# He277: Promising? Or further development of a bad apple?



## Matt308 (Jul 2, 2006)

The He177 met with little success due to numerous design issues resulting in few operation sorties for its designed long rang bombing mission. While these design issues (hydraulics, fuel system, engine gearbox, etc) plagued the aircraft to its end, the airplane's mission was constantly being changed to unrealistic expectations.

Heinkel also developed the He274 and He277. My understanding is that Goering did not want the He277, and Heinkel pursued its development as the He177B. Below is the pic of the He-277 with four engines. A design change to address the engineering concerns with dual engines coupled through a common gearbox. I have seen the He274 with only two engine nacelles, but with dual vertical stabilizers. 

What was the primary difference between the He177 and He274?

Was the He277 a derivative of the He177? He274? Both?

And given the multiple He177 engineering issues that were not related to the dual coupled engine design, was Heinkel pursuing a bombing solution that had been overtaken by events?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Well the 277 I believe was a step in the right direction. They corrected the problems with the He-177 on it and got rid of those damn coupled engines.


----------



## Henk (Jul 2, 2006)

Yup Adler the He-277 were a way better design than the He-177. Just too late though. I think the He-274 were tested by the French government.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 3, 2006)

The He-177 biggest issue was the coupled Daimer-Benz engines. Going to 4 conventional engines certainly solved that problem. Didn't Heinkel want to go with 4 engines early in the program?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

The He-177 was not a bad design, as V-1710 said and I said in an earlier post it was the coupled engines that caused the most problems. They were not very reliable and would catch on fire easily.

The He-274 and He-277 corrected the problems of the He-177 but were too late to do anything. The He-274 was flown by the French after the war.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 3, 2006)

So what pics do I have of a He177 (ie two engine nacelles) with dual vertical stabs? I was under the impression it was the He274. I'll try and post them too.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 3, 2006)

It's small, but all I have. Is this just an early He177 prototype?


----------



## Smokey (Jul 3, 2006)

It's the Heinkel He 274 according to LuftArchiv.de

LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe im 2.Weltkrieg


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 3, 2006)

Right! With the bigger pic I can see the other engine nacelle behind No.1 engine. Thanks Smokey.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 3, 2006)

I agree with what has been said if the engines had been uncoupled like in the 277 and 274 then it would of been fine, however the modifications came to late and too few were made to make an impact.


----------



## Henk (Jul 3, 2006)

Yes Adler it was those coupled engines on the He-177 that made the fuel boil and thus were easy to catch fire, well I have a few pics of the He-274 and He-277, but will post them a bit later.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 3, 2006)

Actually, it wasn't boiling fuel that would set a Daimler-Benz 610 on fire. The problem was with it's basic configuration. As it was double inverted V-12's, the two center cylinder banks shared a common exhaust manifold. This manifold, while getting very hot with 12 cylinders exhausting into it and poor airflow around the outside of it, was also prone to having oil leaking on it due to it being positioned low and in the center of the nacelle. If enough oil collected on the exhaust manifold to start a fire, it wasn't long before the fuel lines would catch fire, and at that point it was all over. The Allison V-3420 didn't have this problem, as the cylinder banks were not inverted, and there was enough space between the center banks for separate manifolds and adequate air flow. You know, the He-117 probably would have been a great plane with a pair of V-3420's!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 3, 2006)

V-1710,

Wasn't another problem the timing of the gearbox between the coupled engines? Improper timing resulting in shear stress on the gears and resultant timing failures compounding ability to maintain symetric power application?


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 4, 2006)

Didn't hear about that being a problem, but it certainly sounds like it could have been an issue. Early in the He-177's testing, oil foaming due to improperly sized oil pumps resulted in connecting rod failures, which not only resulted in total engine failure, but also fire would result as the hot oil coming out of the busted crankcase and oil tanks would invariably land on the hot exhaust manifolds. Another design factor that made engine fires so disastrous on the He-177 was due to the fact that the back of the engines were very close to the wing spar. Not only did this create a 'rats nest' of leaking fuel and oil lines (another potential cause of fire) it also meant that an engine fire could rapidly result in structural damage to the wing.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 4, 2006)

Original question belongs to whether or not this plane was promising.
I tend to disagree. The He-277 (and to a lesser degree the He-274) were technically interesting planes, worth mentioning. But by their time, the Luftwaffe had other needs than strategical bombers. Fighter and tactical bombers were urgently needed. They already developed V-1 and V-2, which to some degree could substitute the role of a strategical bomber for much lower costs. With the numerical superiority of first class piston A/C the allied had in this stage of war in mind, a new strategical bomber design is only justified in case it is either very fast (requiring jet propulsion) or flying extremely high or both.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2006)

The He 277 was also faster then the He177.What it did need was a pair of BMW 022.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

I agree delycros. The He-177, He-274, He-277 were all promising designs but were no longer needed.

