# He 112 Development Potential



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 11, 2015)

Hello everyone, we've had many discussions in the past regarding the development potential of various aircraft such as the He 100 or Fw 187, but what about the He 112B? Did it have much room to grow? Would it have to be replaced sooner (dare I say by the He 100) or later (He 280)?


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 11, 2015)

I do believe the Romanians used that plane...


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 11, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> I do believe the Romanians used that plane...



That's correct, but I'm asking how or if the He 112 could be developed further into the 40's (so basically the LW picks the 112 over the 109).


----------



## GregP (Aug 11, 2015)

Some of the versions of the He 112 were almost completely different from one another. So I can't see how it's development potential could be questioned. First you'd have to have a difinitive type.

This He-112:






Doesn't look much like this one:





I think it had potential and, had it been selected, I have no doubt it could have been competitive with other fighters well into the war. Might have had to go with a thinner wing to get a lot faster ... don't know since it wasn't developed and I haven't put in a lot of He 112 aerodynamics investigation time. But if they can make a whole new fuselage, why not a whole new wing with an inherently faster airfoil? I certainly like the canopy and landing gear better than the one on any standard Messerschmitt Bf 109.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 11, 2015)

GregP said:


> Some of the versions of the He 112 were almost completely different from one another. So I can't see how it's development potential could be questioned. First you'd have to have a difinitive type.
> 
> This He-112:
> View attachment 298282
> ...



Were any prototypes equipped with the DB 601? Also, why waste so many developmental resources on further enhancing the 112, when you have the 100?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 11, 2015)

The most insurmountable problem (including with export buyers) was the high cost of the aircraft. Heinkel also wanted to use a wooden wing in it that the RLM rejected, but I don't know if that would have helped much in the cost area (most of the cost was related to complexity of construction, not materials).

Starting over with a new aircraft while advancing on the experience gained from the He 112 would have made the most sense. This was supposed to have happened with the He 100, but it seems Heinkel put far too much interest into developing a record breaking high speed aircraft than a cost-effective, rational fighter design. Had it been a bit more conservative and less tight and limited in its design, the He 100 might have been an potent, cost effective replacement for the Bf 109. (things like hedging their bets with completely conventional cooling systems used from the start -alongside experimental surface cooling- would have been the most significant detail, planning for alternate Jumo 211 installations would have been useful too)

Retaining the good cockpit visibility, handling, and general aerodynamic characteristics of the He 112 and improving upon them would have been important too, probably more so than raw speed. Trying again with the wooden wing idea probably wouldn't have hurt either, at least experimentally.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2015)

Not going to happen. Me-109 performed just fine and was inexpensive to mass produce. 

He-112 would be competing against Germany's second iron in the fire (i.e. Fw-190). He-112B is ok but IMO Fw-190 was better.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 12, 2015)

davebender said:


> Not going to happen. Me-109 performed just fine and was inexpensive to mass produce.
> 
> He-112 would be competing against Germany's second iron in the fire (i.e. Fw-190). He-112B is ok but IMO Fw-190 was better.



Honestly that's an unfair comparison. The He 112B flew 2 years earlier than the He 100 and 3 years earlier than the Fw 190. It makes much more sense to compare the Fw 190 with the He 100.


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2015)

Fw-190 airframe was around early enough to compare with He112B. It was RLM insistence on BMW801 radial engine which delayed the program. The same RLM determination to use BMW801 engine would probably doom the He-112B. In order to compete Heinkel would need to design an airframe around the new engine.


----------



## GregP (Aug 12, 2015)

The question was about potential. Had the He 112 been developed, it could have been a good fighter. Whether or not it could have been made cost-competitive is another question and I doubt it, but it certainly could have been made into a decent fighter for the time.

I do not know if it had the potential to still be competitive in 1945, but it could have been a good fighter in 1939 - 1941 for sure. It was almost certainly as good or better than the Hurricane, albeit in need of a better engine as-flown. The Hurricane might not have been all that great with a lesser engine than a Merlin, either. Perhaps the He 112 needed a DB 601 series engine to "wake up."


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2015)

Only other choice was Jumo 211 as it replaced Jumo 210 engine production during 1938. 

Design He-112 around an air cooled radial and you essentially get an entirely different aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Aug 12, 2015)

The Bf 109 certainly successfully made the tansition from Jumo to DB. Why not the He 112?

It IS unlikely given the cost difference, but it could have been done. I'm zeroing in on the original question about the development potential. I still think it HAD potential, but am NOT sure when the supply of DB 601s would have been sufficient for the Germans to release some for use in developed He 112s.

The development might be tied to surplus DB 601s that could have been used. In that case, time might have already marched past the point where the DB engine would have give the developed He 112 airframe sufficient useful performance to warrant the effort.

So development, while possible, might never have been practical from an engine availability standpoint. Still, they found sufficient engines for Bf 110's, so maybe there was some potential there.


----------



## davebender (Aug 13, 2015)

Not under historical circumstances. Initially RLM funded DB601 engine production at less then 50% of original plan. Hence engine was in short supply even for Me-109 and Me-110.

Provide DB601 engine with full funding from 1936 onward and it opens up all sorts of possibilities such as Fw-187 and DB601 powered Fw-190.


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2015)

"What ifs" can be interesting since nothing is impossible.

If you are correct, Dave, then I'm sure the He 112 could have been developed into an effective fighter. Who knows, it might have had the range the Messerschmitt lacked.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2015)

The limiting factor _might_ be the wing. The HE 112 went through at least 3 different wings. I don't know what airfoil they wound up using on the last ones. It "looks" thick but that may be deceiving due to the long cord over most of the elliptical wing. 

One prototype with DB 601 engine was supposed to hit 354mph which is about the same as a Bf 109E with the same engine ( or a bit better?). The question is did the He 112 have enough stretch left to match the 109F without another major redo?


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 13, 2015)

davebender said:


> Not under historical circumstances. Initially RLM funded DB601 engine production at less then 50% of original plan. Hence engine was in short supply even for Me-109 and Me-110.
> 
> Provide DB601 engine with full funding from 1936 onward and it opens up all sorts of possibilities such as Fw-187 and DB601 powered Fw-190.



Does anyone know what a DB 601 powered Fw 190 would've looked like? Were there any calculations done, or is this just a made up possibility by this board?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2015)

It's pretty much made up by this board. The only thing the real Fw 190 and a DB 601 powered "version" would really have in common would be the name/designation. 

Fw might have had a few paper sketches of a DB powered fighter in the late 30s but the DB engines available at the time did not have enough power to meet Kurt Tanks goal of a more rugged fighter than the Bf 109. A more rugged/sturdier fighter being heavier.


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2015)

Good question about the stretch potential of the He 112, Shortround. That one's hard to address due to lack of any data whatsoever. The Bf 109F, G, and K weren't really much faster than the E ... down low. They DID have some extra power and it probably did offer an incremental speed increase down low. But they got faster as they got higher as their engines were optimized for higher altitudes.

