He177 ?

[jag88]

The He177 also carried most of its heavy loads externally so far as the diagrams I have seen indicate.

Have you ever actually read anything about the He-177?

How can you possibly say something so blatantly wrong when the load schematics for the Greif manuals have been posted in this forum before?

The only external loads were the guided munitions and the SC2500, all other bombs could and were carried internally, IF necessary the Grief could ALSO carry external stores to complement the internal load, for example when carrying 10xSC500 (4 external) 6xSC1000 (2 external), but the aircraft could easily carry its full capacity internally if armed with 4xSC1700.

[jag88]

Highly arguable. And you still don't get that the 188 very well might be making more than 300mph with external ordnance.

Might?

[jag88]

Yes, this is why the idea of adding it is so appalling.  It would be a gross misrepresentation of history and a travesty to have the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster overshadowed by a piece of crap Heinkel 177.

Its funny to see how people cling to their prejudices in face of evidence...

[Tank-Ace]

Might?

yes, depends on how if HTC decides the drag would be greater than usual for some reason. If not, it will be around 300mph with some external stuff strapped on.

[jag88]

The Greif would be awesome in AH, since none of its problems would be modeled.

Lets see, form Griehl:

"One positive aspect of the operations was that the operational safety and reliability of the He I77A-3 had been improved, doing away with the need for the usual six- and 12fi-hour control checks. The regular 25-, 50- and 75-hour inspections were now completely sufficient, with special attention being paid to servicing of the coupled powerplants after 50 flying hours.

According to the technicians, the He 177 service-ability rate of II/ KG 40 was frequently in the order of 80 per cent; a great improvement over the 30 per cent or so recorded during the Gruppe's training phase, when flying operations were noticeably affected by moisture in the air which led to frequent accidental earthing of onboard electrical equipment. In contrast to the situation with I/KG 40, only one aircraft assigned to II /KG 40 was lost due to powerplant failure. During operations against Great Britain there had been numerous power-plant problems, caused mainly by the undertrained aircrews overstraining the engines. On the positive side, the Bordeaux-Merignac-based Grippe had carried out the first He 177 long-range flight (lasting 12fi hours) and proposed to increase the aircraft's range still further by using 900-hr (198 Imp gal) underwing auxiliary fuel tanks. Despite this overload, but obviously helped by the even stressing of both powerplants during the long-range flights, it had proved possible to operate engines for up to 115 flying hours without any problems."

Here is the first hint for many of the problems. More:

"The Technical School of Luftflotte 2 responsible for training ground personnel at Fassberg had two He 177s for instructional purposes, these being the second A-0 built by Arado and an A-1. In June 1943, IV/ KG 40 also had only two He 177 training aircraft, both A-0s, to instruct its crews on this new long-range bomber. The number was increased during the second half of 1943 with the arrival of 12 Kekf-equipped and several other He 177s; but due to the aforementioned grounding of all He 177s between February and May, training could not restart until October. A good seven months had been lost.

Early in 1944, the training unit was transferred to Lechfeld. A more serious problem was the lack of operationally experienced aircrews for instructional purposes. Due to the high loss rate II/KG 40 could not transfer any experienced crews to IV/KG 40 until March 1944, when two crews were made available for this vital task. As a result of this personnel shortage, 24 aircrews had to be handed over to I and II / KCl 40 after only 15 hours of instruction on the He 177. Not only that; none of the new crews could complete their 'special weapon' training while at IV/KG 40 for lack of a proper bombing range. On 14 April 1944 IV/KG 40 had a total of 35 He 177A-0 / -1 /-3s, of which only 13 were serviceable. There were six instructors to train the young crews on the Fw 200, and 10 others for the He 177 — a total of just 16 instructors for no less than 80 student crews! Matters were made worse by the low serviceability of the He 177s used for training purposes due to the lack of replacement power-plants, and the loss of new-build He 177s as a result of enemy air raids."

Now from Price:

"In many cases, the crews involved were relatively young and inexperienced. The largest number of returnees came From the KG 100 combat group, I/KG 100: no less than 14 of its crews abandoned their mission and returned home early. More than anything else, most of the pilots living He 177s initially had no idea about the bomber's prescribed engine revs and highest permissible climbing speeds. The inevitable resulting powerplant overstressing led to no less than seven crashes and engine fires. Other crews undercut the minimum permissible speed, stalled and crashed. Prior to that, problems had arisen due to the sudden move to a new base at short notice, which had left too little time for comprehensive servicing of the A-3s assigned."

And:

"During these operations, von Riesen's crews had little trouble from overheating engines. By now the various modifications had greatly reduced the possibility of this happening. Furthermore the root cause of so many of the fires –over-rough use of the throttles and holding high power settings for too long—was now well known: the KG I pilots had been advised of the danger and avoided it. When engine fires did occur, it was usually the result of engine mishandling by inexperienced pilots."