Interesting stuff V-1710, I knew about some of the design flaws with the coupled engines but not all of them. Good stuff.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 7, 2006)

Uh, the main difference of the He 177 and the subsequent 274 and 277 was that the latter pair were conceived as high altitude bombers. The He 274 with an offensive load of 8,800 lbs. could reach 42,650 feet with a maximum altitude of 46, 920 feet. It could hit 360 MPH at 36,090 feet too. Range was 2,640 miles, less than the 177's 3,400 miles.

Like the He 274 the He 277 abandoned the problematic engine coupling and used four nacelles. The 277B-5/R2 was set up to hit 49,210 feet. Max speed was 354 MPH but range was 3,728 miles.

The He 277B-6/R1 could do 348 MPH, hit 43,960 feer but had a range of 4,475miles. Both models could 1,100 lbs of internal ordnance but were set up to carry 5,512 lbs of SC 2500 bombs, Henschel he 293 or 294 missiles or the FX 1400 Fritz X guided bombs externally.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 7, 2006)

Would the HE 177 have been a better bomber if not given the direction of being "dive bomer capable"?


----------



## delcyros (Jul 7, 2006)

Hard to say. I always believed that the structural reinforcements made the plane more sturdy and allowed to take much more battle damage than a plane of it´s size could usually take. The main problem has been pointed out above, the engine coupling. Without structural reinforcements and with a smaller airframe design, the plane could probably be driven by two BMW 801 TJ with almost equal performance, but who knows?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2006)

I don't know guys, after reading all this (and having a maintainer's background) I think the HE.177/ 277 was just a giant pile of crap and would of been a nightmare to maintain!!! Maintenance wise i think it might of made the B-29 look like a Piper Cub!!!!!!


----------



## delcyros (Jul 7, 2006)

Generally spoken, I tend to disagree, but not by much. The B-29 with it´s sophisticated AA systems is much more worrisome to maintain than a refined He-177. Nethertheless this ship needed manpower and more worrisome: high grade fuel. A single Geschwader (100-120 planes) would take about 1/5 of the Reichs high grade fuel reserves in less than two weeks!
Another reason to move towards jet propulsion, they could use the low grade fuel, still avaiable for the Luftwaffe in 1945.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 11, 2006)

Did any He-177's survive the war? I seem to remember seeing a picture of an He-177 in U.S.A.A.F. markings, taken at the end of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Uh, the main difference of the He 177 and the subsequent 274 and 277 was that the latter pair were conceived as high altitude bombers. The He 274 with an offensive load of 8,800 lbs. could reach 42,650 feet with a maximum altitude of 46, 920 feet. It could hit 360 MPH at 36,090 feet too. Range was 2,640 miles, less than the 177's 3,400 miles.
> 
> Like the He 274 the He 277 abandoned the problematic engine coupling and used four nacelles. The 277B-5/R2 was set up to hit 49,210 feet. Max speed was 354 MPH but range was 3,728 miles.
> 
> The He 277B-6/R1 could do 348 MPH, hit 43,960 feer but had a range of 4,475miles. Both models could 1,100 lbs of internal ordnance but were set up to carry 5,512 lbs of SC 2500 bombs, Henschel he 293 or 294 missiles or the FX 1400 Fritz X guided bombs externally.



Imagine if the Luftwaffe had bombers with that alltitude and that could carry that magnitude of bomb load in 1940 during the Battle of Britian.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 11, 2006)

Adler- They were on the right track with the Ju 86P in mid 1940- a little too late for quantity production. However an undetected photo recon sortie was flown at 41,000 in the summer during the BoB. Several Ju 86P-1s and P-2s were delivered to 2./Aufkl.gr.Ob.d.L in 1940 and some missions were flown over the British Isles.

They were powered by Jumo 207A-1 6-cylinder diesels. The original concept was as a bomber with a slow climb to over 39,000 feet and cruise at 215 MPH to target, drop to 32-33,000 feet, release 2,200 lbs. of ordnance and go back up to 37,000 for the return home.

Don't know why but they were only used and developed further as high altitude recon ships.


