The German Spitfire

[storch]

yet see for yourself

[Major Biggles]

Originally posted by storch
yet see for yourself

you're such a tard

[humble]

was clearly superior to the 109E across the board. It was simply not superior enough to dictate the switch (no clue what twisted logic was at work).

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Major Biggles
truesay, but by then it was revenge, which i totally understand

Not revenge.  Strat bombing doctrine used by all participants in the War was firmly grounded in the writings of Douhet from the '20's.  Those disciples of the doctrine believed that mass destruction wreaked by strategic bombers would obviate the need for troops on the ground, and that countries would simply capitulate from the destruction.  The potential of Douhet's beliefs weren't realized until August of '45.  But, the Japanese, Germans, British, and U.S. all tried to achieve it with conventional bombing.  The Blitz, and Harris's orders, were designed around a litteral use of Douhet's theory.

Check out a quick synopsis here

[Krusty]

Clearly superior? In what way? It had a higher wing loading than the already-high wing loaded 109C/D. The problem only got worse as the 109s improved, meaning that the wing loading would have gotten worse.

The He100D, I've since figured out, had 2x 7mm MGs in the wing roots, and provisions for a hub-mounted MG/FF. Like the 109, however, I don't think the MG/FF was ever installed due to jamming and vibrations/overheat. Even the 3 sent to Japan left the MG/FF out and just shipped with 2x 7mm guns.

Would you say a plane that is faster, but not more manuverable, with less armament (and no cannons) is "clearly superior" to an aircraft that had decent speed, good manuverability, and good firepower?

It only had speed, nothing else. Even the LW pilots disliked the high wingloading.

Hardly a wonder weapon.

EDIT: Oh, the process started in '37 and the first prototypes were flying in '38. Yet it was still inferior to the 109Bs that were out at this time. Again, it was a racer, not a fighter.

[RASTER]

In the Battle of Britain the Canadian pilots did proportionally very badly with I think half of them killed. In the statistics I saw,  not sure if that included the US pilots.

The Polish pilots did proportionally very well as did some others nationalities. Not sure why, but the Canadians were either fool hardy or brave to a fault, maybe not well trained or in inferior equipement. Sadly this seems to be our military history. We've gone in and died in proportionally large numbers such as in Monte Cassino and Dieppe.

It was agreed at the time of the Monte Cassino battle that the press would give the Yanks all the credit for their folks back home and that's how the history books read it. Lot of Canadians are still bitter about the total hog wash. About time some of this US propaganda was brought out in the open don't you think. The war was almost over by the time the US picked up a rifle.

This dont buy Canadian crap because we wouldn't march with the "you're with us or against us" nationalists into Iraq. Pfft. Where were you in 42. Building trucks and shipping them to Germany thats what we remember.    

RASTER

[Krusty]

Originally posted by RASTER
The war was almost over by the time the US picked up a rifle.

You know, I hate to sound arrogant, but the U.S. was the one SENDING the rifles that were "picked up" by allied soldiers before U.S. troops showed up.

And, as for the war being almost over... Tell that to the million+ U.S. troops that fought bitterly on the continent (and without whose help the continent would never have been retaken).

Imagine if the U.S. hadn't committed troops. Britain would have barely survived the Battle of Britain, but they'd never have had the troops or supplies to even DREAM of liberating France. Hitler's follies in the East would have let Stalinist Soviet Russia push in to Germany, but without U.S. forces pushing him on the Western front, he probably would have held Stalin off. For a few more years. Then when Hitler fell the entire continent of Europe would have been under Soviet rule.

You thought the cold war was bad? Imagine if the "Eastern Bloc" included all of France, Holland, Spain, Italy, and points north and south!

Face it, the war was far from "almost over" when we got involved.

EDIT: I don't condone the propoganda, though

[humble]

Originally posted by Krusty
Clearly superior? In what way? It had a higher wing loading than the already-high wing loaded 109C/D. The problem only got worse as the 109s improved, meaning that the wing loading would have gotten worse.

The He100D, I've since figured out, had 2x 7mm MGs in the wing roots, and provisions for a hub-mounted MG/FF. Like the 109, however, I don't think the MG/FF was ever installed due to jamming and vibrations/overheat. Even the 3 sent to Japan left the MG/FF out and just shipped with 2x 7mm guns.

Would you say a plane that is faster, but not more manuverable, with less armament (and no cannons) is "clearly superior" to an aircraft that had decent speed, good manuverability, and good firepower?

It only had speed, nothing else. Even the LW pilots disliked the high wingloading.

Hardly a wonder weapon.

EDIT: Oh, the process started in '37 and the first prototypes were flying in '38. Yet it was still inferior to the 109Bs that were out at this time. Again, it was a racer, not a fighter.

It's easy to find multiple sources on the He-100, just like everything else I post. The He-100 was more or less identical to the 109 in wingloading and faster with a higher rate of climb. German documents clearly show both the he-100 and Fw-190 superior to the 109. The He-100 was considered better but "similiar" and the decision was made to move ahead with the 190 (which certainly was a tremendous design). From what I see Krusty your long on opinion and short on fact.

Show me any documentation comparing the 109B and He-100 that supports your position that the 109B was equal let alone superior to the He-100.


This is probably the best general write up for the He-100. you'll note that the production model reached 416 mph @ 21000 ft {identical to production model minus armorment}....

He-100

[1K3]

I read somewhere that the demand for Daimler Benz engines are so great to the point when RLM FORBADE anyone but Messerschmitt to recieve DB 601s and 605s.

