Author Topic: He177  (Read 2240 times)

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: He177
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2011, 07:04:36 PM »

In this case, we do not need any additional plane in a AH. There is also no "need" for a He 111. :)

The topic is He177

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: He177
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2011, 07:08:58 PM »
The topic is He177
Oh, really?  :rolleyes:
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: He177
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2011, 07:09:43 PM »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: He177
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2011, 07:13:08 PM »

In this case, we do not need any additional plane in a AH. There is also no "need" for a He 111. :)
I see it a bit different.  Core aircraft that fought the war are "needed" for scenarios and such, thus the need for the He111, Pe-2, Ki-43 and such.  By the time the Germans had better bombers than the Ju88 and He111, they were peripheral to the mainline German operations, which had switched to fighters.  In the same way, we didn't "need" the Ki-67, but we did "need" the G4M1.  That said, I like having the Ki-67 and would like having the Ju188.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: He177
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2011, 07:19:13 PM »
I see it a bit different.  Core aircraft that fought the war are "needed" for scenarios and such, thus the need for the He111, Pe-2, Ki-43 and such.  By the time the Germans had better bombers than the Ju88 and He111, they were peripheral to the mainline German operations, which had switched to fighters.  In the same way, we didn't "need" the Ki-67, but we did "need" the G4M1.  That said, I like having the Ki-67 and would like having the Ju188.


I agree with the first 3 and G4M1.  :salute  

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: He177
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2011, 07:23:48 PM »
I see it a bit different.  Core aircraft that fought the war are "needed" for scenarios

This is no more a legit "need" than our need in the MA. BOB scenario is taking place how often? A few hours every couple of years. Just do another scenario, as we MA pilots (making up more than 90% of the game) have to chose something else every day  :P
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: He177
« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2011, 07:39:41 PM »
This topic just got shot down...  :bolt:

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: He177
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2011, 07:40:56 PM »
This is no more a legit "need" than our need in the MA. BOB scenario is taking place how often? A few hours every couple of years. Just do another scenario, as we MA pilots (making up more than 90% of the game) have to chose something else every day  :P
Not just the full on scenario, but FSOs and such as well.

The reason things are rarely "needed" in the MA now is that everything is covered.  We don't "need" a Meteor so that Allied only guys can have a jet as the Me262 is available.  Their self limitations do not create a need, they create a want.

Most "wants" are entirely valid though.  I would love to see the Ju188A.  While I am not personally enthused about the Do217, it would be also be a good addition.  I have reservations about the He177 for reasons already covered.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
Re: He177
« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2011, 09:00:26 PM »

How about the B-29 it's engines commonly burst into flames after landing. Me163, too would explode on landings often.
Early models on the B-29 had this issue I think it was corrected at some point. 163 would die for the most part on take off when fuel was mixed & lit not so sure on landing. But to answer your question I would not have a problem programing all of that in.

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
Re: He177
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2011, 10:02:50 PM »
Had an older fella come into the shop last week who after a little discussion turned out to be a mechanic who worked on B-29s.

I asked him about 29 engines being prone to fires, he said he had never seen that.

The only fire he remembers was on a 29 that was set up as a refueling plane.
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/sfeature/waspsb29.html:

"The B-29 was not only much larger and heavier than any bomber the U.S. had flown before, it also hadn't gone through the years of operational testing to which Boeing had subjected its predecessor the B-17. Initially engine fires were one of the major problems. The planes' Wright engines were often called the Wrong engines. Part of the trouble could be traced to the engine cowlings that were too tight and often caused fires even before the planes had taken off. Although engine improvements were made over time, fires remained a problem throughout World War II."

And from http://www.skytamer.com/Boeing_B-29.html:

"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat."

"These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing."
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 10:09:29 PM by Shiva »

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: He177
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2011, 11:06:11 PM »
The He177 was comparable to the B-29 Superfortress.

WHA---???!!!  :huh

Offline iron650

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: He177
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2011, 06:19:20 AM »
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/sfeature/waspsb29.html:

"The B-29 was not only much larger and heavier than any bomber the U.S. had flown before, it also hadn't gone through the years of operational testing to which Boeing had subjected its predecessor the B-17. Initially engine fires were one of the major problems. The planes' Wright engines were often called the Wrong engines. Part of the trouble could be traced to the engine cowlings that were too tight and often caused fires even before the planes had taken off. Although engine improvements were made over time, fires remained a problem throughout World War II."

And from http://www.skytamer.com/Boeing_B-29.html:

"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat."

"These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing."


Thanks for clearing that up.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: He177
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2011, 01:28:34 PM »
Exactly what do you think he cleared up?

The B-29 had engine fire problems, but they were much less prevalent than the He177's, which had as much as 2/3rds of a raid aborting due to engine failures in earlier versions.  Granted, the He177A-5 seems to have gotten the engine fires under control, more or less, but it still didn't address the structural weaknesses of the aircraft, nor did it ever operate like an American or British heavy bomber.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-