Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Lumpy on April 25, 2008, 05:58:55 PM
-
It has often been argued that Germany lacked a heavy bomber, and that the Luftwaffe suffered for it. The He 177 Greif is often dismissed as a failure in this regard due to the engine problems of the A-1 model in 1942. However, the engine problems were largely fixed with the A-3 model using the new DB 610 engine. And the early 1943 A-5 version was definitively an excellent heavy bomber. During the “Little Blitz” bombing campaign against Britain from January to May 1944 the Luftwaffe bomber force as a whole suffered almost 60% losses, but only 10% of the HE 177’s were lost.
I’ve desided to compare the He-117A-5 with its most prolific and celebrated allied counterpart, the B-17G.
B-17G Flying Fortress
(http://content.screencast.com/media/99b97f71-c6d8-4ea3-b99c-e89b675dd907_0832dde7-2cf2-4139-ab83-fa16132bb135_static_0_0_2008-04-25_2348.png)
Crew: 10
Length: 74 ft 4 in
Wingspan: 103 ft 9 in
Height: 19 ft 1 in
Wing area: 1,420 ft²
Empty weight: 36,135 lb
Loaded weight: 54,000 lb
Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp each
Max. speed: 300 mph at 30,000 feet (war emergency)
Cruising speed: 182 mph
Armament: 13 x .50 cal machineguns.
Max internal bomb load: 8,000 lb
Typical bomb configurations: 2 x 2,000 lb, 2 x 1600 lb, 2 x 1000 lb, 12 x 500 lb , 16 x 300 lb, 16 x 250 lb, 24 x 100 lb
Range with max. internal bomb load: 1,098 miles
Range with reduced bomb load: 1,850 miles
Range with “Tokyo tanks” and reduced bomb load: 3,630 lb
He 177A-5 Greif
(http://content.screencast.com/media/e74d0bbc-cc5e-4352-b7fe-bca1136b9f4b_0832dde7-2cf2-4139-ab83-fa16132bb135_static_0_0_2008-04-25_2346.png)
Crew: 5
Length: 72 ft 2 in
Wingspan: 103 ft 1 in
Height: 21 ft
Wing area: 1,092 ft²
Empty weight: 37,000 lb
Loaded weight: 68,340 lb
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 (twin DB 605) 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engines, 2,950 hp each
Max. speed: 351 mph at 21,000 ft
Cruising speed: 210 mph
Armament: 2 x 20 mm MG 151 cannon, 3 x MG 131 machine gun, 3 x MG 81 machine gun
Max internal bomb load: 13,227 lb
Typical bomb configurations: 48 x 154 lb, 10 x 1,102 lb, 6 x 2,204 lb, 2 x 5,511 lb, 3 x Hs 293 remotely controlled missiles, 3 x Hs 294 remotely controlled glide bombs, 3 x PC 1400 glide bomb, 4 x torpedoes
Range with max. internal bomb load: 1,920 miles
Range with reduced bomb load: 3,417 miles
-
I doubt the internal load of the He177A-5 was 15,000lbs.
In addition, the engine problems were never solved, they just weren't as bad as they were in the A-1. The He177 was a failure as a warplane.
-
The He177 was a failure as a warplane.
What do you base that on?
-
I doubt the internal load of the He177A-5 was 15,000lbs.
You're right. It was 6,000 kg (13,227 lb). 15,873 lb was the max. load including external ordnance.
-
How could the operational payload of the He177 be that high? It had 400 less feet of wing area than the b-17.
Even the B-17 could carry 18,000 pounds of bombs under max-payload conditions. But it wasn't practical.
I know the He-177 never cured the problem of its engines catching fire and burning right through the wing spar. Most of the engine overheating problems could be traced to the exhaust ducts and leaky fuel lines.
-
How could the operational payload of the He177 be that high? It had 400 less feet of wing area than the b-17.
Even the B-17 could carry 18,000 pounds of bombs under max-payload conditions. But it wasn't practical.
The B-17 could carry 17,417 lb using external racks, but range and performance was very reduced so it was only used on a few occasions against targets in France.
I know the He-177 never cured the problem of its engines catching fire and burning right through the wing spar. Most of the engine overheating problems could be traced to the exhaust ducts and leaky fuel lines.
Not at all. The fire problem was with the Daimler-Benz DB 606 fitted to the A-0 And A-1 series. The main production A-3 and A-5 series used the much improved Daimler-Benz DB 610 engine. There were still some problems with the transfer gearbox and flame damper tubes, but these were maintenance problems, nothing that was fatal to the aircraft.
-
I'll have to dig it up, but this subject has come up before. One of the engineers of the He177 was quoted as saying that a 90 degree bend in an exhaust tube caused the engines to become inordinately hot.
A quick search on wikipedia : There were several reasons for the flammability of the DB 606 engine one of which was the common exhaust manifold on the two inner cylinder blocks which became excessively hot and caused the usual accumulation of oil and grease in the bottom of the engine cowling to catch fire.
-
Again I guess that is regarding the DB 606, not the DB 610.