----------



## Henk (Jul 11, 2006)

I wonder if any He-177 survived the war as well. Did any?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Adler- They were on the right track with the Ju 86P in mid 1940- a little too late for quantity production. However an undetected photo recon sortie was flown at 41,000 in the summer during the BoB. Several Ju 86P-1s and P-2s were delivered to 2./Aufkl.gr.Ob.d.L in 1940 and some missions were flown over the British Isles.
> 
> They were powered by Jumo 207A-1 6-cylinder diesels. The original concept was as a bomber with a slow climb to over 39,000 feet and cruise at 215 MPH to target, drop to 32-33,000 feet, release 2,200 lbs. of ordnance and go back up to 37,000 for the return home.
> 
> Don't know why but they were only used and developed further as high altitude recon ships.



Yeah I read about that mission and knew of the Ju-86 as well. I have some interesting pictures of the photo recon version in a book of mine about KG-200.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Henk said:


> I wonder if any He-177 survived the war as well. Did any?



Plenty survived the war. I just dont know what happened to them after the war. I believe 1 or 2 are in museums. I think the National Air and Space Museum has one but it is not on display right now.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know guys, after reading all this (and having a maintainer's background) I think the HE.177/ 277 was just a giant pile of crap and would of been a nightmare to maintain!!! Maintenance wise i think it might of made the B-29 look like a Piper Cub!!!!!!



I'm with you Flyboy. I think that my thread has come full circle. I too have a real world airworthiness background and think this plane was plagued by too many technical issues requiring their resolution in a very short time for the airplane to accomplish its intended mission. Doesn't mean I don't find the airplane as one of the most beatiful to have come out of the war though.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 13, 2006)

N.A.S.M. (Smithsonian) has a He-219, of all things, but doesn't seem to have an He-177.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> I'm with you Flyboy. I think that my thread has come full circle. I too have a real world airworthiness background and think this plane was plagued by too many technical issues requiring their resolution in a very short time for the airplane to accomplish its intended mission. Doesn't mean I don't find the airplane as one of the most beatiful to have come out of the war though.



I agree fully with you on what you are saying and I too am an aviation mechanic, I just believe that with eneogh time the He-177 could have turned into a fine aircraft.


----------



## Neilster (Jul 13, 2006)

delcyros said:


> Original question belongs to whether or not this plane was promising.
> I tend to disagree. The He-277 (and to a lesser degree the He-274) were technically interesting planes, worth mentioning. But by their time, the Luftwaffe had other needs than strategical bombers. Fighter and tactical bombers were urgently needed. They already developed V-1 and V-2, which to some degree could substitute the role of a strategical bomber for much lower costs. With the numerical superiority of first class piston A/C the allied had in this stage of war in mind, a new strategical bomber design is only justified in case it is either very fast (requiring jet propulsion) or flying extremely high or both.



I agree with your last point especially. The V2 was a total disaster from an economical point of view though. It carried only about 1000kg, was pretty inaccurate and each one cost a fortune, not to mention the expense of all their associated testing and launching infrastructure. They didn't even do much damage as they tended to bury themselves in the ground before exploding due to their high velocity. The program gobbled up heaps of resources in numerous fields such as electronics that stalled more worthy projects like the anti aircraft missiles.

To have had a serious strategic bomber in time to make a difference, the Luftwaffe would have had to develop the Ju 89.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## Neilster (Jul 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree fully with you on what you are saying and I too am an aviation mechanic, I just believe that with eneogh time the He-177 could have turned into a fine aircraft.



They got them going quite well in the end but the development took so long that the strategic picture had completely changed and as has been already noted, they were no longer a good use of resources.

They were never popular with their crews too.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

Neilster said:


> They got them going quite well in the end but the development took so long that the strategic picture had completely changed and as has been already noted, they were no longer a good use of resources.
> 
> They were never popular with their crews too.
> 
> Cheers, Neilster



That I completely agree with, and as deylcros said by the time would have been fully up and running with out problems the strategic reasons had changed and there was no need for them either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

Henk said:


> I wonder if any He-177 survived the war as well. Did any?



Out of the little more than 1000 built there no surviving He-177s today that are known. Several Hundred survived the war and were scrapped and torn apart.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 13, 2006)

...actually I know there have been three speciman to survive into the 90´s. 
In the mid 90´s they have been excavated somewhere in Norway
in close vicinity to the airfield (stripped off from weapons and electronic eqipment but otherwise buried intact). I do not know where it exactly was, I read an article about this in the 90´s. I do not know, what was done with them either but will find it out.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That I completely agree with, and as deylcros said by the time would have been fully up and running with out problems the strategic reasons had changed and there was no need for them either.


Agreed, by the time they could of been working efficiently they war would of been over or as you said there would be no need for them because of the defensive situation.


