Arado Ar 196 floatplane reliability

[Fatboy Coxy]

Hi all, I thought the Arado Ar 196 floatplane was a pretty decent aircraft, however...

During Operation Berlin, the German raid into the Atlantic, early 1941, I believe the two German battlecruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, shipped two of these aircraft each. One was flown off early, back to Norway and didn't return, however, by March 8th, 44 days into the raid, by my counting, two of the other three were unserviceable and beyond repair and the other was mechanically unreliable. Am I being too harsh on the aircraft, considering the environment they were operating in, or would having all three inoperable suggest they were difficult to maintain at sea?

Details taken from Wikipedia - Operation Berlin, which cites (66) Rhys-Jones, Graham (1999). The Loss of the Bismarck, as its source.

 

[Tkdog]

Not an expert, but it seems like it was a fairly frugally supported deployment. Done by a navy with minimal naval aviation experience. I don't think the aircraft's robustness, or lack of same, can easily be assessed. More information would be needed.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm no expert but operating from warships probably shortened the planes lifespans. Repeated catapult launches can't be all that good for the airframe. Did the sisters have actual hangar facilities? The North Sea would be tough on unprotected aircraft. Operating from warships would be pretty hard on the aircraft as opposed to flying from some nice protected harbor facility. These are my guesses and I look forward to those with actual knowledge replying.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Am I being too harsh on the aircraft, considering the environment they were operating in, or would having all three inoperable suggest they were difficult to maintain at sea?

It is a design or spec matter, not a maintenance issue. The Ar 196's BMW 132 engine would suffer cylinder cracks when submersed or covered in cold seawater. Hardly a good trait for a navy operating in the North Sea and hard open waters, like the below.

This is why British float planes had their engine on top, out of the spray. Like this Shagbat below.

I expect the warmer water temps and often calmer seas of the Pacific and Mediterranean allowed for the IJN, USN and RM to place their float plane engines upfront with less risk.

Also, I imagine US engines may be made to a tougher, mass-production spec that may allow for cold water exposure.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The rest of Germany's floatplanes/seaplanes positioned their engines up high.

German flying boats Part 2: 1935-2000 – Let Let Let – Warplanes

Instead of the Ar 196, perhaps the Hopfner HV 11 would have been a better choice? Or just fix/replace the damn engine on the 196.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

It is a design or spec matter, not a maintenance issue. The Ar 196's BMW 132 engine would suffer cylinder cracks when submersed or covered in cold seawater. Hardly a good trait for a navy operating in the North Sea and hard open waters, like the below.

Thanks Admiral Beez, that's interesting, where did you get that from?

Of course the British had a floatplane version of the Swordfish which they used as well, with same engine layout, do we know if they suffered engine problems as well in this configeration?

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

The rest of Germany's floatplanes/seaplanes positioned their engines up high.

German flying boats Part 2: 1935-2000 – Let Let Let – Warplanes

Instead of the Ar 196, perhaps the Hopfner HV 11 would have been a better choice? Or just fix/replace the damn engine on the 196.

View attachment 669158

I think everybody positioned their engines high on their big flying boats, no doubt to protect the engines. But operating off a catapult on a ship, size of floatplane becomes an issue. Looking at the Hopfner, I wonder just how big an impact that would make, mounted on a catapult, would need a lot of room, for a starters!

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

View attachment 669151

The last picture you posted gives a wonderful display on how a floatplane was recovered back on ship. No doubt there had to be a crane and hook to lift her up, as can be seen on the right of the photo, but also look at the wake of the ship, and you can see she has turned sharply, creating a calm patch, which the floatplane taxis into, for recovery.

 

[Dimlee]

It is a design or spec matter, not a maintenance issue. The Ar 196's BMW 132 engine would suffer cylinder cracks when submersed or covered in cold seawater. Hardly a good trait for a navy operating in the North Sea and hard open waters, like the below.

View attachment 669147

This is why British float planes had their engine on top, out of the spray. Like this Shagbat below.

View attachment 669149

I expect the warmer water temps and often calmer seas of the Pacific and Mediterranean allowed for the IJN, USN and RM to place their float plane engines upfront with less risk.

View attachment 669150

Also, I imagine US engines may be made to a tougher, mass-production spec that may allow for cold water exposure.

View attachment 669151

The video of the accident with that Ar 196 on the upper photo (from 00:15).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course the British had a floatplane version of the Swordfish which they used as well, with same engine layout, do we know if they suffered engine problems as well in this configeration?