Had the He 112 been developed ... we can presume it would have gotten or at least had access to the same engines. It's anybody's guess how much improvement was left in it. The closest planes to an He 112-type design were the Italian Fiat, Macchi, and Regianne "5-series" and, great handlers though they were, they weren't especially fast. But I'm also not sure they got the engines specifically set up for higher altitudes.

It's some food for thought. I really haven't thought much about it because I've been thinking about the early version with a DB 601. It's easy to sit here and say the He 112 could be developed into a 480 mph fighter. It's quite another thing to go DO it with the technology and resources of the time. I'm sure it could have been developed ... the question is how far. I'm sure I don't know.

I'm also not sure Willy Messerschmitt would have believed how fast a Bf 109K was going to be in the near future had he been asked about it in 1939. The war seems to have generated a never-ending parade of minor improvements that added up to substantially better-performaing aircraft with the same basic design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2015)

The 109F with the DB 601N engine _seems_ to be 15-20mph faster than a 109E (or T) using the same engine. Improvements in climb and turn are also quite noticeable if test figures are to be believed? 

Part of the problem with some "what ifs" is how far do you go. The HE 112 was extensively modified from the early versions to the B series. About all they kept was the Jumo 210 engine and a cockpit in the middle of the plane (OK the landing gear?). The Fuselage was stretched and changed in construction. The vertical and rudder were changed. A whole new shorter span and changed plane form wing. The new wing was not only much smaller in area it changed form a 2 spar construction to a "single" spar with "auxiliary" spars in front and back (3 spar wing?). All three spars _appear_ in cut away drawings to connect to fuselage. 
A "similar" _redo_ at some point in time after the B series could see the fuselage change in construction/size and another entirely new wing (keeping old landing gear?) eliminate any comprehensibility problems the old wing _might_ have had. 

But it would still be a He 112 right? 

It is one thing to do such major changes at the prototype stage when each plane is almost hand built and little or no production tooling exists. It is quite another thing to make such extensive changes when multiple production lines exist in factories hundreds of miles apart. The change _can_ be made but it requires a much larger investment in time and money (and lost production) to do it.


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2015)

The Bf 109E-3 had a DB 601Aa that gave 1,175 HP at takeoff and 1,000 HP at 12,140 feet. Max speed at sea level was 290 mph. Max speed was 348 mph at 14,560 feet and initial rate of climb was 3,280 ft / min. Service ceiling was 34,450 ft.

The Bf 109F-4 had a DB 601E with 1,332 HP. Max speed at sea level was 325 mph. Max speed at 19,680 feet was 376 mph. Service ceiling was 38,048 feet. 

If we take the E at 1,175 HP and do nothing but add the DB 601E engine with 1,350 HP, and drag doesn’t change, I’d expect the new top speed to be 304 mph at sea level. To get 325 mph, the frontal area had to decrease by some 18 percent. That’s a LOT, but believable since it happened.

A telling parameter is the E’s top speed was at 14,560 feet and the F’s top speed was at 19,680 feet. That tells me the supercharger wasn’t the same or SOMETHING in the engine wasn’t the same since it’s best altitude went up by a third. At the E’s best altitude it made about 1,000 HP. At the F’s best altitude of 19,680 feet, the DB 601Aa made about 800 – 830 HP. The Bf 109F has to make 1030 HP one third higher to get 376 mph so, as I said above, a good deal of the extra performance came from engine improvements. 

If the E had done nothing but get the same engine, it would have had another almost 200 HP or so at 20,000 feet and the top speed would have been in the 365 mph range, which is only about 10 mph slower than an F. At the E’s best height of 12,140 feet, the F could go 356 mph instead of 348 mph, which isn’t all that big of a difference. But add up a few mph at the E’s best altitude and a significant amount more HP at 20,000 feet and it makes a pretty significant difference.

If anyone wants to propose different numbers, hey ... go for it.

I’m not making any wild claims here, I’m just proposing that the F’s engine made up a good deal of the speed difference between the E and the F. The aerodynamic cleanup helped, but so did the engine change. Hopefully there's nothing unusual about better-performing planes getting a bit of help from many difference small changes. I'm pretty sure there was some cleanup that could be done on the He 112, too, but I still don't propose to estimate how much. It is, after all, a paper airplane that didn't get produced.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The 109F with the DB 601N engine _seems_ to be 15-20mph faster than a 109E (or T) using the same engine. Improvements in climb and turn are also quite noticeable if test figures are to be believed?
> 
> Part of the problem with some "what ifs" is how far do you go. The HE 112 was extensively modified from the early versions to the B series. About all they kept was the Jumo 210 engine and a cockpit in the middle of the plane (OK the landing gear?). The Fuselage was stretched and changed in construction. The vertical and rudder were changed. A whole new shorter span and changed plane form wing. The new wing was not only much smaller in area it changed form a 2 spar construction to a "single" spar with "auxiliary" spars in front and back (3 spar wing?). All three spars _appear_ in cut away drawings to connect to fuselage.
> A "similar" _redo_ at some point in time after the B series could see the fuselage change in construction/size and another entirely new wing (keeping old landing gear?) eliminate any comprehensibility problems the old wing _might_ have had.
> ...


To be fair, however, look at the changes the Bf109 went through: A/B/C/D/E/F/G/K/T not including all the experimental knock-offs. The engines, the armament, the cowling, the canopy, the mainwing, the vert. stab. and even the tailwheel changed over the course of the Bf109's career.

Although they still had the same main-gear to the end.


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2015)

I had never thought of it quite that way, Graugeist, but you gotta' love it. The part that is even funnier is they TRIED alternate landing gear and didn't incorporate it.

So they kept the landing gear and the windscreen ... two of the worst features on the plane! Perhaps they were also the cheapest to make?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 15, 2015)

davebender said:


> Fw-190 airframe was around early enough to compare with He112B. It was RLM insistence on BMW801 radial engine which delayed the program. The same RLM determination to use BMW801 engine would probably doom the He-112B. In order to compete Heinkel would need to design an airframe around the new engine.


The He 112B was already limited to the Jumo 210 for similar RLM and logistical reasons. The Jumo 211 was also initially in short supply, and the 210 was pressed into use for initial Bf 110 and Ju 87 production as well.



GregP said:


> I do not know if it had the potential to still be competitive in 1945, but it could have been a good fighter in 1939 - 1941 for sure. It was almost certainly as good or better than the Hurricane, albeit in need of a better engine as-flown. The Hurricane might not have been all that great with a lesser engine than a Merlin, either. Perhaps the He 112 needed a DB 601 series engine to "wake up."


Against the 1939 Hurricane with fixed-pitch propeller, the 112B might have fared rather well in horizontal speed and especially roll, climb, and dive performance (roll and dive would likely remain an advantage regardless of propeller).

Still, given the cost it wouldn't make too much sense and either putting more Jumo powered 109s and 110s into training units or actually putting the Fw 187A into mass production would have made better use of the remaining supply of Jumo 210s in 1939/1940.