The aircraft was a complicated machine, the engines were not mature enough and had to be handled with care, but this is a far cry form the disaster some people wish to believe it was.  Once most defects were fixed in the A5 and ground and flight crews familiarized with the aircraft it did attain 80 and even 90% serviceability rates.

At best the aircraft would need to be modeled with reduced WEP and gradual acceleration in order to simulate engine management established as operational procedure for the aircraft.

[Karnak]

Its funny to see how people cling to their prejudices in face of evidence...

You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s?  You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?

You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program.  It is absurd.


jag88,

Cherry picking data does not strengthen your case when your cherry picked example yields the unimpressive serviceability number of 80%.

[jag88]

You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s?  You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?

You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program.  It is absurd.


jag88,

Cherry picking data does not strengthen your case when your cherry picked example yields the unimpressive serviceability number of 80%.

I am not cherrypicking, I am quoting the info collected by Griehl in that regard, I can post the quote for 90% as well, but at this point, why bother?  

I am sorry that data and facts do not meet your prejudiced expectations.

[GScholz]

Its funny to see how people cling to their prejudices in face of evidence...

Indeed...

[GScholz]

Lets see, form Griehl:

"One positive aspect of the operations was that the operational safety and reliability of the He I77A-3 had been improved, doing away with the need for the usual six- and 12fi-hour control checks. The regular 25-, 50- and 75-hour inspections were now completely sufficient, with special attention being paid to servicing of the coupled powerplants after 50 flying hours.

According to the technicians, the He 177 service-ability rate of II/ KG 40 was frequently in the order of 80 per cent; a great improvement over the 30 per cent or so recorded during the Gruppe's training phase, when flying operations were noticeably affected by moisture in the air which led to frequent accidental earthing of onboard electrical equipment. In contrast to the situation with I/KG 40, only one aircraft assigned to II /KG 40 was lost due to powerplant failure. During operations against Great Britain there had been numerous power-plant problems, caused mainly by the undertrained aircrews overstraining the engines. On the positive side, the Bordeaux-Merignac-based Grippe had carried out the first He 177 long-range flight (lasting 12fi hours) and proposed to increase the aircraft's range still further by using 900-hr (198 Imp gal) underwing auxiliary fuel tanks. Despite this overload, but obviously helped by the even stressing of both powerplants during the long-range flights, it had proved possible to operate engines for up to 115 flying hours without any problems."

Here is the first hint for many of the problems. More:

"The Technical School of Luftflotte 2 responsible for training ground personnel at Fassberg had two He 177s for instructional purposes, these being the second A-0 built by Arado and an A-1. In June 1943, IV/ KG 40 also had only two He 177 training aircraft, both A-0s, to instruct its crews on this new long-range bomber. The number was increased during the second half of 1943 with the arrival of 12 Kekf-equipped and several other He 177s; but due to the aforementioned grounding of all He 177s between February and May, training could not restart until October. A good seven months had been lost.

Early in 1944, the training unit was transferred to Lechfeld. A more serious problem was the lack of operationally experienced aircrews for instructional purposes. Due to the high loss rate II/KG 40 could not transfer any experienced crews to IV/KG 40 until March 1944, when two crews were made available for this vital task. As a result of this personnel shortage, 24 aircrews had to be handed over to I and II / KCl 40 after only 15 hours of instruction on the He 177. Not only that; none of the new crews could complete their 'special weapon' training while at IV/KG 40 for lack of a proper bombing range. On 14 April 1944 IV/KG 40 had a total of 35 He 177A-0 / -1 /-3s, of which only 13 were serviceable. There were six instructors to train the young crews on the Fw 200, and 10 others for the He 177 — a total of just 16 instructors for no less than 80 student crews! Matters were made worse by the low serviceability of the He 177s used for training purposes due to the lack of replacement power-plants, and the loss of new-build He 177s as a result of enemy air raids."

Now from Price:

"In many cases, the crews involved were relatively young and inexperienced. The largest number of returnees came From the KG 100 combat group, I/KG 100: no less than 14 of its crews abandoned their mission and returned home early. More than anything else, most of the pilots living He 177s initially had no idea about the bomber's prescribed engine revs and highest permissible climbing speeds. The inevitable resulting powerplant overstressing led to no less than seven crashes and engine fires. Other crews undercut the minimum permissible speed, stalled and crashed. Prior to that, problems had arisen due to the sudden move to a new base at short notice, which had left too little time for comprehensive servicing of the A-3s assigned."

And:

"During these operations, von Riesen's crews had little trouble from overheating engines. By now the various modifications had greatly reduced the possibility of this happening. Furthermore the root cause of so many of the fires –over-rough use of the throttles and holding high power settings for too long—was now well known: the KG I pilots had been advised of the danger and avoided it. When engine fires did occur, it was usually the result of engine mishandling by inexperienced pilots."

The aircraft was a complicated machine, the engines were not mature enough and had to be handled with care, but this is a far cry form the disaster some people wish to believe it was.  Once most defects were fixed in the A5 and ground and flight crews familiarized with the aircraft it did attain 80 and even 90% serviceability rates.