"The paired engines had first been introduced on the single-propeller equipped Heinkel He 119 prototype reconnaissance bomber aircraft, to reduce drag where they worked well, but their extremely tight installation on the He 177 led to considerable problems, the most common being in flight engine fires and overheating. There were several reasons for the flammability of the DB 606 engine one of which was the common exhaust manifold on the two inner cylinder blocks which became excessively hot and caused the usual accumulation of oil and grease in the bottom of the engine cowling to catch fire. When the pilot throttled back there was a tendency for the injection pump to deliver more fuel than was required by the engine, in addition to which the injection pump connections leaked. In order to restrict the aircraft's weight, no firewall had been provided, and the DB 606 was fitted so close to the mainspar that there was insufficient space for the fuel/oil pipelines and electrical leads. The engine was frequently saturated by fuel and oil from leaking connections. At altitude, the oil tended to foam partly as a result of the oil pump being overly effective, and in this condition it circulated in the engines, its lubricative qualities being severely reduced. The lack of adequate lubrication resulted in the disintegration of the connecting rod bearings which burst through the engine crankcase, puncturing the oil tanks which poured their contents on to the hot exhaust pipe collector. The tightly-packed nature of the engine installations also led to very poor access to the engines. As a result of these factors, as well as a lack of routine maintenance in the field, the DB 606 easily caught fire in flight. Thus the effort to create an adequate engine to power the He 177 (such as the Junkers Jumo 222 produced too late in the war), by mechanically coupling pairs of lower-power engines, while theoretically sound, proved to be difficult and time consuming to perfect, leading to engine complications especially on the initial production models.
Starting with later versions of the He 177A-3, a modified engine nacelle with a new engine, the Daimler-Benz DB 610, was used to attempt to eliminate tendency for the engines to catch fire. Several improvements concerning cooling issues for the engines by setting a power limitation resulted in greater reliability. This modification was somewhat successful as far as engine fires were concerned but there were other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two engines and their shared propeller and other difficulties involving flame damper tubes."
-
bomb load put of the He 177
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/he-177-1.JPG)
-
Well, the He 117A-5 was an excellent bomber, fully sorted and quite capable. However, the A-5 is a 1944 vintage bomber, better compared to the B-29 rather than the B-17 which was flying in 1935 (Boeing 299).
My regards,
Widewing
-
These are the contemporaries of the B-17:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/JunkersJu89.jpg)
Ju-89 (1937)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg1582.jpg)
Do-19 (1936)
The first He 177 had it's maiden flight in November 39, more than four years after the B-17.
-
Well, the He 117A-5 was an excellent bomber, fully sorted and quite capable. However, the A-5 is a 1944 vintage bomber, better compared to the B-29 rather than the B-17 which was flying in 1935 (Boeing 299).
My regards,
Widewing
1943 actually, and that is why I chose the B-17G as a comparison and not the B-17C or some other early war version. Contrary to what Lusche seems to advocate this thread is not about the technicalities of which bomber was best, but whether or not the Germans had a capable heavy bomber during the war ... something many seem to not believe.
Edit: And the B-29 is a lot bigger than both the B-17 and He 177, so it's not suitable as a comparison. The Ju 390 is better suited for that comparison, but only a handful of Ju 390's were built.
-
Contrary to what Lusche seems to advocate this thread
I didn't advocate anything.
-
During the “Little Blitz” bombing campaign against Britain from January to May 1944 the Luftwaffe bomber force as a whole suffered almost 60% losses, but only 10% of the HE 177’s were lost.
Wasn't in one of the early raids that 13 He177s were tasked with a mission and only 4 made it to the target area and only 1 dropped its bombs? All the other had to abort due to mechanical troubles.
Jan 21/22
He177 1/KG40 2x2500 kg bombs > 5000kg
Feb24/25
He 177 2/KG100 4x1000kg HE > 4000kg
April18/19
He177 3/KG100 12x 250kg HE > 3000kg
-
I didn't advocate anything.
My mistake. What was the purpose of your post then?
-
Wasn't in one of the early raids that 13 He177s were tasked with a mission and only 4 made it to the target area and only 1 dropped its bombs? All the other had to abort due to mechanical troubles.
Jan 21/22
He177 1/KG40 2x2500 kg bombs > 5000kg
Feb24/25
He 177 2/KG100 4x1000kg HE > 4000kg
April18/19
He177 3/KG100 12x 250kg HE > 3000kg
The raids were dismal failures, but no, they didn't abort due to "mechanical troubles", but due to operational troubles. It affected the entire bomber force not just the Greifs.
-
My mistake. What was the purpose of your post then?
Additional information.
Not everyone reading this thread is aware that the basic designs of the B17 and He 177 were from different generations.
-
One burst a tire on take off. The other 8 returned due to over heating and burning engines. Those are strange operational troubles indeed. One was shot down by NFs.
Major General Pelz on the Feb 13 mission.
Then there is the question, why did the bomb load decrease so much?
-
Additional information.
Not everyone reading this thread is aware that the basic designs of the B17 and He 177 were from different generations.
Ok. Irrelevant information, but thanks anyway.
-
One burst a tire on take off. The other 8 returned due to over heating and burning engines. Those are strange operational troubles indeed. One was shot down by NFs.
Major General Pelz on the Feb 13 mission.
Then there is the question, why did the bomb load decrease so much?