GregP said:


> So development, while possible, might never have been practical from an engine availability standpoint. Still, they found sufficient engines for Bf 110's, so maybe there was some potential there.


Unless they could make the He 112 cheap enough to at least let performance/handling/cockpit characteristics weigh in as net advantages (especially with DB 601 production limiting volume more than airframe cost) I don't think it would be an attractive option.

As I said before, a different overall design ethic for the He 100 seems like the better option. They did already focus on greatly reducing parts count and manufacturing complexity/cost, but the He 100 was hardly an all around heavily rationalized aircraft. It had too much radical record setting speedster design ethic pressed into it to really make sense. Taking as many of the strengths of the He 112 design and boiling them down into something cheaper and faster to build and oriented around using _either_ the DB 601 or Jumo 211 with at least SOME prototypes using completely conventional cooling systems from the start would have made far more sense. (the retractable radiator mechanism likely would have been favored initially, possibly for production as well, but eventually I'd imagine a more streamlined embedded fixed radiator would be used -retractable radiators themselves require a good deal of internal space as it is, so going the step further and orienting higher airflow, streamlined ducting into the radiator core embedded more or less as far as it would be when in fully retracted position would make more sense and likely be lighter -a variable geometry intake scoop might make more sense)






Shortround6 said:


> The limiting factor _might_ be the wing. The HE 112 went through at least 3 different wings. I don't know what airfoil they wound up using on the last ones. It "looks" thick but that may be deceiving due to the long cord over most of the elliptical wing.


I wonder if this low aspect ratio 'thick' long chord wing (with thin airfoil) would be good for retaining relatively large internal stores capacity relative to area while the elliptical shape would make up for the lift:drag losses of the low aspect ratio. It very well may have been one of the areas that added to the 112's cost and complexity (and was abandoned in favored of a straight/tapered wing on the He 100) but it still seems like an interesting option. Heinkel's aspirations for a wooden wing might not have been cheaper in terms of labor either, but it should have been appealing in terms of materials. (assuming Heinkel could manage mass production of wooden components of the sort)




Shortround6 said:


> It's pretty much made up by this board. The only thing the real Fw 190 and a DB 601 powered "version" would really have in common would be the name/designation.


As it was the same could be said for the initial small Fw 190 V1 and the later prototypes, let alone the A-0 and A-1 production models. The initial V1 seems rather well suited to the 1100-1200 PS class engines of 1939, and honestly seems more likely to result in a production aircraft retaining more commonality to the V1 prototype than the A-1 ended up with. (also would have avoided the hang-ups related to inexperience with radial engines and both problems with placement and experimental cooling arrangements)




GrauGeist said:


> To be fair, however, look at the changes the Bf109 went through: A/B/C/D/E/F/G/K/T not including all the experimental knock-offs. The engines, the armament, the cowling, the canopy, the mainwing, the vert. stab. and even the tailwheel changed over the course of the Bf109's career.
> 
> Although they still had the same main-gear to the end.


Which, ironically, should have been one of the higher priority changes to be made at the beginning of the war, or even before that. Adapting wider-track gear with the transition from D to E, or more likely E to F would have been very significant for reducing overall attrition and number of operational aircraft. Between that and improvements to the canopy, there were a number of practical operational features that seem like they'd have been more logistically useful than the raw performance gains the 109F offered.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 15, 2015)

The Bf 109F-4 with unrestricted 601E was actually in the 400mph range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 15, 2015)

The F was probably the "best" Bf 109 of the family, if you believe the aces who flew them, that is.

I do.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 15, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109E-3 had a DB 601Aa that gave 1,175 HP at takeoff and 1,000 HP at 12,140 feet. Max speed at sea level was 290 mph. Max speed was 348 mph at 14,560 feet and initial rate of climb was 3,280 ft / min. Service ceiling was 34,450 ft.
> 
> The Bf 109F-4 had a DB 601E with 1,332 HP. Max speed at sea level was 325 mph. Max speed at 19,680 feet was 376 mph. Service ceiling was 38,048 feet.



The 109F-4 can do 390 mph even with a restricted DB 601E, and circa 410 mph with fully rated engine. Most of the Bf 109Es flew with DB 601A, the 601Aa was the export engine that still ended up in some 109s and 110s, mostly in Jabos, since it was a bit more powerful under 4.5 km. The '1000 HP at 12140 ft' for the 601Aa is way too low a figure, BTW.



> If we take the E at 1,175 HP and do nothing but add the DB 601E engine with 1,350 HP, and drag doesn’t change, I’d expect the new top speed to be 304 mph at sea level. To get 325 mph, the frontal area had to decrease by some 18 percent. That’s a LOT, but believable since it happened.
> 
> A telling parameter is the E’s top speed was at 14,560 feet and the F’s top speed was at 19,680 feet. That tells me the supercharger wasn’t the same or SOMETHING in the engine wasn’t the same since it’s best altitude went up by a third. At the E’s best altitude it made about 1,000 HP. At the F’s best altitude of 19,680 feet, the DB 601Aa made about 800 – 830 HP. The Bf 109F has to make 1030 HP one third higher to get 376 mph so, as I said above, a good deal of the extra performance came from engine improvements.



Supercharger was changed once with DB 601A, the 601N was also supposed to get a new S/C, but the main difference was that 601N and 601E were turning 200-300-400 RPM more than early 601A - this is where the gain in the rated height is achieved. Once the DB 601A was rated 1st for 2600 rpm (late 1940), and then 2800 rpm (mid/late 1941), it was better at high altitudes. 
The refined ram air intake on the 109F also helped, so did the several times changed design of the prop.



> If the E had done nothing but get the same engine, it would have had another almost 200 HP or so at 20,000 feet and the top speed would have been in the 365 mph range, which is only about 10 mph slower than an F. At the E’s best height of 12,140 feet, the F could go 356 mph instead of 348 mph, which isn’t all that big of a difference. But add up a few mph at the E’s best altitude and a significant amount more HP at 20,000 feet and it makes a pretty significant difference.



The 109E was one cluttered aircraft, it performed well due to it's small size, reasonably thin wing and capable engine. The 376 mph speed for a 109F-4 is way under mark.



> If anyone wants to propose different numbers, hey ... go for it.
> 
> I’m not making any wild claims here, I’m just proposing that the F’s engine made up a good deal of the speed difference between the E and the F. The aerodynamic cleanup helped, but so did the engine change. Hopefully there's nothing unusual about better-performing planes getting a bit of help from many difference small changes. I'm pretty sure there was some cleanup that could be done on the He 112, too, but I still don't propose to estimate how much. It is, after all, a paper airplane that didn't get produced.



The aerodynamic cleanup helped a lot - 30 km/h (~20 mph) worth on same power?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> > Originally Posted by *GrauGeist*
> > To be fair, however, look at the changes the Bf109 went through: A/B/C/D/E/F/G/K/T not including all the experimental knock-offs. The engines, the armament, the cowling, the canopy, the mainwing, the vert. stab. and even the tailwheel changed over the course of the Bf109's career.
> >
> > Although they still had the same main-gear to the end.
> ...