[Krusty]

Yep, it was fast. But that's all it was. They kept having stability issues and resized the v-stab twice to solve it. Further, nobody has ever described it as an agile or manuverable plane.

On the other hand, both RAF and LW pilots say the 109E was as nimble as the spitfire, and for the most part they were a very close match.

Basically the surface cooling schtick was a total and complete failure. Maybe if it had worked brilliantly the plane would have been adopted as "modern", but it didn't handle in a manner that LW pilots liked (I've got one book that says LW pilots disliked the way it flew, and have read quotes online that LW pilots disliked the wing loading on it).

Add to that the fact that 3 of the 6 prototypes took damage from landing gear failures (one while sitting stationary on the tarmac), and again it doesn't seem like a wonderful weapon.

Granted a lot of planes had teething troubles, but let me put it this way.

Would you want to fly the Gee Bee in a dogfight? What about the Me209? Both were designed for excellent top speed, as much power and as much speed in the smallest frame possible. Only neither would make a good dogfighter. Even the Me209 was acknowledged as a flop (designed to win speed records, with the idea that the fastest plane would be adopted for fighter use).

It would be like flying a typhoon against a Ki-84 in the game as it is now, only your typhoon only had 2x 7mm guns and 1x MG/FF that would probably jam as soon as you fired. Which plane would you rather be in, that typhoon, or a 109F-4? Slower, sure, but far far more capable as a fighter.

EDIT: The page you linked says "In 1939 the He 100 was clearly the most advanced fighter in the world."

It's not "clear" that this is the case. In fact it seems to paint a picture of a very fast but extremely troubled development. That doesn't make it "the most advanced" fighter in the world. It tried something new (the evaporation) and it failed. However, novel and extreme ideas were nothing new for the German designers (look at the 163, the 262, hell all the Luft '46 designs!!).

The entire bottom half of that webpage seems a bit biased. The predominant reason the He100 wasn't pursued was the engine. All DB engines were alotted for 109s [and 110s] (hell the 109s had to wait years for the DBs, they were designed for the 109s in the first place, or vice versa). Even the paragraph near the end stats Heinkel made it too complex, and couldn't put a Jumo engine in it, despite intereste from RLM in a non-DB-engined fighter (hell they ordered Fws by the thousands, anything using a non-DB-engine was gold, because DBs were hard to make and scarce).

[humble]

No question the plane had issues (all planes in development do). Wingloading was marginally high for the time but lower then the 190 or the Mig 3. I dont agree with the wingloading number on the site linked. I always use maximum takeoff weight which puts it at 35.3 sq ft. I've come across 3 or 4 sites with translated notes on various aspects of the flight testing. The handling was better then the 190 overall (remember the 190 stalled clean at 127 mph and its stall speed at 6G's was 312 mph at sea level).

This was a huge leap in balancing the various tradeoff's in design. Achieving tremendous gains in speed coupled with improved range and a much better canopy (similiar to the malcolm hood). To achieve the speed some tradeoffs in pure turn performance had to exist. I haven't ever found any indication that the plane had any significant vices beyond what would be natural given the wingloading. So the plane was inferior to the 109 in sustained turns. What I have no clear numbers on is rate of climb and roll...but the few things I've read said both were excellent.

All in all this guys write ups are pretty even handed and thoughtful. I dont see any reason to fault his research or his conclusions in general. If we look at the planes that had similiar performance the 190A3 had wing loading of 39lb/sqft and the Me109G6 had wingloading of roughly 40lbs/sqft to achieve similiar speeds (with the much more powerful DB605). From what I can tell the He-100 simply was the 1st true 400 mph fighter and the tradeoffs to achieve that were considered a bit extreme at the time. Given the overall superiority the 109 enjoyed in 38/39 I can see the hesitation to "start over" so early into the 109's development (especially given the engine shortage). I am suprised that no production run at all was approved.

I dont see any reason to disagree with his assessment that the He-100 was the dominant plane of the era. It certainly was far superior to the 190, it simply utilized the same engine as the 109 & 110. There is no indication anywhere that its handling was in anyway abnormal or that it had significant issues. It simply was more of an interceptor, if I had to speculate it was probably similiar to the yak 3 which had similiar wingloading....it just got there in 1939 instead of 1943.

I think the info your referring to was simply an attempt to show parallel development. Had the germans given the plane any production then it to would have had the potential to evolve. So the germans would have had a potential option vs the evolution of the 109 later in the war.

[Karnak]

The Fw187 vs the Bf110 is where the RLM messed up, not the He100 vs Bf109.

[Krusty]

Agreed Karnak the 187 outperformed every fighter in the world (AND had firepower and range, to boot!) but was side-lined by a RLM "requirement" that it have a back seat gunner (despite no need for this) and the associated weight gain with this.

Then they didn't want to pick it up for fear of disrupting the inferior 110's production lines, and the main issue was the DB engines (always the DB engines... *sigh*)

[Karnak]

The RAF wanted the Mosquito to have a gunner in a rear seat, but de Haviland successfully fought it off by doing a mock up and demonstrating how much it negatively impacted perfromance.

[Krusty]

I wonder if it would have made it into production using twin BMW engines? More drag, but it was the fastest plane around when introduced, it could stand to lose a few mph.

It's a good thing for the Western forces that they were more flexible than the RLM. They didn't coin the term "Nazi" for nothing, you know  


("Accuracy nazi," "parking nazi," "spelling nazi," etc)