I don't know where you get your information, so I can't comment on it. It will have to stand on your merit alone. As for the decreasing bomb load I guess 12 x 250 kg bombs are more efficient for terror bombing than 2 x 2500 kg.
-
Ok. Irrelevant information
:rofl :rofl
-
Look Lusche ... if you want to discuss how much better the B-17 was or how far ahead of its time it was then please start your own thread. Don't hijack this one. Please?
-
Look Lusche ... if you want to discuss how much better the B-17 was or how far ahead of its time it was then please start your own thread. Don't hijack this one. Please?
You are suffering from paranoia.
If I had any intention of doing that, I would have stated it. Don't read into my postings what's not there. Nowhere I say anything about the B17 being "better" or ahead of its time.
In fact, you are now actually hijacking your own thread in a way ;)
-
Ok, I'll bite. Please explain how this...
These are the contemporaries of the B-17:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/JunkersJu89.jpg)
Ju-89 (1937)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg1582.jpg)
Do-19 (1936)
The first He 177 had it's maiden flight in November 39, more than four years after the B-17.
... has anything to do with whether or not the He 177 was a capable heavy bomber?
-
:rofl :aok
You are still hijacking your own thread.. amazing but very funny.
I stated my reasons for posting that already. I'm not let you drag this now into a silly wrestling match.
Someone else should now post something about the He 177 to get you back on track... :D
-
That's what I thought. It had nothing to do with this thread. It was irrelevant. Thank you for participating. :)
-
isn't this thread comparing the B-17G with a German bomber Lumpy? Lusche is right (as always :D)
#S#
Banshee7
-
No, but you're excused for thinking that. This thread is about Germany having a capable heavy bomber in WWII, comparing it to the B-17G to prove that it was capable. Unless Lusche or yourself are arguing that the B-17G was not a capable heavy bomber in 1943-44?
-
i Lusche is right (as always :D)
I am defenitely and verifiable NOT always right. Not even almost. I could dig up a few threads.... :o
-
One burst a tire on take off. The other 8 returned due to over heating and burning engines. Those are strange operational troubles indeed. One was shot down by NFs.
Major General Pelz on the Feb 13 mission.
Then there is the question, why did the bomb load decrease so much?
It seems that mission has been discussed over at the Axis History Forum.
"In I./KG100 reports these aircrafts appear as A-3 not A-5. Also they were in the process of moving in France for the Steinbock raids, 3./KG100 began to move from Lechfeld to Chateaudun 3 weeks prior this raid, 2./KG100 started to move the week before the raid. The maintenance facilities required to operate He-177 were still to come, prior this move only one He-177 squad operated from Chateaudun. In plus all the He-177 that 2. and 3./KG100 had were new builds, not yet flown in combat, so the manufacturing defects were yet to be discovered. I'm not surprised that they didn't flew well on the first mission and most aborted it.
In general bombers had much stricter safety requirements than fighters, which translated in many aborted missions. For example in average USAAF fighters had 1 inefective sortie in 15-20 sorties flown, USAAF bombers on the other hand had 1 aborted sortie in 5 flown, and some even 1 in 3! When one bomber had problems all its squad mates had to check for the same problems, because they could be affected by the same maitenance deficiencies common to the squad. There are many such instances. I can give you an example from B-29 missions against Japan:
92 plane leave India
79 reach China
75 dispatched for mission
68 leave China
47 reach the target
1 single bomb managed to fall somewhere near the target"
Same guy on He 177A-5's "serious problems":
"I completely disagree with this affirmation. Although it is often mentioned in the old literature, it never comes with a satisfactory prove (all they bring in their support are some single instances when He-177 performed badly). They say that He-177 was marred by mechanical failures, although their never succeed in explaining why the crews loved the aircraft. Where they suicidal? Of course not. If you look at the service stats, you'll see that the expected losses in accidents was lower than on most other types serving with LW, and even those caused by the enemy action were low although most of the time they performed extremely dangerous antishipping missions. I already gave those stats in another thread, they are eye opening."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=532279
-
bomb load put of the He 177
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/he-177-1.JPG)
Wasn't in one of the early raids that 13 He177s were tasked with a mission and only 4 made it to the target area and only 1 dropped its bombs? All the other had to abort due to mechanical troubles.
Jan 21/22
He177 1/KG40 2x2500 kg bombs > 5000kg
Feb24/25
He 177 2/KG100 4x1000kg HE > 4000kg
April18/19
He177 3/KG100 12x 250kg HE > 3000kg
None of the bomb loads stated in your second post are listed in your first post. I suggest the data in your first post is incomplete.
-
These are the contemporaries of the B-17:
The first He 177 had it's maiden flight in November 39, more than four years after the B-17.
Not necessarily... he is comparing it to the B-17G which was vastly different to the 30's B-17's. When was the G introduced? Mid 1943?
The early B-17's were not very effective warplanes at all, but Boeing had the luxury of time, distance, experiences of the RAF and later the USAAF to develop the aircraft into a great bomber. It took 8 years or so from introduction to create the ultimate B-17G model.
This is more like the contemporary of the aircraft which you posted...
(http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17-mk1.jpg)
-
Yup. Like I said before I chose the B-17G because it is a bomber that everyone knows was capable, and it is very close to the He 177A-5 in size and weight. Whether one or the other was better or worse or newer or older is all irrelevant.
