Author Topic: He177 Bad Bad Bad. (Read 937 times)

Viper17 · « **on:** February 18, 2002, 02:29:08 PM »

HAs anybody looked up info on it. It had terable defence. a good bombload yes but it allso almost never got to the target because of one thig. It was not a 2 engend bomber. IT WAS A 4 ENGINED BOMBER. the engens were placed behind one another they were VERY PRONE to catching fire. The onlytime they were used efectivly was to bomb russin factorys on raids. They had 50% casualtys because of engen fire, fighters and AA fire. They were a big drane on materials when germany should have bene concentrateing on fighters not bombers to sap materials. If your gonna give facts give the right ones.

bigUC · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2002, 02:55:51 PM »

So we can't have it because of material shortage? Or unreliable engines, which isn't modelled in AH? (remember the N1K)

brady · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2002, 03:00:14 PM »

He 177 A5 varient, the one most produced, worked out most of these buggs, while it did suffer from problems with it's engines this alone is not a creadable criteria for not putting it in AH lots of planes in AH had engine problems, AH does not model this. The He 177 would give the Axis a good heavy buff, somthing that would be usefull for scenarious, the only other decent axis heavy the P 108 was not produced in very large numbers, although a good plane all around. Also the He 177 was well defended 20mm MG 151 in the tail 3 13mm MG 131 in turets, 20mm mG 151 in the front ventral tray, MG 131 in real ventral tray, and a MG 131 in the nose, is not well defended?

Viper17 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2002, 03:09:31 PM »

Im saying most axis AC did not have good Defenceive power. I mean if your gonna model something have it be an early war ac not an latewar super buff. I bet you if they did model it peole would still use it. If they model the Spit and Hurra Mk1's for the engin to cut out they can model the engins to catch fire. In my mind they should give us the Fw200 Condor. Because on the He177 if one engin dies that whole side is gone. But in the case of the condor it had 4 engins so if one or two cut out no big deel.

Charon · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2002, 03:16:36 PM »

Well, the condor had 4 engines but it wasn't considered to be all that durable. Frankly, all the WW2 German Uber bombers lumped together probably played a less significant role in the scheme of things than, say, the Martin Baltimore on the allied side. However, as a game concession, particularly for the CT, germany could use at least one of the "heavies" and the 177 would be the most exotic. I would like to see the 111, though, for the BOB planeset.

Charon

jan · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2002, 03:38:10 PM »

some infos on the 'greif'

even more info

- add: 75% of the prototype he177 were lost to either engine fire or engine vibrations leading to structural disintegration. all versions of the he177 lacked fire-proof bulkheads in the engine nacelles so common to most aircraft constructed by that time. most aircraft sooner or later encountered engine fires caused by leaking fuel leads and critical oil cooler failures due to bubbles developing in the oil when flying at alt´s > 16kft.

related trivia: during operation steinbock in early ´44, göring watched the start of i./kg40 at chateaudun airfield. a total of 14 aircraft were to start against targets in the uk, 13 actually took off, 8 returned soon after because of engine failures(!), 2 were lost to enemy fire and a whopping total of 3 returned to chateaudun. göring must have been pretty p***ed.

my point is: if a plane is introduced to ah, it should be introduced with both its highs and lows. if the engines take on fire quite easily in real flight, they should do so when flying virtually.

SageFIN · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2002, 04:40:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jan
my point is: if a plane is introduced to ah, it should be introduced with both its highs and lows. if the engines take on fire quite easily in real flight, they should do so when flying virtually.

Be careful what you wish for.

brady · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2002, 05:15:07 PM »

I would like to see the He 177 added to HA, but first of all I would like to see a Cant Z 1007 for Italy and a Japanese CV strike aircraft, the He 177 would be nice but I would put it 3rd on my list for buffs.

Sachs · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2002, 06:54:05 PM »

Who is this Viper character and what is he doign reading LW books?