The maingear design by Messerschmitt was actually genius, as the gear's frame also contributed to the engine support, keeping the overall assembly light and easy to produce. It also allowed a huge advantage in transporting aircraft by land, performing maintenance/repair and keeping production time cost down. The Bf109's maingear design also found it's way into the He162, but was a little easier on the pilots because it was a tricycle configuration.

Trying to change the gear's track would have ended up affecting the entire production line, as it would involve the wing's structure as well as that of the engine mount all needing redesign.

Here's an interesting note on transporting a Bf109: "BF109 F-1 bis F-4 Flugzeughandbuch", May 1941.


----------



## GregP (Aug 15, 2015)

Seems like the Bf 109F's top speed varies depending on who you speak with or read. I've seen actual data indicating from 373 mph max speed to claims of 415 mph, albeit without data.

I'll say it was decently faster than the E, but with a substantial boost due to HP. I'd estimate maybe half due to HP and half due to aerodynamic cleanup, give or take a bit. Whatever it went, it was one of the better variants.

After the F, it got heavier and more powerful and lost some of its great handling, but was still dangerous in the hands of a good pilot.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2015)

Greg, a big problem with evaluating the 109F's speeds is that it used two different engines and one or both were operated under restrictions for periods of time. The DB601N was actually an earlier engine than the DB601E. It was supposed to be good for 1175 PS not only at 0 meters altitude for 1 minute but 1175PS at 4900 meters for 1 minute. A few months after it's introduction in the summer of 1940 it was allowed to overspeed, 2800rpm vs 2600rpm at altitudes over 5500 meters for a bit better performance at altitude. It was the DB601N that was used in the 109F-0, F-1 and F-2. It had also been used a number of different 109E models, sometimes as a replacement engine as well as BF 110s and DO-215s. 

The F-3 and F-4 got the DB601E engines but were originally restricted to 1200PS and finally allowed to use 1350PS Feb 1942. 

Another point of confusion (at least for me) is that different sources seem to identify or rate the DB engines at different or nominal altitudes. The engines often had a higher output at an altitude _between_ either take-off and the FTH at the altitude with the hydraulic coupling locked up (max rpm to supercharger).


----------



## GregP (Aug 15, 2015)

Yeah, and it's sort of tough to find Bf 109F test data that include useful data all along the flight envelope. Many times I've seen data only to find the "top speed" was quoted, but no power setting, rpm, or height was quoted. Fairly useless data if you are interested in the aircraft, but I suppose better than no data at all.

I've also seen a lot of, shall we say, overly friendly top speeds quoted for the Bf 109. When 10+ sources say 378 and one says, 402, there are those who jump on the 402 with all the enthusiasm of a hungry badger. My own thoughts that run along engineering lines are to take maybe 6 - 10 readings from sources you consider relaible, throw out the high and the low, and average the rest. You're probably very close to reality. Another really good estimate is the root mean square.

If you have six readings, you square each one, add the squares, divide by the count (6) and take the square root. That is the value that is statistically the most likely if the six readings were correctly recorded. If one is WAY higher, throw it out as an outlier. Almost all engineering studies work that way or something very similar.

Obviously the six readings are aggregately faster than the slowest and slower than the fastest. You can defend several different estimates, but not if the fastest reading or slowest reading is selected as representative of the type.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2015)

From what I have read the Early 109Fs with the 601N were a _good _20mph faster than an 109E using the same 601N engine, that at least equalizes the power and throws the difference on the airframe. I would disregard ALL references to 109F-3s and F-4s if trying to figure out what the aerodynamic modifications were worth.


----------



## GregP (Aug 16, 2015)

Could be. I can't find much good data on any of the F models, but the web and books are full of data for the G-K-models.

What can you do except maybe learn to read German?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Trying to change the gear's track would have ended up affecting the entire production line, as it would involve the wing's structure as well as that of the engine mount all needing redesign.


I'm aware of this and the transportation advantages, but the ground handling issues presented a serious problem for 109 operational logistics (especially with novice pilots). Granted, modifications to the tailwheel earlier on would have at least partially addressed this.

If a competing airframe would manage to address the problems while being competitively cost effective, that might have been better as well, but GregP's previous argument on the subject was that it should have been cheaper and faster to apply modifications to the 109 itself and retain at least a significant portion of existing tooling and manufacturing infrastructure.

There might have been other options than inward-retracting gear as well, like longer gear legs with wheels set at different angles. (this would require a wing redesign though)


----------



## Denniss (Aug 16, 2015)

The low speed claimed for the F-4 originates from a british calculation based on F-2 performance upped to 1350 PS. They didn't know about the larger prop by this time + the engine of their F-2 was obviously not running properly as they either noted some supercharger problems or achieved this speed at a too low alt for this engine (can't remember exactly).
There's a test reports of 670 km/h (416 mph) at 6.3 km for the F-4 although it's not known where it has been recalc'd for compressibility effects and standard day/atmosphere.


----------



## GregP (Aug 16, 2015)

Just have to find it ...


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> It's pretty much made up by this board. The only thing the real Fw 190 and a DB 601 powered "version" would really have in common would be the name/designation.
> 
> Fw might have had a few paper sketches of a DB powered fighter in the late 30s but the DB engines available at the time did not have enough power to meet Kurt Tanks goal of a more rugged fighter than the Bf 109. A more rugged/sturdier fighter being heavier.






kool kitty89 said:


> As it was the same could be said for the initial small Fw 190 V1 and the later prototypes, let alone the A-0 and A-1 production models. The initial V1 seems rather well suited to the 1100-1200 PS class engines of 1939, and honestly seems more likely to result in a production aircraft retaining more commonality to the V1 prototype than the A-1 ended up with. (also would have avoided the hang-ups related to inexperience with radial engines and both problems with placement and experimental cooling arrangements)



Are there any "best guesses" on what the performance of this bird would look like? Also, was there any large differences between the DB 601M and DB 601N?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Are there any "best guesses" on what the performance of this bird would look like? Also, was there any large differences between the DB 601M and DB 601N?



No guess except wishful thinking since even drawings are scarce to non-existent. 

Kurt Tanks "philosophy" at the time was to build a rugged fighter that could stand up better to front line abuse. For instance the FW 190 was built to withstand landing impacts (vertical decent) of 4.5 meters per second/15 feet per second. This is supposed to about double what was common at the time and with the wide spread lading gear it was going to call for heavier landing gear and a stronger/heavier wing structure than a plane built for slower impact speeds. This is regardless of the wing area. The FW airframe was going to weigh more than the 109 airframe even if the FW was built to the same size. If they use the same engine we can reasonably guess that the FW aircraft will perform worse than the 109 unless the FW can reduce drag by enough to compensate for the extra weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ottobon (Aug 17, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The limiting factor _might_ be the wing. The HE 112 went through at least 3 different wings. I don't know what airfoil they wound up using on the last ones. It "looks" thick but that may be deceiving due to the long cord over most of the elliptical wing.
> 
> One prototype with DB 601 engine was supposed to hit 354mph which is about the same as a Bf 109E with the same engine ( or a bit better?). The question is did the He 112 have enough stretch left to match the 109F without another major redo?