-
Jeez gScholtz if you are going to compare the initial deployment of the B-29 then at least compare it to the early He177s.
Oh yes Huck, half of the uber twins, you are quoting. Barbi being the other half.
The maintenance facilities required to operate He-177 were still to come, prior this move only one He-177 squad operated from Chateaudun. In plus all the He-177 that 2. and 3./KG100 had were new builds, not yet flown in combat, so the manufacturing defects were yet to be discovered.
What no factory test flights were done prior to delivery? :rolleyes: No problems showed up in the delivery flights? :rolleyes: How did the 1 squad operate from Chateaudun without maintenance facilities?
None of the bomb loads stated in your second post are listed in your first post. I suggest the data in your first post is incomplete.
Quite possible it is incomplete but that is all I have. Didn't mean to give the impression those were the only loads. As to the bomb load, is not the top diagram showing 12 x 250kg bombs ((4 x 250) x 3)?
-
Jeez gScholtz if you are going to compare the initial deployment of the B-29 then at least compare it to the early He177s.
Huh? :huh I don't remember ever making such a comparison.
Oh yes Huck, half of the uber twins, you are quoting. Barbi being the other half.
I like him already! ;) Über is good!
Quite possible it is incomplete but that is all I have. Didn't mean to give the impression those were the only loads. As to the bomb load, is not the top diagram showing 12 x 250kg bombs ((4 x 250) x 3)?
Yes you're right. I must be getting old or blind. *sigh*
-
Huh? :huh I don't remember ever making such a comparison.
You did indirectly with the quote by Huckie.
Don't get too excited about the uber. It is a term used over at Ubi and is not a compliment for Huck and Kurfurst, aka Barbi, the twins.
-
Yes, annoying isn't it? When some people just don't accept the dogma? :lol
-
It was a failure because it was an expensive program that produced nothing usable until after Germany no longer had the time or spare production capacity to produce a fleet of heavy bombers. It should not take four or five years, with wartime experience, to produce a usable warplane. The B-17 was only a little older, true, but in terms of wartime experience the Americans were far behind the Germans, yet the 1942 E and F models were entirely useable. The British Halifax was usable out the gate and the Manchester failed (for the same basic reason as the He177s) until Avro and Rolls-Royce wisely stopped trying to make the overly complex Vultures work and just went with four Merlins to produce the immediately usable Lancaster. Had Heinkel switched to a basic four engine He277 early on it would have been a great bomber, no doubt, but they persisted with trying to force a very difficult engine arrangement to work until it was too late for the resulting aircraft to be significantly useful.
The Do217 and Ju188 programs were much more successful in producing a usable bomber in a useful timeframe and for a reasonable cost.
I seem to recall it was a customer requirement that kept the He177 saddled with those engines. If so, one can hardly blame Hienkel for the failure. The Mitsubishi G4M 'Betty' suffered a similar fate, the customer insisted on two engines only when the manufacturer kept telling them they really needed four to get a usable warplane with the range being demanded. As it is, Mitsubishi had to sacrifice all protection in order to get the range requested on a twin engined aircraft.
-
Not necessarily... he is comparing it to the B-17G which was vastly different to the 30's B-17's. When was the G introduced? Mid 1943?
The early B-17's were not very effective warplanes at all, but Boeing had the luxury of time, distance, experiences of the RAF and later the USAAF to develop the aircraft into a great bomber. It took 8 years or so from introduction to create the ultimate B-17G model.
This is more like the contemporary of the aircraft which you posted...
The B-17 was combat ready with the E model, which was in service before Pearl Harbor. The F was an updated E and the G was an updated F with the addition of the nose turret. E models were the main variant in service with the 8th AF when the daylight bombing campaign began in August of 1942.
As to the He 177A-5; it didn't begin manufacture until December of 1943. I don't see any evidence that the A-5 saw combat service before February of 1944. B-29s were in squadron service by March of 1944. That makes the He 177A-5 very much a contemporary of the B-29A.
If you gents want to compare apples to oranges, lets look at the historical impact of each type. There's no question that the B-17 was a significant combatant. However, if the He 177 had never been built, it would not have been missed. It was decidedly unimportant to the outcome of the war, almost certainly a waste of resources as its original mission had evaporated before the excellent later versions were available in any numbers.
My regards,
Widewing
-
That's true, but this sort of thread is after what would provide good combat performance in AH.
-
That's true, but this sort of thread is after what would provide good combat performance in AH.
Moot that is NOT what the author of this thread is after.
I’ve desided to compare the He-117A-5 with its most prolific and celebrated allied counterpart, the B-17G.
The 17 would not be it's counterpart due to design/production/service dates. This is just another thinly veiled German=133t, American= teh suck thread.
-
What's he after then? It looks like he's after plugging holes in the AH planeset. Depending on whether you measure potential new planes' value on if they fit in the MA's performance range and nationality representation, or in the other arena's historicality (so to speak), you might say the He177 is sorely needed or dismissable...
I don't know about Kraut 1337/US sux0r, I do know the german planeset has nothing better than the very crappy Ju88 at the moment :)
TBH I think the JP planeset needs the planes Urchin suggested in the other thread, and after that we need a few italian planes. After that, we've got an even planeset again, I think. Maybe enough to add that french flying coffin :lol
-
What's he after then?
