Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gear on March 22, 2006, 03:27:41 PM
-
He-177 Greif
(http://www.simviation.com/pageimages/177a-3r1.jpg)
Technical Data
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG, also built by Arado Flugzeugwerke.
Type: He177, six seat heavy-bomber and missle carrier
Engines: Two 2,950hp Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1, each comprising two inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled engines geared to one propellor.
Dimensions: Span 103ft 1 3/4 in (31.44m); length 72ft 2in (22m); height 21ft (6.4m)
Weights: Empty 37,038lb (16,800kg); loaded (A-5) 68,343lb (31,000kg)
Performance: Maximum speed (at 41,000lb) 295mph (472 km/h); initial climb 853ft (260m)/min; service ceiling 26,500ft (7080m); range with FX or Hs293 missles (no bombs) about 3,107 miles (5000km)
Armament: (A-5/R-2) one 7.92mm MG 81J manually aimed in nose, one MG131 in forward dorsal turret, one MG 131 in rear dorsal turret, one MG 151 manually aimed in the tail and two MG 81 or one MG 131 manually aimed at rear of gondola; maximum internal bombload 13,200lb (6000kg), seldom carried. External load: two Hs293 guided missiles, FX 1400 guided bombs, mines or torpedoes (more if internal bay blanked off and racks added below it.)
Users: Germany (Luftwaffe)
-
I always found this one amazing aircraft, though it suffered from engine fires alot.
What's interesting about this bomber is that it actually has 4 engines (in 2 gondolas)
It also had a predecessor of the remotely controlled guns (found in the B-29 aswell)
I think it would be a great counterpart to our Allied heavies
-
Mmmm, Mossie food.
Of course that is true of all German bombers other than the Ar234, so I guess that doesn't distinquish it.
-
Yes - it did have a reputation of experiancing engine fires in it's early iterations - mostly due to the oil in the gearbox that combined the power of the two engines frothing over at high altitudes and spraying out across the hot engines.
This issue was mostly experianced by the proving and pre-production models and for the most part addressed in production.
The HE177 saw a heck of a lot of service on the Eastern Front, and over 1000 in total were produced.
The best thing about this bomber is that it opens the door to alot of interesting variations.
The Best thing about AH is that there ARE some planes that were not the most common in WWII (c-hog, etc). Having the ability to fly planes that somewhat obscure in the minds of men and in the pages of history make them all that more interesting and mysterious.
there's at least 12-15 luftwabble planes that I can think of that would add some extremely interesting elements to the MA and this is certianly one of them
-
Originally posted by frank3
I always found this one amazing aircraft, though it suffered from engine fires alot.
What's interesting about this bomber is that it actually has 4 engines (in 2 gondolas)
It also had a predecessor of the remotely controlled guns (found in the B-29 aswell)
I think it would be a great counterpart to our Allied heavies
COPY CATS
-
I have never seen this plane before but it would be great to have a German heavy bomber. :D
-
While the heavy payload intrigues me, I think the Ju188 or Ju388 might be a better plane to add.
-
Nice idea and an interesting aircraft. I wouldn't mind seeing it added to the game after the B-29.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing a B-29 after we get MiGs or F-86s :D
-
Originally posted by Glasses
I wouldn't mind seeing a B-29 after we get MiGs or F-86s :D
Except that would put us into the Korean War. Unlike Migs and F86's, the B-29 was in great use during WWII. Thousands were made and used by the end of WWII.
-
Didnt the germans nickname this plane the flying zippo or matchstick?
I've read alot about this plane have bad issues with Engine fires.
-
Originally posted by OntosMk1
Didnt the germans nickname this plane the flying zippo or matchstick?
I've read alot about this plane have bad issues with Engine fires.
I'm sure HTC would be delighted to model that. They love making bombers burn. ;)
-
Hi Ontos,
>Didnt the germans nickname this plane the flying zippo or matchstick?
I've read alot about this plane have bad issues with Engine fires.
The nickname was "Reichsfeuerzeug". The engine issues were bad on the first models but pretty much under control in the later versions. The German test pilot Werner Lerche considered the airframe of the He 177 excellent, but after flying a captured B-24 which he didn't like much, he said that he'd have preferred a He 177 with the reliable, turbo-supercharged B-24 engines :-)
By the way, the B-29 mentioned in this thread had serious engine issues, too. General Le May had the defensive armament removed from the bombers in order to relieve the load on the engines and thus improve their reliability =8-O
Talking about heavy bombers, the Manchester was a pretty bad case, too. Their seems to have been no nickname for the aircraft, but I read that No. 207 squadron was grounded so often that they were given the nickname "207th Foot" (as in "infantry" :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Unsurprising seeing as the Manchester had the same sort of engine concept as the He177, i.e. two less powerful engines slapped together to make one powerful engine.
It never worked in the Manchester, but when the wing was extended and the engines were replaced with four Merlins they got the Lancaster.
-
"... and dive-bombing was never the same afterwards..."