At best the aircraft would need to be modeled with reduced WEP and gradual acceleration in order to simulate engine management established as operational procedure for the aircraft.

I'm not arguing with you...

[jag88]

yes, depends on how if HTC decides the drag would be greater than usual for some reason. If not, it will be around 300mph with some external stuff strapped on.

The 4xSC500 strapped to the Ju-88 do have an impact on its speed in game, the same would happen to the Ju-188.

[Karnak]

I will add that I do not advocate the Ju188A-1 in order for the German fans to have a less effective bomber.  I advocate for the Ju188A-1 because it would go straight to the top of my list of non-perk bombers to use.

I want the Ju188A-1 to be added to AH so that I can use it.  The fact that it would fill the hole in the German bomber set is just a bonus.

[GScholz]

You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s?  You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?

You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program.  It is absurd.

How will anything be "supplanted" by the Greif? We all agree that the He 177 probably would need a small perk like the B-29. More He 177s were produced than Spit14 or Spit16, to say nothing of the Ta 152 and other exotic aircraft already included in the game... In any case the arenas are not historical arenas. You are being absurd.

[Franz Von Werra]

Mr Karnack!

Stop hating!
Our spit16 isnt a "GROSS MISREPRESENTATION?" wwiiaircraftperformance.com doesn't even list the spit16 lol.
Every new kid in the game comes in, ups a HTC spitfire XVI, and walks away thinking 'spits were best?'

HE-177 fires:
Do you know for a fact what was actually causing fires, what was actually done to fix it, what was done next to fix it even better, and at which point were they fixed? By the time it was fixed, the luftwaffe needed fighters more than bombers. These websites dont say exactly because they dont know. Nobody was logging all this information onto flashdrives back then, and the designers and mechanincs have all have long since passed away. Youtube shows them flying, FILM! THERE IS FILM. THEY FLY
So your biased statements are only that... biased statements.

Cause and repairs:
The idea, I think, was to streamline the plane to twin-engine air resistance, while having four-engine performance. Probably some fuel lines near the hot engines, hot exhaust lines, etc. They just separate the stuff a little more each time? As I understand something about the both engines and the axel in there getting vibration? Surely they adressed this, probably put extra gears or some type of dampeners in there, something, YOUTUBE, THEY FLY.

Early Jet Airlines were falling out of the sky!
First jet passenger planes had waving wings and waving engines, combining in harmony, maginfying each other to wave more, so the engine would tear off... kk. THEY FIXED.
"nothing can be fixed! ~ karnack"

Do-217 and Ju-188 were both midsized MORE OF THE SAME
Lets see, 410 performance at best? Fly backwards after a stall? Easy pickins? No Bombergeschwader SQUAD with either of these two, only more of the same.
Also, the Do-217 and Ju-188 had higher production numbers, because they were SMALLER. Germany did NOT have the economy of the USA for stamping to stamp out HE-177's per minute and absorb the losses. Don't blame the plane for the conditions.

I would say perk the He-177 just like the 262 and Ar234 and the 163 comet.
Give the Bombgeschwader some teeth please!

[Franz Von Werra]

Some defensive teeth that is, that doesnt have to get mowed down like stukas in the main. Or run all over like the ar234.
Formation of multigun defense 'fortress style' plane. It is a gap.

[Karnak]

How will anything be "supplanted" by the Greif? We all agree that the He 177 probably would need a small perk like the B-29. More He 177s were produced than Spit14 or Spit16, to say nothing of the Ta 152 and other exotic aircraft already included in the game... In any case the arenas are not historical arenas. You are being absurd.

You don't know what a Spitfire Mk XVI is or you wouldn't claim that.

As to the He177, it would be an absurd travesty to model such a massive failure as being so good that it needs to be perked.  And while that might control it in the MA, it does little for AVA settings where the pro-German bias (see Spitfire Mk IX persistently being used in settings where the Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk  XVI are appropriate and the Mk IX is completely inappropriate) will see the Allied bomber settings dominated by fantasy Luftwaffe heavy bombers flying against the the UK or USSR.

Our spit16 isnt a "GROSS MISREPRESENTATION?" wwiiaircraftperformance.com doesn't even list the spit16 lol.
Every new kid in the game comes in, ups a HTC spitfire XVI, and walks away thinking 'spits were best?'

Are you delusional or uneducated?  The Spitfire Mk XVI was a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe powered by a Packard-Merlin 266 in place of the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe's Merlin 66.  They came off the lines side by side with the mark number only determined when the engine was mounted and the separate mark numbers only needed because the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 used metric tools and the Packard-Merlin 266 used imperial tools. As it happens the "Spitfire Mk XVI" in AH is actually a "Spitfire LF.Mk IXe" as can be seen by its full throttle height.  Over 3000 Spitfire LF.Mk IXs were built and over 1000 Spitfire Mk XVIs were built, for more than 4000 examples matching that peformance.  Just be glad it isn't modeled as using 150 octane like the Spitfire Mk XVI really did.