This should explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZ-SGljHik :D
-
The B-17 could carry 17,417 lb using external racks.
If this is true...then when the perked ord. system comes out, maybe we can get ext. racks of bombs on the 17 that would come out of the Bomber perk category?
-
Performance X Reliability= Effectiveness
That being said, the B-17G was far more effective than the He177.
-
Id love to see the HE177 in the game, but only after we get the much asked for HE111 and/or Do 217.
-
As much as I like the He-177A5, which was a quite good heavy bomber, comparing it with the B-17 simply is bad news for the Heinkel. If I was given the chance to choose between both, I'd go with the B-17 at once.
Reason?. He-177 small wing and supercharged engines gave it a service ceiling of 7km.
B-17's with large wing area and turbos had a service ceiling of almost 11km altitude, and a much lower wingloading that made it a very easy plane to fly.
WWII showed that the ability of a bomber to fly at high altitudes in close formation was vital for doing daylight bombiing missions on defended enemy territory. A he-177 flying at 6km would've had problems keeping a tight enough formation, while it was not rare for B-17s to roam all over germany at 7.5Km altitude while perfectly keeping a close box formation.
Said that, the Heinkel was a highly capable bomber (at least when the reliability problems were solved). But comparing it with the B-17 is not a good business from my point of view.
-
Actually, post-war studies found speed and escort fighters were the most critical elements to a bombers success in reaching its target. Altitude certainly helped too. But defensive formations were not effective.
-
It was inevitable that this thread would degrade to the usual level of accusations and recriminations like those forwarded by Bronk. If it’s allowed to continue I’m sure before the end we’ll have argued over Spitfires and 109s and how the P-51 won the war, maybe even Hiroshima and Dresden.
But it is all irrelevant at this point because this thread has served its purpose; we have confirmed that the He 177A-5 was a capable heavy bomber … something some people do not know or seem to believe. That it had a troubled development; was too late to serve the German war effort in any meaningful capacity; was the spawn of a twisted evil empire is all very interesting, but essential irrelevant.
Moot is actually correct, this thread is about Aces High … I’ve started a thread about adding post 1940 German bombers to the game, but I knew that the He 177 would draw flak like it has here. So I started this thread as a pre-emptive measure to settle the He 177 issue and draw fire away from the other thread, hopefully allowing it to serve its purpose before turning into an alliedweeb/luftwobble melee.
Well, the He 117A-5 was an excellent bomber, fully sorted and quite capable.
What Widewing stated in one concise sentence on page one was what I was looking for, but please continue to squabble amongst yourselves Gentlemen. Compare it to the B-52 if it fancies you. :)
-
Actually, post-war studies found speed and escort fighters were the most critical elements to a bombers success in reaching its target. Altitude certainly helped too. But defensive formations were not effective.
A 230mph bomber flying at 20000 feet was easier to intercept than a 200mph bomber flying at 27000 feet. Escort fighters were vital, of course ,but that's out of the scope of a bomber vs bomber comparison.
Speed was good when you had LOTS of speed (as the mosquito had over conventional WW2 bombers). The He177 was faster, but not fast enough to overcome the fact that it was always going to be much lower than a B-17 when in operations.
I hardly am biased towards US planes...but even giving credit to the 177 quality, I see the B-17 as a better bomber. Said that, I'd love to see a 177 in the game. That and/or a Do217 (which also was a terrific buff).
-
Being (preposterously) designed as a dive bomber did give the He 177 a slight edge in that regard RRAM. The greater tolerance for high speed allowed the He 177 to bomb England in daylight in 1944, by climbing to max altitude and crossing the channel in a 420 mph shallow dive. Very difficult to intercept, but the raids were nothing more than a nuisance of course.
-
Being (preposterously) designed as a dive bomber did give the He 177 a slight edge in that regard RRAM. The greater tolerance for high speed allowed the He 177 to bomb England in daylight in 1944, by climbing to max altitude and crossing the channel in a 420 mph shallow dive. Very difficult to intercept, but the raids were nothing more than a nuisance of course.
Aye, that did happen and worked. The 177 was hard to intercept in such operations.
But keep in mind that worked because there were low distances involved (upping in france/low lands going to bomb London is not the same as upping in East Anglia and going all the way to Berlin) that allowed the bombers to do that shallow continous dive.
However as I said that worked for london and/or targets in SE England. A He177 couldn't do that stunt if the targets were in, say, the Midlands. It would've had to level at some point and from then on it would've been a field day for defensive fighters.
Not trying to steal credit from the plane...but I still think it's limited ceiling was a big handicap for its use as a strategic bomber. A He277/274 with four engines (And much larger wing area, lower wingloading and higher ceiling) would've been a much better bomber, even at the cost of a slower top speed and lower speed structural limits. But those never entered production even while they were tested.
-
Not really when you consider that the allied fighters at the time were just as good at 30K as they were at 20K, perhaps even better. If the He 177 had been an allied bomber your argument would have been sound because German fighters had performance deficiencies at 30K. In fact if the He 177 had flown at 30K in massive escorted formations like American bombers did it would have been more difficult for German fighters to protect them than at 20k. And if both sides had equally good engines at high altitude it really wouldn't have matter what altitude the bombers flew at.