-
Originally posted by Krusty
"... and dive-bombing was never the same afterwards..."
Yeah, yeah. I think we can all agree, dive bombing using Lancs is not nice.
-
Hi Karnak,
>Unsurprising seeing as the Manchester had the same sort of engine concept as the He177, i.e. two less powerful engines slapped together to make one powerful engine.
Hm, actually it was a completely different concept.
Each of the Manchester's Vultures was a single X-engine based on the Kestrel development line, while each of the He 177's DB606 engines consisted of two independendly operating DB601 V-engines (two DB605s in case of the DB610). They were started independendly and connected to the propeller by a clutch that automatically disengaged a failed engine, making 3-engined flight possible.
The problems with the Manchester were entirely caused by its engine, while the problems with the He 177 were caused by the airframe design issues which screwed up engine cooling and introduced the well-known fire hazard.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Didn't later He 177's have 4 engines too.....I mean 4 props as well???
-
Originally posted by Angus
Didn't later He 177's have 4 engines too.....I mean 4 props as well???
No, they did not. (well, in fact all 177īs had 4 engines)
The 4-engine, 2 prop layout was choosen because the Luftwaffe wanted to be the new heavy bomber to be capable of dive-bombing! (doctrine vs reality, hehe) Even before trials showed the problems of this configuration (see the posts above), Heinkel came up in 1938 with the proposal of producing a conventional 4-prop version, but his wish was denied by the Luftwaffe, for such a version could not dive bomb (well, they did not see our Lancaster in AH2...)
After the first few losses, Heinkel rebuilt a standard He 177 A-3 into 4prop configuration using 4 BMW 801 engines. This was done as a private venture without Luftwaffe support. As far as i know, there was only one prototype, but defenitely no serial production. In 1944 this project evolved into a planned He 277, a true "heavy bomber" with 4x 2000HP and a loaded weight of 42000kg.
Another spin-off was the He 274 high-altitude Bomber with 4 DB603 engines and a planned ceiling of 14000m The prototype was build by Farman in Suresnes near Paris, but of course the French were not in a hurry, and the Machine had itīs first flight well after the war...
-
Hi Lusche,
>Heinkel came up in 1938 with the proposal of producing a conventional 4-prop version, but his wish was denied by the Luftwaffe, for such a version could not dive bomb (well, they did not see our Lancaster in AH2...)
Well, since Heinkel actually seems to have been the driving force behind the development of the double-engine powerplants (for the He 119), it would be interesting to see if the sober Heinkel files maybe tell a different story than designers' post-war memoirs. I'd suspect this issue was actually more complex than the simple dive-bombing story.
(In fact, I don't see any causal link between number of propellers and dive bombing capabilities :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Well, since Heinkel actually seems to have been the driving force behind the development of the double-engine powerplants (for the He 119), it would be interesting to see if the sober Heinkel files maybe tell a different story than designers' post-war memoirs. I'd suspect this issue was actually more complex than the simple dive-bombing story.
(In fact, I don't see any causal link between number of propellers and dive bombing capabilities :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I am afraid you are fully right if you say that the whole story is much more complex than outlined by me. Like others (Messerschmidt for example), Heinkel tended to "simply" his memories after the war...
But underlying concept for the He177 WAS to make a plane that large capable of dive-bombing. Which was not
fully unreasonable, as level bombing gave at that time more than lousy results (But thatīs another story)
The link between dive-bombing and number of propellers (or better: engines) is stress. A divebomber has to endure much greater forces than a "simple" level bomber. Especially the wings are much more stressed. And if you link two engines together like in the 177, you can put those masses much closer to the fuselage. The resulting wingspan is also a bit shorter. I think vibrations could be an issue too, but this is just a rather uneducated guess of mine ;)
-
Hi Lusche,
>Especially the wings are much more stressed. And if you link two engines together like in the 177, you can put those masses much closer to the fuselage.
Actually, in flight the lift is exerted on the wings while much of the weight/inertial force is exerted on the fuselage, so mass near the fuselage actually increases the wing root bending moments. You'd want the mass on the wings to avoid this.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I'd actually rather see a Ju188 or a 388 instead, now those would be awsome!
Not that I wouldn't want a He177 :)
-
Ehhh, from HoHun, or a reply vs the first statement:
"Especially the wings are much more stressed. And if you link two engines together like in the 177, you can put those masses much closer to the fuselage.
Actually, in flight the lift is exerted on the wings while much of the weight/inertial force is exerted on the fuselage, so mass near the fuselage actually increases the wing root bending moments. You'd want the mass on the wings to avoid this."
This is boulderdash. The further out you move the mass, the more stress there is on the roots of the wings drastically increased with a little G load. Putting the mass nearer to the fuselage is very logical, and the law behind this is...Archimedes himself.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Mmmm, Mossie food.
Of course that is true of all German bombers other than the Ar234, so I guess that doesn't distinquish it.
Troll.