----------



## Henk (Jul 13, 2006)

Well a He-219 is a rare WW2 aircraft so I will give them that one. The NASM has a lot of rare aircraft they just need to restore them and it cost money. I just hope they restore the Kikka they have and the HO-229 soon.


----------



## unkated (Jul 16, 2006)

Twitch -

The reason that the Ju86P R versions were not purused was that they were deeveloped as rebuilds frome earlier versions; by 1940, the Ju86 had been out of military production for nearly 2 years. As compared to a Ju88, they were comparatively fragile.

Further, bombing from extremely high altitude was not particularly effective, especially in such low numbers.

Further, the Ju86P found that even at 37,000 ft, they could still be intercepted by RAF fighters after the first few missions by lightened fighters. It did not fly fast enough to avoid danger, whereas the He177 (if its engines did not overheat) could dive across England at 350-400 mph, makling a chase dicey at best.

Uncle Ted


----------



## Henk (Jul 16, 2006)

It is actually sad that the He-177 were such a failure and had so much problems. The Ju-89 were a great idea but when Goering came to be head of the Luftwaffe everything went from great to worse. 

I agree with you Adler and Neilster and also the Ju-88 was a great aircraft and could do what were expected of it. I would have loved to see the Ju-89 as the heavy bomber for Germany.


----------



## Henk (Jul 16, 2006)

Oh yes I forgot about the Dornier 19, that were also a great idea for a heavy bomber.


----------



## merlin (Dec 29, 2006)

Sorry guys but some of you missed the point. It was the original requirement by Udet that all bombers had to have the requirement to dive. That added weight (to strengthen it for the pull out), the designers solution was to use coupled engines. Goring in his pig-headedness couldn't admit that the requirement was wrong, and wouldn't allow a four engine version he277. But later when Hitler stated what he wanted (no mention of diving) Heinkel stepped in to say that his He177b (the four-engine cover name) could do that.
But by then it was too late, if the proper realistic requirement was made earlier they would have had a very good aircraft.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 29, 2006)

Interesting how the German designed 177 look so differant from American bombers. In some ways, British and German bombers look more alike.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2006)

i think too much of a big deal is always made about the requirement for the He-177 to dive, i mean the lanc was cleared for dives of up to 30 degrees and that was only set because of bomb clearance out of the bomb bay, it could be greater with a different bomb load and the lanc's structure was strong enough to take it (thanks to the manchester having to be made catapult launchable) so many bombers could dive bomb to some extent, it is not the dive bombing aspect that made the aircraft poor it was the engines..........


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 30, 2006)

Lanc is right. If there is one Achilles Heel of the 177, it was the engines and transmission coupling. A technical and maintenance nightmare.


----------



## merlin (Dec 31, 2006)

Sorry guys but I think some are missing the point.
The Luftwaffe was obsessed with all bombers having the capability of dive-bombing - even for a large heavy bomber. Heinkel designers had to use the coupled engine arrangement in order to have that capability, but the 'need' also added to the weight of the aircraft. Once the problems arose with the engine arrangement the designers realised (especially with the RAF's four engined planes flying overhead) the solution, but Goring fordade any further mention of the He277. But work went ahead under the label of He177B. Which was given the go ahead by Hitler on May 23, 1943 when Heinkel claimed that it could do what he required. But by then it was too late as in July '44 the whole programme was abandoned. Thankfully this option didn't proceed years earlier!
The He 274 was the responsibility of Heinkel's French design office.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 17, 2007)

I think the He-177 was a similar issue to the Avro Manchester that was in British Service. The He-177 was too large to be a dive bomber and the coupled engines just started fires and synchronizing problems. The Avro Manchester needed to go from being a two engined bomber to being a four engined bomber. There is very little difference between a late Manchester Bomber and an early Avro Lancaster Bomber... Once these changes were made, the He-277 or He-177b would have given sterling service as a heavy bomber in a somewhat similar category to the B-17 in terms of payload. What do others think?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

it's true, other than the higher command not allowing 4 separate engines there's no reason it couldn't be done and indeed it was done, but the fact remains it'd be too late for such a bomber! range might also suffer due to less space in the wings also.........


----------



## delcyros (Jan 17, 2007)

I don´t think there is something wrong with the He-177 A´s payload.

B-17:
max. payload: 5.8t. (12783.2 lbs)

B-24:
max. payload: 5.45t.

B-29:
max. payload: 9.1t.

Lancaster:
max. payload: 6.45t.