-
Oh ... and another ting to ponder: Since the He 177 does 351 mph at 21,000 feet it might very well still do 300+ mph at 30,000 feet. The DB 610 was basically two DB 605's bolted together and the 109G-6 loses ~30-40 mph from 21-22,000 to 30,000 feet. The loss in speed would be slightly less for the He 177 since the top speed is less. This might be very arbitrary of course, but something to ponder: The He 177 is perhaps as fast or faster then the B-17G at 30,000 feet with a similar (light) bomb load?
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/He219data.jpg)
-
He 219?
And why can't people scan documents in readable resolutions?
-
:o Was right beside the He177.
You will have to ask the person who did the scan.
-
Was more of a grumpy declaration of displeasure than an actual question. ;)
-
This should explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZ-SGljHik :D
:lol
-
The B-24 carried more bombs flew further, and on paper was a better bomber. yet the aircrews still prefered, for the most part, the B-17.
So I say the He177A-5 must of just sucked.
-
:huh
-
He 219?
And why can't people scan documents in readable resolutions?
The BB's resizes all images to fit screens better. Copy&paste the URL into your browser; the actual image is bigger.
-
Ah ... Thanks! :)
-
Here is what Eric brown a Royal Navy test pilot said of the He 177 in 1945 after flight testing a captured example.
"Shortly after it's arrival I flew the He 177 and was singularly unimpressed.Owtwardly it looked twin-engined but in fact its two power plants each housed two DB605 units mounted side-by-side with a single gear-casing connecting the two crankcases and the two crankshaft pinions driving a single airscrew shaft gear.The huge four bladed propellers were rotated in opposite directions to eliminate take-off-swing.In the event of engine failure the dead engine automatically disengaged itself from the airscrew shaft.
The German Air Ministry called for the 177 to have dive bombing capability and be fitted with automatic dive recovery system,but this was plainly absurd since its controls were far to light and its structural strength far to weak.Indeed my feeling with it was of flying a glass aeroplane."
"One of the very few German aircraft of the period that I tested that I did not enjoy flying"
Even heinkel begged the RLM to allow them to dump the side by side concept,so they could develop a true four engined bomber in the same way that avro had dumped the troublesome Manchester to produce the outstanding Lancaster.
He 111 H6/bomber He 111 R20/Transport Above all please. :aok
-
You do know that the He177 was not to be a vertical dive bomber like the Ju87. Iirc the angle was to be around 45 degrees max but was typically 30 degrees. In other words, a steep glide bomb angle.
-
Bring on the He-177 :aok
-
stats on B-17G I found.
General characteristics:
Crew: 10: Pilot, co-pilot, navigator, bombardier/nose gunner, flight engineer-top turret gunner, radio operator, waist gunners (2), ball turret gunner, tail gunner[122]
Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.66 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft 9 in (31.62 m)
Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.82 m)
Wing area: 1,420 ft² (131.92 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0018 / NACA 0010
Empty weight: 36,135 lb (16,391 kg)
Loaded weight: 54,000 lb (24,495 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 65,500 lb (29710 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 287 mph (249 knots, 462 km/h)
Cruise speed: 182 mph (158 knots, 293 km/h)
Range: 1,738 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,219 km) with 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) bombload
Service ceiling 35,600 ft (10,850 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 38.0 lb/ft² (185.7 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.089 hp/lb (150 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 13× M2 Browning .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns in twin turrets, plus single dorsal, fore and aft beam positions (with optional extra nose armament fitted in glazed nose).
Bombs: Although it theoretically could carry 17,417 lb (7900 kg) of bombs, the B-17 rarely flew combat missions with more than 5,071 lb (2300 kg).[citation needed]
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
-
Not really when you consider that the allied fighters at the time were just as good at 30K as they were at 20K, perhaps even better. If the He 177 had been an allied bomber your argument would have been sound because German fighters had performance deficiencies at 30K. In fact if the He 177 had flown at 30K in massive escorted formations like American bombers did it would have been more difficult for German fighters to protect them than at 20k. And if both sides had equally good engines at high altitude it really wouldn't have matter what altitude the bombers flew at.
That doesn't matter. If it did, the Germans would have easily intercepted and shot down the unarmed Mosquito bombers as all of their fighters, after 1942, out performed it in sheer speed and climb. The fact is that they couldn't climb to altitude in time to intercept it whereas a climb to 20,000ft to intercept a 230mph bomber is easier than a climb to 27,000ft to intercept a 200mph bomber.
Of course this is all beside the point in AH where all bombers fly with the engine firewalled at all times. In AH a He177A-5 at 20,000ft would be about as hard to intercept as the Mosquito was in reality because it would be going at over 300mph.
I still favor the Ju188A-1 over the He177A-5. The Ju188A-1 would immediately replace the Ki-67 as my prefered bomber.
-
Bring on engine failiure modelling in AH !
:devil
-
That doesn't matter. If it did, the Germans would have easily intercepted and shot down the unarmed Mosquito bombers as all of their fighters, after 1942, out performed it in sheer speed and climb. The fact is that they couldn't climb to altitude in time to intercept it whereas a climb to 20,000ft to intercept a 230mph bomber is easier than a climb to 27,000ft to intercept a 200mph bomber.
