German Bombers

[Karnak]

The Ki-84 had engine and landing gear reliability problems in reality.  In AH those problems don't exist, but it does shed control surfaces in AH which nobody has been able to find any data suggesting was a problem with it in reality.  What I am suggesting for the He177 is along that line.

The fuselage weakness I was taking from comments by Capt. Eric Brown.

[jag88]

As I've said in the past, the He177 is clearly a potential addition as it obviously meets all of the criteria.  I would simply make some of the modeling choices that are subjective, not the raw performance numbers that are fixed and it must hit, a bit weak.  Give the engines and fuselage a lower damage limit, give it a bit lower of a speed and G limit before it breaks.  Not sure about how to handle its bomb load as I've never seen a good list of what it carried and every list seems to be different.  I frequently see 11,000 and 13,000lbs listed (jag88 is saying over 15,000lbs, though his use of the "88" number in his name makes me question his reliability) and I have seen much lower numbers as well.

Would the He-177 manual do?



4 x SC1700 make 6800Kg, that is 14991lbs.  Granted, that is for the initial A0 version of the aircraft and as such it does not include missiles, 6 x SC1000 (2 of them external I understand), 2 x SC2500, 2 x SC1700 + 2 x SC1800 or any other late and/or external loads.

This one comes from the same document:



Data on range-load for the He-177:



Structural weakness is a no go, these aircraft did up to 680Km/h in shallow dives during Steinbock (Nowarra, pp 228) so clearly any structural problems these aircraft had were gone by 1944 (Griehl, pp.53).

Funny you should question my reliability since I have been the only one to back his assertions with sources, but hey, who am I to question someone who believes on Egytian gods?  Or did I just also made a wild assumption based on someones fake internet game?


JAG

[Karnak]

jag88,

I am not saying you aren't reliable either.  Just that the "88" bit can have negative connotations and I wasn't sure of its use in your case.

I appreciate the primary source documentation.  It is always preferred. 

Do you know what was commonly carried in practice?

[jag88]

Ok, no problem, I had to add a number when I found my regular name was already taken and 88 is easy to remember for reasons other than "the 88", actually.

There were several configurations and I found references of them operating with 1000Kg loads to 5600Kg loads, they could carry more but I have not found references for actual missions.  Info on this aircraft is hard to come by.

The gun angles for the A3 manual, A 20mm sounds great until you see how restricted those gun arcs really were:



The R2 config is for the Mg151/20mm armed birds.  It really only leaves a single 13mm to defend the belly.

I think the fact that the aircraft can carry fewer 250 and 500Kg bombs than the Lanc would affect its popularity.  It can carry a lot, but that load is usually spread between fewer bombs and that reduces its in-game flexibility.

Btw, speeds are actually little better than the Lancs and B17...


JAG

[Karnak]

What is the climb rate?

As to the weak fuselage, Capt. Brown said he was told to be careful due to that when he flew it.  That it had a nasty combination of very light elevators and a weak fuselage structure.  I don't think that would affect speed though.

[jag88]

...and here is where we have the problem:



As you can see this is the maker's data for Dec. 1942 and the source for the oft-quoted 550Km/h level.

This is the official one from June 1944.



All credit for this find and the pic is alejandro's.

I am more inclined to believe the later set as the correct data, as you can see there is a sizable difference in performance and it actually (in the later table) roughly matches the speeds, weights and altitudes recorded in AH's charts for the B-17 and Lanc.  Roughly, at 31t it matches the Lanc's performance, but at 26t it does outperform the B-17 at 6000m in speed and load.

Its only true "advantage" is that it can tolerate dives loaded, it really doesnt outperform the other bombers that much to warrant perking or neutering it.


JAG

[Tank-Ace]

Karnak, you want to make it shed gear, and NON CRITICAL components, fine. But, really, if it didn't break up in a dive, it shouldn't be rendered inopperable just because you don't want to beat it with the perk-stick.

[icepac]

Been flying the He177 for years.

Nice plane but I took the pe8, DB3, b24 more often.

[Denniss]

The Ju 188 was hardly more important or built in larger numbers thant the He 177 - just 100 more built.
The He 177 GL/C table has to be taken with care, the last two rows note flame dampers and a minimum of 5% power loss yet max speeds (at too low FTH) are the same or even above the A-3/R2. Nowhere in this table is noted whether Gm is just fuel burnt or if the bombs have been dropped (external glide bombs in case of the A-3). Data source for the A-3 is Rechlin while the other two seem purely calculated.

[Karnak]

Karnak, you want to make it shed gear, and NON CRITICAL components, fine. But, really, if it didn't break up in a dive, it shouldn't be rendered inopperable just because you don't want to beat it with the perk-stick.

My point was that the Ki-84 already got that treatment, despite being built to greater strength requirements than any other WWII Japanese fighter, not that the He177 should as well.

I am saying that it should be more vulnerable to Gs and to damage inflicted on it.  In other words, dive it as fast as it can go, but be gentle on the pullup.

[Tank-Ace]

Alright, sounds reasonable.



Oh, and as to the He-177 being the best heavy bomber, *cough* B29.