He-177A: 
max. payload: 7t. 
(some planes were modified to handle 8.2t. payload at reduced range)

It seems to me that only the B-29 has a reasonably higher payload.


----------



## Jank (Jan 17, 2007)

I thought the B-24 had a greater payload than the B-17.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Interesting statistics and they put it right in the range between Lancaster and B-29. Wouldn't have liked to have seen the B-36 Peacemaker operational as an enemy though... That thing would I reckon have had a payload of between 11.6t and 18.2t just roughly going off that it was twice to three times the size of the B-17 and dwarfed the B-29...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 22, 2007)

delcyros said:


> I don´t think there is something wrong with the He-177 A´s payload.
> 
> B-17:
> max. payload: 5.8t. (12783.2 lbs)
> ...



The Lancaster could technically carry up to 17,200 lbs on missions less than 800 miles round trip, but I don't think it was ever done, and the extra weight capacity was generally devoted to "Window" rather than bombload. Apart from load testing, the highest weight for a standard Lancaster I've read of was for short range anti-ship missions, with 6 x 2000lbs AP bombs and 6 x 500lbs GP bombs (which had a CTW of around 25% and actually made very good AP bombs as well). The general standard maximum loadout was 14,000 lbs (cookie and area bombing or incendiary loards both max out at 14,000 lbs)

The "Special" Lancasters could carry a single 22,000 lbs Grand Slam bomb.

The Halifax was rated to 13,750 lbs (just a squeak less than the Lancaster).


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 22, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Interesting statistics and they put it right in the range between Lancaster and B-29. Wouldn't have liked to have seen the B-36 Peacemaker operational as an enemy though... That thing would I reckon have had a payload of between 11.6t and 18.2t just roughly going off that it was twice to three times the size of the B-17 and dwarfed the B-29...



I don't know. I think the B-36 was just a large target. Wasn't the cruise speed with load less than 200mph? What a fish outta water in the world of jet fighters.


----------



## johnbr (Jan 22, 2007)

And the B 36 was very under powered.Remember it was to have 6 7000hp not 3500.


----------



## bigZ (Jan 22, 2007)

I think the Pre War economic/material availabity made any atempt of Germany of creating a heavy bomber strategic force impossible. The twin engined bomber approach also makes more sense due to Germanys concerns of being ovrrun by her neighbours before being able to retaliate.

Also it was impossible for Germany to create a large heavy bomber force during the war due to the low output of aircraft early on and the non-stop attrition of the Luftwaffe. When measures had been taken to correct output, the initative had long since shifted to the allies. Also of concern would be where they would have gotten the crews to man them due to their disatrous training policy and the use of instructors in supplying beleagued pockets of troops when the emergency arouse.

At the end of the day its more down to production/economics/material availablity rather than superior technical merits of a heavy bomber which make a heavy bomber force viable.

I too agree on the sentiments of others regarding the V2. Dont forget it also tied up the electronic/instrument industry. Should have concentrated on promising anti aircraft missiles. Although the V1 was effective in tying up RAF resources that could be better used else where and it didn't effect production of aircraft much.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I don't know. I think the B-36 was just a large target. Wasn't the cruise speed with load less than 200mph? What a fish outta water in the world of jet fighters.



yes she was but what other means of delivery to another continent were around at the time? she was the only option of reaching moscow from America and with the type of bomb we're talking here only one needs to get through......


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

It is the ultimate in nuclear diplomacy in that it might be able to carry a few nuclear missiles in one mission, to drop on different cities. All you needed even then was a small nuclear bomb to drop on each city as a demonstration piece, due to the Hiroshima and Nagasakie drops that had been carried out at the end of WWII...


----------



## Kiwikid (May 21, 2009)

V-1710 said:


> Did any He-177's survive the war? I seem to remember seeing a picture of an He-177 in U.S.A.A.F. markings, taken at the end of the war.



RAE (Farnborough) tested one He 177A-5. Aircraft (formerly F8+AP from 6./KG 40) captured by French Resistance in September 1944 at Toulouse-Blagnac airfield. Transferred to the UK was repainted with British roundels and serialled TS439. Pictured below :







...and there are other claims that this aircraft below was an A-7 test flown by the British:


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2009)

The biggest problem that needed to be eliminated was the requirement for these planes to be able to dive-bomb.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2009)

The He-277 wasn't required to dive bomb AFAIK, this idea was dropped after experience with the He-177. The He-277 was just meant to haul A LOT of bombs a long way at very high altitude and carpet bomb what'ever target it was set out to hit. It was the German equal to the B-29.