Shock-cooling can crack cylinders on any air-cooled engine. I imagine this is why the British moved from the likes of the Fairey F.III to flying boats for their ship-based catapult aircraft. You don't often see the floatplane version of the Swordfish on board ships, instead it seems to be launched from a coastal base, though it was used on some ships, like below - though these do seem like calm, coastal seas with the mother ship stopped at a base somewhere.

Compare that to the seas the Arado is being asked to work in. At 0:52 the seas rip the engine right off the plane!

 

[GregP]

The rest of Germany's floatplanes/seaplanes positioned their engines up high.

German flying boats Part 2: 1935-2000 – Let Let Let – Warplanes

Instead of the Ar 196, perhaps the Hopfner HV 11 would have been a better choice? Or just fix/replace the damn engine on the 196.

View attachment 669158

The engine wasn't the problem in the AR 196. The first pic you posted show and engine MOUNT failure. many seaplanes had engine mount issues until they were redesigned to be stronger. All radial engines crack when submersed in water, especially since most radials have air intake in front and low. The solution is to design a hull or float setup that pushes the water away from the engine and design the mount to accept the stress of average water landings in the ocean. Very many designers got it right, and the AR 196 was a good airplane.

It was loved by its pilots, who found that it handled well both in the air and on the water. With the loss of the German surface fleet, the A-1s were added to coastal squadrons and continued to fly reconnaissance missions and submarine hunts into late 1944. Two notable operations were the capture of HMS Seal, and the repeated interception of Royal Air Force Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley bombers. Although it was no match for a fighter, it was considerably better than its Allied counterparts, and generally considered the best of its class.

It became the standard aircraft of the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) throughout World War II.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The solution is to design a hull or float setup that pushes the water away from the engine...

Agreed. By the Ar196's designers did not design their floats to sufficiently push away water, or simply put the engine on top. On the former, a central float, well forward can help this.

Look at this Italian IMAM Ro 43, USN Vought OS2U and

In this regard, I think the Arado Ar196 V4 variant with central float would have been the better choice.

 

[Crimea_River]

The mount failure shown in the video above occurred on an early Ar196 with the single float design. Twin floats were introduced after this.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The mount failure shown in the video above occurred on an early Ar196 with the single float design.

But fix the mount and this format better keeps water out of the engine.

We're discussing two separate issues, engine mounts and cold shock.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Another factor that shortened the lives of ship borne floatplanes was firing the ships guns while the aircraft was on board caused a lot of damage from shock.

 

[special ed]

The mount failure shown in the video above occurred on an early Ar196 with the single float design. Twin floats were introduced after this.

As I recall, the twin floats were to reduce the shock to the engine mounts which were also redesigned.

 

[GregP]

Another factor that shortened the lives of ship borne floatplanes was firing the ships guns while the aircraft was on board caused a lot of damage from shock.

People don't generally realize that, Greg. It's a commonly-believed myth that if the Battleship Missouri (or Iowa, etc.) fired a complete 9-gun broadside, the entire ship would move sideways, away from the gun muzzle due to recoil. That is wrong. The guns recoil about 48 inches and the pictures may LOOK like the ship moves, but it doesn't.

But, there is an impulse that gets transmitted to the ship called gunshock. The turrets absorb most of the gunshock, but not all, and the ship's components endure it. In the case of smaller ships, the guns don't transmit nearly the same gunshock as a 9-gun, 16-inch, 50-caliber event, but it IS a factor. Still, it would give a pretty good whallop to everyone and everything on board.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Not to mention the effects of muzzle blast.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not to mention the effects of muzzle blast.

Weather and blast are why the Brits began using garages, okay, hangars for their float planes.

HMS Warspite

 

[don4331]

Takeoff:
Twin floats are better for take off directly from water, especially when there is any sort of seaway - i.e. rough water
A plane with a single float will tend to rotate about the main float when power is applied which will cause the outrigger floats to dig in when taking off from water, which is dangerous in rough water. But, a single float plane is easier to catapult off a ship.

Landing:
Conversely, single float is better for landing as the single float tends to protect the fuselage, especially the engine. And the larger single float is smoother as it is longer.
Twin floats tend to cause rolling if you don't touch down smoothly/squarely on waves. On other hand, landing in smooth waters of a harbor/fjord, the twin floats are more stable after landing for taxing, etc.

So, both variants had pluses and minuses. With Kreigsmarine operating <10% Ar.196 off warships with the rest, in theory operating from confined waters, the twin float variant was chosen as model for volume production.

Building 50 "B" variants for the warships would have served those used on warships better.