Yeah that was the He 112 V10 with DB 601Aa (also V11 with DB 601A)

Very VERY little data about it but "German Aircraft of the Second World War" makes a mention of it

https://books.google.com/books?id=AvTgjHwl1sMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 138 and 139)

It says that it was intended for the He 112E (E for export apparently) and as you said hit 354mph and had a range of 715 miles. Apparently it was the model of He 112 that was sold to Japan. I think if such a plane was built in time for BoB it could of been useful to some degree but probably not worth taking resources away from the BF 109. 



Completely off topic but apparently there was also a Fiat CR.42 that was also fitted with a DB 601 , sounds like a hoot


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2015)

In regards to the "rare" inline powered Fw190 before the D series:
V13 SK+JS (WkNmr 0036) fitted with DB603A-0 (Fw190C prototype) - first flew early 1942
V15 CF+OV (WkNmr 0037 fitted with DB603A-2, external oil cooler under fuselage, enlarged wings - first flew 10 May 1942
V17 CF+OX (WkNmr 0039) fitted with Jumo213 - first flew 26 September 1942
V18 CF+OY (WkNmr 0040) fitted with TK 11 exhaust turbine, GM1 and DB603A-1 - first flew 20 December 1943
V21 TI+IH (WkNmr 0043) fitted first with Jumo213, replaced with DB603L - first flew 13 April 1943
V25 GH+KO (WkNmr 0050) fitted with Jumo213C, Mk103 engine cannon, 2 Mk108 canon - first flew June 1943
V26 GH+KP (WkNmr 0051) fitted with DB603A-1, pressurized cockpit - first flew June 1943
V29 GH+KS (WkNmr 0054) fitted with DB603S-1, enlarged wings - first flew March 1943
V31 GH+KU (WkNmr 0056) fitted with DB603S-1, enlarged wings: became Ta152H-0 - first flew February 1943
V32 GH+KV (WkNmr 0057) fitted with DB603S-1, MG151 in wing roots - first flew 11 November 1943
V33 GH+KW (WkNmr 0058) fitted with DB603S-1 - first flew April 1943

This is not a complete list, but it does cover the C prototypes and pre-D types and illustrates that the inline powered Fw190 was not as rare as some may think.

Here's a few photos of the ones listed above:
Fw190 V13





Fw190 V16





Fw190 V18





Fw190 V32

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

Great post, Graugeist.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2015)

Wouldn't that 'rugged' design philosophy just put it in line with most (or all) operational American fighters during the war (including the Mustang)? Granted, that would inevitably have meant increasing the wing area over what the V1 prototype initially used, mostly likely to similar dimensions the A-1 and late A-0 variants used but with lower overall weight. 


And SpicyJuan, the best alternate engine (of those actually in production) might have been the Jumo 211F. It was available sooner than the DB 601E and had better all-around performance than the 601N while using B4 fuel. If the 1 minute limit could have been successfully extended to a full 5 minute fighter emergency rating (remember this was historically a bomber engine) it would have had fairly competitive power to the DB 601E but at slightly lower critical altitudes or significantly better power while the 601E remained restricted. The larger/heavier 190 airframe also _might_ have benefited enough from the added power and altitude performance the intercooled 211J offered to make the added drag worthwhile. (I forget the exact dates, but I believe the 211J was in production before the DB 605A -otherwise the 605A would have been more attractive performance wise, but perhaps not in terms of ruggedness and reliability)

The Fw 190C would still be a better heavy-fighter/interceptor 190 derivative, had the RLM allocated DB 603A engines for that project. (it isn't something that should have been affected one way or the other by the 211 vs 801 powered 190)

We've been over this before, but the turbocharged DB 603 arrangements really weren't worthwhile, the added weight and drag made for worse performance at most useful altitudes and the turbocharger added cost and complexity (assuming it could even be produced reliably).


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> We've been over this before, but the turbocharged DB 603 arrangements really weren't worthwhile, the added weight and drag made for worse performance at most useful altitudes and the turbocharger added cost and complexity (assuming it could even be produced reliably).


They tried it and apparently weren't impressed with the results, so it wasn't something that they pursued on a large scale.

In the larger picture, we can see that a great deal of time, money, labor and material went into exploring alternatives for the Fw190. This holds true with the Bf109 and other production types. So on the one hand, the He112 could have been upgraded or enhanced but on the otherhand, how many prototypes would it take to hit on the right combination?

Look at the time consumed in trying to salvage the Me210 when it should have been shelved and either go back to the drawing board or move on to the next, more promising type. There were over 24 prototypes of the Me210 that spanned 4 years: V1 1939 - V24 1943. While this may be seen as the natural course of development for a type, it is a huge setback during wartime, especially when things aren't going well for the Fatherland.

And just in case anyone's wondering, there were over 80 prototypes for the Fw190...


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

I think they had almost an entire air force of prototypes for the Ju 88.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2015)

GregP said:


> I think they had almost an entire air force of prototypes for the Ju 88.


Pretty dang close - about 115 between V1 (1936) and V115 (1945) compared to the He111 that had only 47: V1 (1934) through V47 (1943)


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 17, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Does anyone know what a DB 601 powered Fw 190 would've looked like? Were there any calculations done, or is this just a made up possibility by this board?



I would imagine it would resemble a 190D....I see GG beat me to it....


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

You know Graugeist, 115 prototypes is more than the delivered production run of Ta 152's. At's alotta' prototypes!

It must have done some good, though, as the Ju 88 was a fine aircraft. Maybe a slew of prototypes is the real secret to getting it right ... naaahhhhh, couldn't be that simple.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2015)

An awful lot of them were actually armament trials aircraft or testbeds for different model engines or even research aircraft for later projects.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2015)

If you go over the records, you start to see alot of prototypes suddenly drop off the record after 1943. Actually it was really evident from 1944 onward.

So when a prototype was destroyed in a bombing raid, they pretty much had to start from square one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Just have to find it ...



The data sheet (one better copy, another not so good) for the Bf-109F4: Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 12 - Company data Messerschmitt, part 3

The Vmax is stated at 670 km/h at 6.3 km, with engine providing 1290 PS at that altitude (as Denniss said, there is suspicion that compressibility was not taken in account). Take off power is 1350 PS, ie. the engine is fully rated. The Cd for high speed is stated at 0.023. 



SpicyJuan11 said:


> Are there any "best guesses" on what the performance of this bird would look like? Also, was there any large differences between the DB 601M and DB 601N?