----------



## Waynos (May 22, 2009)

Interesting that a parallel has been drawn between the He 177 and the Manchester. Its even closer than you think as the requirement that the Manchester was designed to meet also included the provision that the aircraft should be capable of dive bombing.

When you follow that through to the debut of the Lancaster in 1942 it just shows what Germany had at their own fingertips too, if only the hierarchy had seen it.


----------



## davebender (May 22, 2009)

> what Germany had at their own fingertips too, if only the hierarchy had seen it.


Britain was willing to spend a large portion of their wartime economy on heavy bombers. Germany wasn't. That's why Britain had the Lancaster but Germany did not have the He-277.


----------



## Kiwikid (May 22, 2009)

> What was the primary difference between the He177 and He274?
> 
> Was the He277 a derivative of the He177? He274? Both?



The He-274 which did not fly before Allies captured it was a much bigger aircraft than the He-277.

The He-274 had a wingspan of 44.19m, length 23.80m (7,000hp)
The He-277 had a wingspan of 31.43m, length 22.14m (7,000hp)
The He-177 had a wingspan of 31.44m, length 22.00m (5,900hp)


----------



## HealzDevo (May 23, 2009)

Still the He-177 was potentially available to make a difference when redesigned while the larger aircraft never flew. A successful He-177 would have made more difference.


----------



## Kiwikid (May 23, 2009)

The He-177 A-7 was an improved version of the He-177 with about 4000km range, but the He-277 had more power at take off and in the B-5 high altitude bomber had performance rivaling the post war Lincoln and almost approaching the performance of a B-29 in every respect except payload.

Even with the mighty A-7 Grief, I think the Germans realised hanging two engines on a common shaft was robbing the design of thrust. 

*B-29A *


357mph. Max speed. 
220mph. Cruise speed. 
5,230 km (3,250 mi)
10,200 m (33,600 ft) service ceiling

*He-277 *


354mph. Max speed. 
286mph. Cruise speed. 
6,000 km (3,728 miles)
15,000 m (49,210 ft) service ceiling


The He-277's cruise speed was 66mph faster than the B-29's.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 23, 2009)

Perhaps, but the main fact, I think is that Germany had a lot of expensive projects that never produced a cost benefit to payment needed to produce the weapon system in the first place. Especially at the end of the War when the Allies were out producing all their aircraft and air defences even though the Reich was concentrating a fairly high proportion of their remaining manufacturing capacity into this. Therefore given real history to make any difference, the He-177 must be in effective service and producing results in 1943 as this when the German Air Superiority really began to permanently slip overall until the end of the war. I think we all agree that sometime in 1943 is the date of the Allied surge in available ground and air defence aircraft.


----------



## Propellorhead (Jun 27, 2010)

From what I can gather, the He-177 B-0 was not intended to hide the He-277 design from Goering. These appear to be entirely different aircraft designs loosely based on the He-177 Greif. The He-177A was designated Projekt 1041 Bomber A, by Heinkel. It was not up to Heinkel to create the designation He-177B. This designation was conferred on the type by RLM. 

Goeiring became enraged about the He-177A design some time in 1942 onwards, yet RLM created the He-177B designation in November 1938 when it asked Heinkel to prepare four prototypes with conventional engine fairings as an insurance policy against failure of the paired DB 601 layout (becoming the DB 606).

RLM asked for the He-177B to be fitted with four jumo 211 engines roughly comparable to the DB 601. The V101 prototype of the He-177 B-0 found shot up at Cheb in 1945 did not have a pressurised cockpit and was fitted with the Jumo222 engine which although it could perform well up to 30,000ft or so was not the high altitude Jumo 213E fitted to the He-277 B-5. 

I did some scratching around to identify the four prototype He-177 B-0 aircraft ordered by RLM in 1938. When some of their airframes were converted from He-177B to He-277, their Stammkennzeichen codes changed too, which adds weight to my theory that these were entirely different aircraft. We know this is so because at least one He-177B, NE+OD was photographed with four seperate engine nacelles with stkz predating it's He-227 stkz.

He-177 B-0 V101... NN+QQ
He-177 B-0 V102... NE+OD ...He-277 B-5 stkz "GA+QQ"
He-177 B-0 V103... KM+TL
He-177 B-0 V104... DL+ AT ...He-277 B-5 stkz "GA+QM"

Whilst some of the He-177 B-0 aircraft were subsequently converted with an " H " type tail, they were not He-277 until after conversions took place.