Of course this is all beside the point in AH where all bombers fly with the engine firewalled at all times. In AH a He177A-5 at 20,000ft would be about as hard to intercept as the Mosquito was in reality because it would be going at over 300mph.
I still favor the Ju188A-1 over the He177A-5. The Ju188A-1 would immediately replace the Ki-67 as my prefered bomber.
Which German fighter outperformed the bomber and recce Mossies at their operational altitudes? I think you are mistaken.
With the advent of radar a bomber raid was usually detected long before crossing the channel allowing the defenders ample time to scramble. A 109G needed only 10-12 minutes or so on climb-power to climb to 30,000 feet. The Germans had in most cases ample time to analyse the allied raids and form large organized groups of fighters and destroyers to attack the bombers in a coordinated fashion. High altitude would not have been such an effective defence had the Luftwaffe fighters not had performance deficiencies at those altitudes.
-
Which German fighter outperformed the bomber and recce Mossies at their operational altitudes? I think you are mistaken.
Fw190A and later and Bf109G and later fighters. The Mosquito B.Mk IV, the most common bomber version until well into 1944, had a top speed of 380mph at 21,000ft without exhaust dampers and 367mph with exhaust dampers at the same altitude. I believe that the Fw190A and Bf109G are both faster than that at that altitude. The B.Mk XVI, which first saw use in early 1944, raised that to about 410mph at 25,000ft. Recon Mosquitoes were similar, being primarily the PR.Mk IV and PR.Mk XVI.
And those are flat out speeds, not cruising speeds, though of course Mossie crews were not at all adverse to going full throttle if they detected a fighter coming for them, no box formation to worry about after all.
The problem, as it has been described to me, is that as the fighter climbs it is doing about 180mph over the ground and the Mosquito is cruising at nearly, or over depending on the version, 300mph. Once the German fighter has matched altitude and and speed the Mosquito would be so far ahead that the Fw190A and Bf109G could not visually locate it and could not overtake it before running short of fuel even if given the precisely correct vector. If the vector were even slightly off they would never have a chance, particularly at night.
Obviously the Bf109K-4 and particularly the Me262A would make the overtaking a Mosquito a lot easier, and in fact the first German fighter that caused concern (at least in the PR groups) for Mossie crews was the Me262.
WWII radar simply did not have long enough range to give an adequate warning against fast bombers if the raids formed up outside of radar range.
-
Well, the He 117A-5 was an excellent bomber, fully sorted and quite capable. However, the A-5 is a 1944 vintage bomber, better compared to the B-29 rather than the B-17 which was flying in 1935 (Boeing 299).
My regards,
Widewing
Thank You Widewing ;)
I was championing the He-177 in another thread a few days ago to no avail. Your comments carry a lot more weight. :salute
-
So in other words Karnak was wrong and the Mosquito WAS faster than the German fighters and THUS is not applicable to the discussion AT ALL. Like I said initially:
Which German fighter outperformed the bomber and recce Mossies at their operational altitudes? I think you are mistaken.
With the advent of radar a bomber raid was usually detected long before crossing the channel allowing the defenders ample time to scramble. A 109G needed only 10-12 minutes or so on climb-power to climb to 30,000 feet. The Germans had in most cases ample time to analyse the allied raids and form large organized groups of fighters and destroyers to attack the bombers in a coordinated fashion. High altitude would not have been such an effective defence had the Luftwaffe fighters not had performance deficiencies at those altitudes.
If you are arguing that the Mosquito out paced the German fighters at 21,000 feet you are supporting my argument. If you are arguing that the Germans were able to intercept the Mosquito at 21,000 feet you are supporting my argument.
The only way you can defeat my argument is if you can show me that the Mosquito DID NOT out pace the German interceptors and STILL was immune (or nearly so) to interception.
This is my argument that Karnak tried to counter with the Mosquito as example:
Not really when you consider that the allied fighters at the time were just as good at 30K as they were at 20K, perhaps even better. If the He 177 had been an allied bomber your argument would have been sound because German fighters had performance deficiencies at 30K. In fact if the He 177 had flown at 30K in massive escorted formations like American bombers did it would have been more difficult for German fighters to protect them than at 20k. And if both sides had equally good engines at high altitude it really wouldn't have matter what altitude the bombers flew at.
To which Karnak protested:
That doesn't matter. If it did, the Germans would have easily intercepted and shot down the unarmed Mosquito bombers as all of their fighters, after 1942, out performed it in sheer speed and climb. The fact is that they couldn't climb to altitude in time to intercept it whereas a climb to 20,000ft to intercept a 230mph bomber is easier than a climb to 27,000ft to intercept a 200mph bomber.
Of course this is all beside the point in AH where all bombers fly with the engine firewalled at all times. In AH a He177A-5 at 20,000ft would be about as hard to intercept as the Mosquito was in reality because it would be going at over 300mph.
I still favor the Ju188A-1 over the He177A-5. The Ju188A-1 would immediately replace the Ki-67 as my prefered bomber.