He-177 was very well defended. ACtually later model GE buffs were modeled with increase in defenseive firepower. JU-290, Ju-188, ME-323, DO-217 (later models) jsut to name a few. Buffs did play an important part for germany albeit in a fdifferent role then what the allies amassed. I find the statement about the blatimore quite laughable. And who is to say that if u lose an engine in the 177 you cant dump ord and fuel to loose weight, mind you that that 1 engine was actually 2. A lot of the problems that haunted the 177 were fixed and when u look up combat records it's attrition to mechanical failure was fairly close to its allied counter parts. Reading one line about 1 mission does not justify it being a complete failure or always caught on fire. Mentioning prototypes is another Fopah. How may B-29 prototypes caught fire during testing?

Or while flying over Japan?

hazed- · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:39:08 PM »

viper obviously hasnt had to suffer flying the ju88 in the MA

I have said before the he177 was prone to fires in the engine so id be glad to see it modeled correctly.-that doesnt mean every single 30.cal or greater caliber bullet hits it and it burns!

another early war bomber for LW? whilst the allied get the b29 I suppose?

. well what about those who pay the same as you getting an aircraft they would like to see? In axis vs allies it will be a real balancer for stategic strikes which is sorely needed.
I dont agree that any aircraft that saw action should be ignored and not modeled in AH.It is after all a game of aircraft essentially with hopefully each country having similar numbers of combatants in a huge game of checkers with bases.Its hardly accurate to real capture of territory during WW2 so why on earth must players who like to fly a certian aircraft be told they cant have one model or the other because it didnt work too well???? sheesh no other aircraft in AH's MA have spontanious engine fires/poor fuel/gun jams/fragile radiators etc so why lay heavy on one particular type?
There were more he177s than f4uc's produced, more than niks too i think.

realise i didnt say LW because i can see this heading to the Luft remarks.

In a scenario or snapshot etc, FINE restrict its numbers,model the fires,make it as real as you like but for MA and to a lesser extent the CT you cant restrict one model and ignore similar traits on others.you want engine fires modeled? Ok fine but i want gun barrel wear and heating.
I have an unreliable axis bomber with reliable guns, you have reliable allied plane with hispanos that tend to jam.or 50 cals that overheat if you continuosly fire them?

hmm i think not eh?

(p.s.especially as the 30mm mauser were also VERY prone to jams

shhhhhhhh)

Wilbus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:46:29 PM »

Don't understand why you should modell another early war buff for LW when what LW needs is a late war buff that can actaully kill something else then a butterfly wich happens to fly by it.

He177 had very good defencive armement and with AH's buff guns it'll be a killer.

Also, model our Fritz X 1400 missiles!

Staga · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2002, 08:14:19 PM »

I believe these guys want LW to fly early war bombers like Ju-88 from 1940 so they can shoot 'em down easier and boost their ego that way

Wilbus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2002, 10:13:49 PM »

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh

Karnak · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2002, 12:35:40 AM »

I'd still prefer a Ju188, but the He177 would be neat.

Tu-2S would be a better addition first. We also need a Japanese carrier strike aircraft, say a D4Y2 Suisei "Judy" or better yet a B6N2 Tenzan "Jill". I'd like a B7A1 Ryusei "Grace", but I think that might be asking for too much. There are many, many Japanese aircraft that could be added nicely to the planeset.

niklas · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2002, 07:06:03 AM »

The engine itself wasn´t the problem of the fire, it was the engine installation.

The engine was too close placed near the main spar of the wing. The oil pipe had to make a sharp turn, this caused foam in the warm oil. An oil centrifuge was installed to solve the problem later.

The exhaust gas pipes were too close to the gear, small amounts of hydraulic oil leaking out of the gear could catch fire.

And inside the "V" of the engine, between the 2 inner rows of cylinders, temperatures were high. Heinkel didn´t install metal sheets to protect the engines, so here again oil leaks could catch fire.

niklas