----------



## davebender (Jun 27, 2010)

DB605 and Jumo211 liquid cooled V12s were the only aircraft engines Germany was not short of. If the He-177 / He-277 is to be powered by 4 engines they must be one of these two types.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 27, 2010)

There is some info about the 277 here....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...g-cover-designation-really-existed-22578.html


----------



## Propellorhead (Jun 28, 2010)

davebender said:


> DB605 and Jumo211 liquid cooled V12s were the only aircraft engines Germany was not short of. If the He-177 / He-277 is to be powered by 4 engines they must be one of these two types.



Just because Germany had plentiful supply of DB605 and Jumo211 does not imply these were the power source for four engined Heinkels. 

The He-177 B-0 V101 was found destroyed with Jumo 222 engines.

The He-227 was different from the he-177 B because of it's pressurised cockpit. For the He-277 to deliver the specified performance it had to be fitted with the Jumo 213E engines that it was specified with. 

If that rationale were true davebender, then 1,805 Focke Wulf Ta -152 fighters would never have been built with Jumo 213E engines either.


----------



## looney (Jun 28, 2010)

I read somehwrere that the crews flying them, liked them. They where used in naval scout missions.

Can't think of where I read it. Most likely Osprey


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2010)

> If that rationale were true davebender, then 1,805 Focke Wulf Ta -152 fighters would never have been built with Jumo 213E engines either.


The Ta-152 entered mass production during 1945. It's rather pointless for Germany to begin manufacturing a heavy bomber at that late date. A bomber that enters mass production during 1942 would be an entirely different story even if powered by smaller 1,340 hp Jumo 211 engines.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 28, 2010)

Would it have made the plane better? Yes. Would it have made it a success? No. The problem comes from the policy's and resource's needed to make it into a productive strategic force. They would have had to create a fleet of bombers and training facility's to compensate for losses they would have incurred. How long would it take to develop and refine effective tactics? Could they have afforded the resource's or the manpower? And what about escorts?


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2010)

Not for bombing the British Isles during the daytime. By 1942 RAF Fighter Command aircraft were more numerous then sand on the seashore. And they were supported by a decent aircraft control system.

Operating such a long range bomber from Sicily, Norway and the Bay of Biscay for maritime attack would be an entirely different matter. Even if a convoy is lucky enough to contain a CVE the Allied fighter protection would be a tiny fraction of what RAF Fighter Command can put in the air.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 28, 2010)

Ok it could have been used as a maritime bomber. Then yes I guess it would have been a success. But one worthy of the resources?


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2010)

The German Navy needed something for a long range patrol bomber. Historically they used a combination of Fw-200s, Ju-290s and He-177s plus some medium range Do-217s. It would probably be less expensive and more effective for the navy to mass produce a single model optimized specifically for their requirements.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 28, 2010)

You know i always fantasized about an exchange of tech and thought what if the Germans would have had a couple wings of Kawanishi H6K? and later the H8k? Sorry totally off subject.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2010)

davebender said:


> The German Navy needed something for a long range patrol bomber. Historically they used a combination of Fw-200s, Ju-290s and He-177s plus some medium range Do-217s. It would probably be less expensive and more effective for the navy to mass produce a single model optimized specifically for their requirements.



Not really.

The plane it self might have been more effective but how many planes where actually used for long range maritime reconnaissance and strike duties? 200-300? a few more? A model designed specifically for them might have been made in slightly larger numbers but no specially designed plane built in those numbers could really be considered cost effective considering the the engineering time to design it, the cost and time of building the tools, jigs and fixtures to build it. The cost of the testing program and the cost of the maintenance/repair set up for a special type as opposed to a variant of an existing design is also higher. 

Chances of the German Navy being able to mass produce any aircraft independent of the Luftwaffe is about zero due to politics.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 3, 2010)

In my new book - 'Heinkel He 177 Greif' by J. Richard Smith Eddie J. Creek - they make the interesting point that the German high command had no 'will' for a protracted strategic bombing campaign and that that ran counter to their entire 'war ideology'.
So effectively a couple of operational squadrons of He 177s engaging in attacks (which is how they talked about them) really are neither here nor there.

Perhaps if something like the attack on the Russian power plants around Moscow, Gorki and Yaroslavl had been thought of earlier and implemented it might have had a significant effect but the obvious fact is that Germany never really attempted to 'work up' an effective true strategic bomber force (something that takes years) - and interesting sounding one-off attacks on high-value targets like the power station plan in fact illustrate in a very ironic but clear manner the fact of their lack of a true strategic 'vision'. 

The focus of their efforts were dictated by the sort of war the found themselves actually in (as opposed to what they had planned). Hence the weight of effort in tactical aircraft and a serious lack of strategic aerial planning.