The DB 601M should be the DB 601A modified for evaporative cooling. The 601N gives more power at all altitudes. As for estimates - the Fw 190A-1/A-2 was supposed to do 630-640 km/h with 1310 PS at ~5000 m. The DB 601N will give 1175 PS, at a little bigger altitude (5500 m with ram?), the 10% deficit in power should be compensated with smaller drag and weight vs. the BMW in the nose. The performance at lower level will be suffering mostly, the difference in power is too big (~35%). 
With DB powered Fw 190, it is more of a question 'what LW will gain', rather than 'would it be hot as Bf 109F'. The gain will be longer range for better usability (or less fuel used for same range), capacity for easier upgrade of firepower (with gondola cannons all of the Bf 109 advantage goes through the window), better reliability than BMW powered Fw 190 so it can be easier used on distant theaters, rate of roll, visibility/situational awareness, ruggedness. The Jabo Fw 190 with DB will probably not be as good with BMW (less power down low). Performance advantage vs. Allied aircraft will still be marked, though the climb vs. Spit V might suffer, ditto the all around performance at lower levels.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2015)

Good fighter relative to what? based on what existing attributes for what primary mission?

If for general purpose, speed and range and firepower

If for point interceptor, speed and climb and firepower

If for escort, Range and speed


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 3, 2015)

Quirk with He 112 is that it was a small fighter. Stick the Db 601/605, increase fuel tankage for some 70-80 liters (~ 400 L total) and there is an almost Bf 109, capability-vise. Plus is probably pilot compartment, along with wider undercarriage, minus is a thicker wing ( more drag, so less speed on same power). Once the Bf 109F is in town, the He 112 does not seem to offer much?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 4, 2015)

The He 112 could take the Jumo 211 engine, an alternative to the DB601. The wing was thick only relative to the spitfire and since twin 20mm guns could be carried in the fuselage sides there was no need to burden the wing with armament. The wings should thus have a substantial fuel capacity. Compressibility effects are minimal, a few kmh.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 4, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 certainly successfully made the tansition from Jumo to DB. Why not the He 112?
> 
> It IS unlikely given the cost difference, but it could have been done. I'm zeroing in on the original question about the development potential. I still think it HAD potential, but am NOT sure when the supply of DB 601s would have been sufficient for the Germans to release some for use in developed He 112s.
> 
> ...


It was also developed with a DB601 engine and was offered to the Dutch airforce in that shape. Prototype V10 indeed had a DB601A engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2015)

Hi Marcel,

Thanks for that.

I'll have to look that one up. The only reason I never pursued it was it never made quantity production, so I figured it was dead end, development-wise ... but if they DID make a DB 601-powered He 112, I'm interested in the performance versus the competition, if for nothing else, than for comparison's sake alone. Wiki, that most reliable of sources, says it went 350 mph and the climb improved "significantly." I can imagine. Perhaps we could find some real-world numbers somewhere in the form of a flight test report.

I'm in the crowd that thinks the He 112 had potential, and making a thinner section wing was one option. It certainly would NOT have helped the cost, but could have been done. I find it quite appealing that the He 112 was basically a scaled-down He70 Blitz and was made into a fighter prototype. You certainly can't accuse Ernst Heinkel of not trying, can you?

The "potential" thing is ripe for practical argument/discussion. You can probably "fix" the faults of MOST airplanes. The real question is, "is it economically feasible to do so?" A fully "tweaked" He 112 might have been a really great prototype with performance to spare ... and the RLM still might not have bought it, so you have to decide if the potential investment is worth the risk. I've always wondered why none of Germany's allies bought it in quantity, and there is likely a good reason, potential development notwithstanding. They apparently built 104 of them, which would not be profitable.

The Bf 109 was ripe with faults but, for all it's faults, was a VERY good offensive attack fighter that was fairly cheap to make given the level of performance it achieved ... which was near or at the top of the field. It is quite possible the DB-powered He 112 had every bit of the performance of the Bf 109 at a greater cost, and never got a big order simply due to the price difference. Or ... it may have NOT had the performance the Bf 109 had, and was STILL more expensive.

It could be some of our German members may know the real reason behind the He 112 not making it. If so, please chime in here guys ... or gals. This could have been one of the great fighters of the war, but never made it in the real world. Before anybody chimes in with it, the same could be said of many more than just the He 112 for sure.

For instance, I think the AR 240 had potential, and it was fast enough that if Arado couldn't fix the stability, I bet a rival firm could have and then the Germans would have HAD their "Mosquito" or at least close to it ... but it never happened for real.

You have to appreciate/marvel the potential that went untapped in the German aircraft industry ranging from the Me 264 to the Fw 191 to the AR 240 and so on down a long list of "might-have-beens" up to and including the BV 155 high-altitude version of the Bf 109. The potential was amazing in a lot of cases.

So why did the Germans put a Peugeot engine in the Mini Cooper? No wait, that's another forum ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The He 112 could take the Jumo 211 engine, an alternative to the DB601. The wing was thick only relative to the spitfire and since twin 20mm guns could be carried in the fuselage sides there was no need to burden the wing with armament. The wings should thus have a substantial fuel capacity. Compressibility effects are minimal, a few kmh.



The Jumo 211 might be an option. Let's recall that it was wider than DB 601, little bit heavier, and the Daimler offered more power in general. Couple all of this with thicker wing and the aircraft lags behind the mid war Bf 109, ie. it is in the league of P-40, Yaks and Spitfire I.
Twin 20 mm guns in fuselage is a non-starter, especially if we consider bigger Jumo 211 or DB 601 in the nose. The MG FF cannot fire synchronized, the MG 151 is too big. The real He 112 carried MG FF in the wings, alternatively the MG C was firing through the prop. 
He 112 already carried fuel between the fuselage and U/C attachment point. In self sealing tanks or not? In front of the spar is space for the U/C, so we're left with space outboard of that.


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 4, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The Jumo 211 might be an option. Let's recall that it was wider than DB 601, little bit heavier, and the Daimler offered more power in general. Couple all of this with thicker wing and the aircraft lags behind the mid war Bf 109, ie. it is in the league of P-40, Yaks and Spitfire I.
> Twin 20 mm guns in fuselage is a non-starter, especially if we consider bigger Jumo 211 or DB 601 in the nose. The MG FF cannot fire synchronized, the MG 151 is too big. The real He 112 carried MG FF in the wings, alternatively the MG C was firing through the prop.
> He 112 already carried fuel between the fuselage and U/C attachment point. In self sealing tanks or not? In front of the spar is space for the U/C, so we're left with space outboard of that.



The He 112 with two fuselage mounted and synchronised 20mm guns is not theory but fact. At least one was built and flown in combat during the Spanish civil war. It was with Jumo 210 not Jumo 211 engine.

By 1942 the Jumo 211F was no bigger or heavier than the DB605A yet produced the same power. The more powerful 1450hp DB601N might have been available sooner than the 1.42ATA DB605A had it been emphasised. These engines were abandoned from the production program as the Jumo 213 offered more promise but had the He 112 been a customer the Jumo 211N might have been developed, perhaps with MW50.