A 109G-6 climbs to 21,000 feet in 7 minutes (on climb power (MIL)) and accelerates from climb speed to 300 mph in less than a minute. Lets give the Jerries 10 minutes to detect, plot and scramble fighters (the British did it in 7) and we are looking at less than 20 minutes from detection to fighters going at the same speed and same altitude as a cruising Mosquito. At 300 mph a Mosquito would have flown a mere 100 miles, not even past the first row of radar stations from the point of detection. And the fighter bases were located behind the radar belt and thus would be at the same altitude and speed in front of the Mosquito.
Karnak argues that the Mosquito's high altitude made it very difficult to intercept (which is strange considering 21,000 feet isn't all that high).
I argue that speed and stealth (night, clouds etc.) saved the Mosquito, not high altitude, and thus it is inapplicable to the discussion.
What do you think?
-
I will clarify my comments when I have time. You are misunderstanding some of what I meant due to the brevity/nonspecific nature of my comments I think.
-
That might certainly be the case. I look forward to your clarifications. :)
-
From what Guppy posts I get the distinct impression that the Mosquitoes out paced the Germans, one quote even states so directly. And since they were endeavoring to improve visibility for the navigator to look for Germans I take it the Germans were successful in guiding their fighters to the Mosquitoes. They just weren't successful in catching them and shooting them down because the Mossies would just out run them.
-
First, I want to clarify that I was not saying German radar could not vector fighters in on Mosquitoes, just that it was difficult to do so. British radar would have been no better off for that. The problem is that radar in that day did not paint a clear picture of what was being seen and a lot of what was interpeted from it was based on the skill of the operator making best guesses. If the intercept was precise then the German fighter had a chance at killing a Mosquito B.IV, but even then, the speed advantage of a German fighter at 21,000ft was very limited. If AH2 is correct the Bf109G-6 could barely outdue a Mosquito B.Mk IV at 21,000ft, with the difference being so slight that a badly fitting panel on either aircraft very well could decide the outcome. The Bf109G-2 and Fw190A-5 have more of an advantage, but still not all that much.
If the intercept vector is just a bit off and one of those short legged German fighters ends up in a full power tail chase they aren't going to catch the Mosquito if the Mosquito has even a 10 mile lead, and it could be much shorter and still be true as I am using rough estimates here, as fuel will become a deciding factor. This would be just as true for a Spitfire doing an intercept on a Mosquito like bomber.
Add in the fact that Euopean skies were very rarely clear and cloudless as far as the eye could see as in AH and instead were a "terrain" of towering clouds that could easily interfere with a German pilot spotting a Mosquito he was vectored towards and got within a mile or two of.
Basically the Mosquito's speed wasn't so much that it could really win a race with a Bf109G or Fw190A if they were started side by side, it was that the speed made the intercept window very small so that even slightly wrong intercept vectors would doom the intercept to failure. If the information on an incoming raid was passed futher in so that fighters could be scrambled to be at the right altitude when the Mosquitoes got there it increased the odds of success, but even then if the vectors were off by much they'd miss the intercept window simply due to fuel consumption when running at WEP.
Yes, sometimes Mosquitoes flat out, out ran the German fighters, but we don't know the powersettings or conditions of the respective aircraft so we cannot definitively say why that happened in a given case. Often wen don't even know the exact types of aircraft.
As to my formation comment, what I was refering to is that Mosquitoes did not have to maintain tight box formations so as to have supporting fields of fire for the purposes of mutual defense. Lacking the requirement to maintain a tight formation freed the crews to put the throttles through the stops if they saw a pursuing German fighter. He111s, Do17s and Ju88s in the Battle of Britain and B-17s and B-24s in the American air offensives did not have that option as the pilot had to maintain formation. Mosquitoes did at times operate in loose formations in order to obtain some focused bombardment effect, but the formations always had the flexibility to allow the Mosquitoes to use their defenseive tool, speed, when called for.
Obviously if the British had built 10,000 Mosquito bombers and used them as the main strength of RAF Bomber Command their losses would have been much higher as both an absolute number and as a percentage because a German fighter vectored onto a stream of Mosquitoes is far more likely to be in a good intercept window on one of them than a German fighter vectored onto a single or small number of them.
In terms of the He177A-5 and AH2, well, the radar only gives a 25 mile warning before the first targets are reached. This pretty much means that any target within about 50 miles of the border is basicly defenseless against a fast bomber at 20,000+ft when it comes to reactionary fighter scrambles. If there just happens to be a player with altitude somewhere in the area then there can be problems, but that usually doesn't happen. The HQ is, of course, a separate issue due to the presence of Me163As nearby.
-
Obviously if the British had built 10,000 Mosquito bombers and used them as the main strength of RAF Bomber Command their losses would have been much higher as both an absolute number and as a percentage because a German fighter vectored onto a stream of Mosquitoes is far more likely to be in a good intercept window on one of them than a German fighter vectored onto a single or small number of them.
Don't agree.
I would think that each bomber wing of Mossies would be given the target and would work out there own routes to and from. It might go as far to have each squadron in the wing modify the wing route. The Germans would be hard pressed to intercept all the Mossies coming in on a 100 mile front.
There was at least from early 1944, P-51s for escort. They would have an easier time escorting the Mossies than they did the heavies.