(just as the UK USA's situation dictated that they focus heavily on strategic air offensive) 

All this is before we get into the severe lack of material resources and how on earth you train and operate squadrons (assuming you can actually make the aircraft) in an environment where your 'air superiority' extends 1.5 meters as Jurgen Rosenstock put it .


----------



## davebender (Jul 5, 2010)

> German high command had no 'will' for a protracted strategic bombing campaign


1930s Germany had no "will" for a protracted war period. That didn't change until the USA entered the conflict during December 1941. By then it was too late for Germany to establish the industrial and training base necessary for a large force of heavy bombers. From 1941 onward most German war production was required just to maintain 200 or so Heer divisions in combat, along with their supporting Luftwaffe fighter and CAS units.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 7, 2010)

davebender said:


> 1930s Germany had no "will" for a protracted war period. That didn't change until the USA entered the conflict during December 1941. By then it was too late for Germany to establish the industrial and training base necessary for a large force of heavy bombers. From 1941 onward most German war production was required just to maintain 200 or so Heer divisions in combat, along with their supporting Luftwaffe fighter and CAS units.



Exactly. Which makes the whole question regarding whether or not the "He-277" was worth perfecting a moot point. To have had a fully adequate force of heavy bombers (or dedicated long-range maritime bombers), the entire "Bomber A" program should have been given a higher priority and not be focused on "advancing the state of the art" so much. The USA and UK did just fine with late 1930's technology in the Lanc and B-17 thank you very much.

Speaking of jury-rigged heavy bombers, I've always wondered why the RLM did not promote the He-111Z as a possible long-range offensive maritime bomber. From everything I've heard, it was an amazingly successful adaptation, based on a very reliable and successful medium bomber, was available (in the form of He-111 components), and - other than the zwilling concept itself - introduced no radical and unproven innovations.


----------



## davebender (Jul 7, 2010)

> USA and UK did just fine with late 1930's technology in the Lanc and B-17 thank you very much


I wouldn't go that far. RAF Bomber Command and U.S. 8th Air Force contributed little towards winning the war during 1939 to 1943 yet they were very expensive. If the same amount of money had been used to develop and purchase superior CAS aircraft the Normandy invasion might have been possible during 1943.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> I wouldn't go that far. RAF Bomber Command and U.S. 8th Air Force contributed little towards winning the war during 1939 to 1943 yet they were very expensive. If the same amount of money had been used to develop and purchase superior CAS aircraft the Normandy invasion might have been possible during 1943.



My point was not that heavy bombers were a better choice for waging the war in Europe than more and better close air support planes...only that the Lanc and B-17 proved to be more than adequate heavy bombers throughout WW2 even though they were fairly old designs - and that by extension a simple and relatively "old-fashioned" heavy bomber might have given the Luftwaffe better service.

Actually, I agree with you that the entire US/British emphasis on strategic bombing may not have been the best overall allocation of effort. The US, at least, had the industrial capability to build tens of thousands of heavy bombers and still fill the skies with fighters and flood Europe with Sherman tanks. Germany, on the other hand did not have this ability. Probably whatever effort the Germans put into the design and production of any heavy bomber came at the expense of equipment much more sorely needed in the East.


----------



## Propellorhead (Jul 11, 2010)

zoomar said:


> Exactly. Which makes the whole question regarding whether or not the "He-277" was worth perfecting a moot point. To have had a fully adequate force of heavy bombers (or dedicated long-range maritime bombers), the entire "Bomber A" program should have been given a higher priority and not be focused on "advancing the state of the art" so much. The USA and UK did just fine with late 1930's technology in the Lanc and B-17 thank you very much.
> 
> Speaking of jury-rigged heavy bombers, I've always wondered why the RLM did not promote the He-111Z as a possible long-range offensive maritime bomber. From everything I've heard, it was an amazingly successful adaptation, based on a very reliable and successful medium bomber, was available (in the form of He-111 components), and - other than the zwilling concept itself - introduced no radical and unproven innovations.



Why protect a bomber that flies higher than any Allied interceptor, ie 49,200ft?

The French AAS 01, which had been developed during the war as the He-274 had less powerful 1,750hp DB 603 A-2 engines than the He-277B-5 with 1,900hp DB 603G engines. Even the underpowered He-274 could reach a service ceiling of 46,905ft.


----------



## davebender (Jul 11, 2010)

> Why protect a bomber that flies higher than any Allied interceptor, ie 49,200ft?


Why bother trying to intercept a WWII era bomber flying at 49,000ft? Even today you cannot hit anything from that height using iron bombs.


----------