The He 112 would have offered twin 20mm guns, a clear view bubble canopy. All of this makes it superior to the Me 109. Although the Luftwaffe wanted a metal wing a wooden wing (similar to that of the He 70) would have been possible. Ernst Heinkel wanted this for the prototypes at least.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The He 112 with two fuselage mounted and synchronised 20mm guns is not theory but fact. At least one was built and flown in combat during the Spanish civil war. It was with Jumo 210 not Jumo 211 engine.



I will politely ask you to provide the source that He 112 was ever outfitted with two 20 mm guns, mounted in fuselage. 
I know that He 112 flew in combat with Jumo 210 only, the bigger heavier engine makes installation of heavier weapons in the nose a tougher task.



> By 1942 the Jumo 211F was no bigger or heavier than the DB605A yet produced the same power. The more powerful 1450hp DB601N might have been available sooner than the 1.42ATA DB605A had it been emphasised. These engines were abandoned from the production program as the Jumo 213 offered more promise but had the He 112 been a customer the Jumo 211N might have been developed, perhaps with MW50.



The 30 min power of the DB 605A was 1250 PS (1.3 ata, 2600 rpm) at 5.8 km, vs. the 30 min power of Jumo 211F with 1060 PS (1.25 ata, 2400 rpm) at 5.3 km. Already the DB 601E was ahead of Jumo 211F, in power, size and weight. What Jumo 211F have had was take off power (+40 PS, prior late 1943), not terribly important for a fighter.

By '1450 HP DB 601N' you mean the Jumo 211N? Lets recall that the engine troubles downed three Ta 154 prototypes. What ever we add to the Jumo 211 series, the DB was always a bit ahead.


> The He 112 would have offered twin 20mm guns, a clear view bubble canopy. All of this makes it superior to the Me 109. Although the Luftwaffe wanted a metal wing a wooden wing (similar to that of the He 70) would have been possible. Ernst Heinkel wanted this for the prototypes at least.



The MG FF was fitted in wings, that does not mean that MG 151 will fit on same place.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 4, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Marcel,
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> ...



I'll try and see if I can find some figures that Heinkel sent to the Dutch government. They must have done so as they were a real candidate to sell the fighter to the LVA. I know that the V9 prototype has been tested here, abeit with the Jumo engine. I whish our government had bought that machine, because, even with a Jumo engine, the He112 was superior to our main fighter, the Fokker D.XXI. Would have been interesing as well, to see how the He112 would perform against it's main rival the Bf109.

As for the He112 not making it in Germany, I guess the main reason was that it took some time for the He112 to develop into a modern fighter. Only when V9 came out, one could speak of a truely high standard fighter for the time, while the Bf109 had already done that months before that. So the mind was already set way before that time to the Bf109. Even V9 had no decisive advantages over the Bf109, so the opinions could not significantly be changed. I wonder what would have happened if V9 would have been directly developed instead of only after many other, more old fashioned prototypes. It would have been on par with the Bf109 from the beginning.

Later in the war, it made much more sense to make a second fighter with a different engine. So the Fw190 had more chance. In fact, Udet told Heinkel exactly that when doing the record flight with the He100.


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2015)

Hi Marcel,

When I look at the offerings that might have been available, the DB-engined He 112 is near the top. I'm not too sure of the British would have sold the Spitfire at that particular time or if the Germans would have sold the Bf 109 at that particular time either since both nations were busy equipping themselves with the new warplanes. The DB-engined He 112 was probably one of the best bets, had it been available in quantity.

Had the Dutch wanted to buy Merlins and fit them to the He 112 thmselves, I'm not sure they were available for foreign purchase. Likewise the Allison V-1710, even though it was a medium-altitude engine as built without the turbo, also might not have been available in quantity at the time you wanted them.

So the best bet was likely either the DB-equipped He 112 or the P-36 / P-40, and I do NOT yet know how the DB-engined He 112 stacked up against the P-36/P-40. We DO know the P-40 gave a decent if not wonderful account of itself versus the early Bf 109s. It did OK in North Africa. It wasn't a Bf 109 but also wasn't hoplessly outclassed in all departments.

I think the Fokkers were good, but not in the same class as the Bf 109 and Spitfire. They were, more properly, in the early-to-mid-1930's class, without the same potential for development the Bf 109 and Spitfire had ... barring a complete redesign. Had it been redesigned, it would not have been the same Fokker.

It would be nice to see a D.XXI fly today ...


----------



## rinkol (Sep 4, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I will politely ask you to provide the source that He 112 was ever outfitted with two 20 mm guns, mounted in fuselage.
> I know that He 112 flew in combat with Jumo 210 only, the bigger heavier engine makes installation of heavier weapons in the nose a tougher task.
> 
> 
> ...



I think one of the Jumo engined He 112s had an engine mounted MG C/30 L; this machine was trialed in Spain with some success in the ground attack role.


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2015)

At least those He 112Bs used by the Romanian AF were not a success and were whitdrawn from 1st line use even before their Hurricane Mk Is.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Marcel,
> 
> When I look at the offerings that might have been available, the DB-engined He 112 is near the top. I'm not too sure of the British would have sold the Spitfire at that particular time or if the Germans would have sold the Bf 109 at that particular time either since both nations were busy equipping themselves with the new warplanes. The DB-engined He 112 was probably one of the best bets, had it been available in quantity.
> 
> ...


Yup, I agree on your assesment about the D.XXI and actually there is a project going to build a flying replica.
The Spitfire was indeed not for sale and so could not be bought. Likewise the BF109. We tested the V9 of the He112, the report of which makes an interesting read. Te Dutch actually chose the Hurricane, but waited too long to order, so when they placed the order, the UK already restrited the sales of this fighter. Merlin engine, same story. Actually there was a version of the D.XXI planned with either a DB601A or a Merlin engine, called the D.XXII. Also this fighter would have featured retractible gear. Unlike what you would think, the D.XXI didn't need a major redesign to fit these engines. Prototype was never build unfortunately.
As the He112 was mostly untested and when the war started also not available anymore, they should have bought the P-36. They bought the CW-21 instead. The CW-21 failed to reach the Netherlands in time and ended up in the NEI where they failed to make any impression.


----------



## GregP (Sep 5, 2015)

The CW-21 ws a classic mistake. They took a civil aircraft, put in a big engine and it could climb over 4,000 feet per minute! But it wasn't especially fast and, much more importantly, wasn't build to military standards and was very short on armament. So it was easily damaged, didn't pack much of a punch, and wasn't going to outrun a real fighter. But it must have been a blast to fly!

Glad to hear about the flying Fokker replica! Keep us posted, please.


----------



## rank amateur (Sep 7, 2015)

Marcel said:


> Yup, I agree on your assesment about the D.XXI and actually there is a project going to build a flying replica.
> 
> Marcel, that is very interesting. I know of a D21 in Tikkakoshi in Finland, a rebuilt from 1988 by Fokker for the Soesterberg museum and a for the langer part complete wreck in Aalsmeerderbrug but to my knowlegde none of these have even a minute chance of ever taking to the sky again.


