 prototype will need considerable work.

[Jure Miljevic]

I am aware of only Gerhard Lang's work, which has been published by both Flugzeug magazine and Schiffer, the only difference between the editions being the latter is in English. It is a rather thin booklet but this is hardly surprising, given the low number of Ar 240 produced. Plenty of photos of both recconaissance aircraft, given as decal options in Revell kit, thou. Cheers

Jure

[Graham Boak]

I think that's the book I credited to Griehl above.  This is probably because when I wrote to Flugzeug with a few queries I got a reply from Manfred.  This included a copy of the first page of the Profile covered in corrections, with a page of comment and a list of airframes which was much less that we'd added up to from the various sources.  I got the impression that there had originally been more corrections (even at that stage I could see some very odd statements in the text) but that's all I received.  That's the problem with this aircraft, you start with a few queries and find yourself deep in quicksand.  My interest was originally piqued when the kit came out, and a fellow aerodynamicist at Warton said that'd he'd found it interesting because of all the problems.  I don't think we ever did work out the full reasons we were looking for, but I reckon that what we assumed from the comments seemed to match by what Arado developments appeared on later prototypes.

[gingerbob]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

That's the problem with this aircraft, you start with a few queries and find yourself deep in quicksand.

 

That could be said for just about anything!  (But I know what you meant.)

 

bob (currently knee-deep in some late-service Spit Mk.V investigation)

[dogsbody]

All I've got is this. There are 24 pages of mostly photos. I can't remember what the text may say.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[72modeler]

I've got that one- it's OK, but just the same photos that can be found in other works. Too bad Monogram never did the Ar-240 with all the other types they published  in their Monogram Close-up series. It's a nasty-looking beast. I have both Revell kits but wasn't aware of the issues- @Graham Boak, could you summarize the main problems with the Ar-240A kit as you see them?

Mike

[Graham Boak]

  I agree that the Lang monograph has "just the same photos that can be found in other works", or at least many of, but it had them first and has them together.  If you lack the Mankau articles then Lang is valuable for that alone.  Not that is without other value, but does need a long spoon.

 

As for the kit, I can only say look at photos.  It is now a long time since I worked on it but here goes...  the spinners are not conical but hemispherical - I used Lancaster spinners from the original Airfix kit with the front removed.  There is then a parallel section of cowling containing the annular radiator, for which I used a section of F-4 tank.  Aft of this the main nacelle should be like that of the Bf110, with a fairly immediate rise or the top.  I strongly suspect that the cowling bottom should be wider, as on the Bf109, but I left that in the "too difficult" box.  The tail needs angling upwards more and the fuselage only stands above the tail for the first half, and the strake needs a bit of trimming.  The kit turrets are little buttons rather than wide inverted saucers.  There are a number of little tweaks elsewhere - A-01 and A-02  have slightly different scallops on the wheel doors.  The fins and rudders need a bit of fettling but I don't remember what - probably linked with trying to imagine the rudders moving without fouling the elevator.  or vice versa.

 

One tip when studying the type is that they were all made in pairs, and each pair were different (except V-5, V-6, A-01 and A-02).  The annular spinners are only seen on those four - though it does look very much as though V-3 was intended to have them, and we've no idea about V-4.

[JWM]

11 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

I am aware of only Gerhard Lang's work, which has been published by both Flugzeug magazine and Schiffer, the only difference between the editions being the latter is in English. It is a rather thin booklet but this is hardly surprising, given the low number of Ar 240 produced. Plenty of photos of both recconaissance aircraft, given as decal options in Revell kit, thou. Cheers

I think it is that one

I have a Polish translation 

I think the only used variant was A, and it was produced in small number (below 10). The C was existing only in form of 4 prototypes.

 

[leyreynolds]

Thanks for all the info'. I've just dug out the kit (among others as we're in lockdown here in Oz) and the parts look quite neat. It seems that it might go back into storage as the work required is a bit daunting.

[72modeler]

@Graham Boak,

 

Thanks...I think! Definitely not a 'shake the box and an Arado falls out kit!" If and when I get the courage and stamina to attempt one, I will use your observations as a guide. I do appreciate your taking the time to post your suggestion, Graham. It's such an unusual and nasty-looking beast.

Mike

[Graham Boak]

To be fair, the tail mods do not cry out for change.  To my mind it is the spinners/radiators that spoil the look of the kit   The turrets too, really, but they are barely visible in most photos. The finest view is in Kosin's The German Fighter from Putnam's.

 

There were two prewar prototypes, with 12.2m wingspan, conventional centre cockpit and no ducted spinners.

Then there were six aircraft that can be identified as A series, with DB601s. 14.4m wings.  Basically the kit.

Then there were two similar aircraft with DB605, and conventional spinners. V-7/8 ( possibly aka A-05/6.)

Then there were two hybrid aircraft, A-03/4, with DB603 engines, big wings (16.6m) and wide tailplanes with tall tails.  These became also known as Ar440s, as were all DB603 airframes. (I'll go with this, although the earlier Ar240 terminology was also used.)

Finally there were the true DB603 prototypes, V-9/10, the latter aka the Ar440V-1.

There were a lot of ideas projected for the V-8/9/10, it is unknown how many of these were actually adopted.  There were a lot of projected Ar440 variants, including a night fighter.

 

If you are looking for clarity and precision, this is not the aircraft for you.