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 28, 2015)

GregP said:


> Some of the versions of the He 112 were almost completely different from one another. So I can't see how it's development potential could be questioned. First you'd have to have a difinitive type.
> 
> This He-112:
> View attachment 298282
> ...



In the interest of retaking the OP...

This is the He-112V10 with the DB601Aa:












I doubt that double intake was the best possible design, maybe 109E type radiators could have helped a fighter that was already as fast as the Bf-109E4 with the same engine which, at least for me, hints that there wasnt anything wrong with the thickness of the wing itself...

In addition to the radiators the whole nose could have used some cleaning up as well. A 1941 version for example could have seen the MG-17s deleted and replaced by a Motorkanone, thus deleting the side bulges, and with MG-131s replacing the wing MG-FFs. Not, too happy about the exhausts either...

But in the end, the improved He-112, even if slightly outperforming the Bf-109 as some people thought at the time, was a non starter, simply put any fighter other than the mass-production oriented Bf-109 loses the war for Germany right away, the increased expense and use of resources (especially labor and floor space) would mean either less fighters or a reduction in production in some other LW program and push the Germans even further back in the air power equation than they already were.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> ...
> I doubt that double intake was the best possible design, maybe 109E type radiators could have helped a fighter that was already as fast as the Bf-109E4 with the same engine which, at least for me, hints that there wasnt anything wrong with the thickness of the wing itself...



The comparison with 109E, speed-wise, might not tell us all. The Emil was a cluttered aircraft, with fixed tailwheel, braced tail, engine cowling left much to be desired, the radiators were deep. Once F series entered service, they were ~25 km/h faster on same power, due to major clean up of the aircraft's externals; one cannon less will also add some speed. 
We can also compare the Daimlerized He 112 with MC.202 and Ki-61 - the other two Axis fighters were also much faster than it, or the Emil on same or similar power. Agree that exhausts were of a 'wrong' layout on the Daimlerized He 112, though, cost at least 10 km/h?


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 28, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The comparison with 109E, speed-wise, might not tell us all. The Emil was a cluttered aircraft, with fixed tailwheel, braced tail, engine cowling left much to be desired, the radiators were deep. Once F series entered service, they were ~25 km/h faster on same power, due to major clean up of the aircraft's externals; one cannon less will also add some speed.
> We can also compare the Daimlerized He 112 with MC.202 and Ki-61 - the other two Axis fighters were also much faster than it, or the Emil on same or similar power. Agree that exhausts were of a 'wrong' layout on the Daimlerized He 112, though, cost at least 10 km/h?



Indeed, the cleanup did bring the 109F1 to 595Km/h, but I do not thing the others were faster, it was roughly on par or slightly slower (5Km/h)than the MC202 and slightly faster than the Ki-61 IIRC, not much of a difference.

On the other hand the 109E experimented a jump in performance no only thanks to the DB601 (that would account for roughly 75Km/h of the 110Km/h the E got, IIRC), but by relocating the radiator to the back of the wings (and other small improvements), a pending task for any hypothetical operational He-112 given how clumsy and draggy those intakes look on the prototype.

That is it, I just think there were still some areas were the 112 could improve on and through that maybe even match the clean lines of the 109F, if that is possible the aircraft would likely match the 109 in speed while coming ahead in some other areas... not that any of that would make it a better option for a production fighter of course, a DB-powered and German weapons-armed Folgore for example could have been a better fighter than the 109 and the 112, but being as unsuited for mass production as the Spitfire makes it a no-no for the LW.

Same for the 112.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> Indeed, the cleanup did bring the 109F1 to 595Km/h, but I do not thing the others were faster, it was roughly on par or slightly slower (5Km/h)than the MC202 and slightly faster than the Ki-61 IIRC, not much of a difference.



Perhaps there is an misunderstanding - I've listed the MC.202, Ki 61 and 109F as being notably faster than the 109E, with all 4 fighters using about same engine power (the 109F have had more power, of course, but tis does no matter in this comparison). 



> On the other hand the 109E experimented a jump in performance no only thanks to the DB601 (that would account for roughly 75Km/h of the 110Km/h the E got, IIRC), but by relocating the radiator to the back of the wings (and other small improvements), a pending task for any hypothetical operational He-112 given how clumsy and draggy those intakes look on the prototype.



Part of the increase of performance was already in Jumo-outfitted variants when switch was made from 'plain' exhaust stacks to the ejector-type stacks. The Emil received not just a relocation of the radiator, but there were now two radiators, and this will increase drag, not decrease it. The nose radiator on the pre-Emil 109s does not seem to be such a draggy affair anyway, especially not when compared with under-wing radiators.



> That is it, I just think there were still some areas were the 112 could improve on and through that maybe even match the clean lines of the 109F, if that is possible the aircraft would likely match the 109 in speed while coming ahead in some other areas... not that any of that would make it a better option for a production fighter of course, a DB-powered and German weapons-armed Folgore for example could have been a better fighter than the 109 and the 112, but being as unsuited for mass production as the Spitfire makes it a no-no for the LW.
> 
> Same for the 112.



You better bring out some good source about the Spitfire being unsuited for mass production. 
The He 112 have had some things better than the Bf 109, like the cockpit layout and U/C geometry - perhaps more useful details than extra km/h the 109 can do?


----------



## GregP (Oct 28, 2015)

I think all the major protagonists had planes that could have been great ones ... that never made production or only did so in tiny numbers.

I can think of some for the USA (several), the UK (MB-5), USSR (many), Germany (several), Finland (Pyorremyrsky), Italy (Re.2005 and beyond), Japan (several), Australia (CAC-15), and Poland (P-.39, P.50), to name a few.

So the He.112 is in some good company.


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 29, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps there is an misunderstanding - I've listed the MC.202, Ki 61 and 109F as being notably faster than the 109E, with all 4 fighters using about same engine power (the 109F have had more power, of course, but tis does no matter in this comparison).



Yep, I was still thinking in terms of the OP and the possible growth of the He-112, it and the 109 were 1935 aircraft that underwent some significant (and necessary) aerodynamic modifications and improvements in order to try to reach their full development potential, the MC200 was a 1937 aircraft and the Ki-61 an even later one, both benefited from advances in the field and hence began as cleaner designs from the start.



> Part of the increase of performance was already in Jumo-outfitted variants when switch was made from 'plain' exhaust stacks to the ejector-type stacks. The Emil received not just a relocation of the radiator, but there were now two radiators, and this will increase drag, not decrease it. The nose radiator on the pre-Emil 109s does not seem to be such a draggy affair anyway, especially not when compared with under-wing radiators.



If the two radiators increased drag over the alternative of a larger frontal scoop, what was the point of doing it? If the wing radiators were worse than a big frontal scoop I think the redesign made in the F would have certainly addressed it, instead it kept them and improved on them. Hence the idea of room for improvement on the frontal scoop He-112.



> You better bring out some good source about the Spitfire being unsuited for mass production.
> The He 112 have had some things better than the Bf 109, like the cockpit layout and U/C geometry - perhaps more useful details than extra km/h the 109 can do?



Well...

What I was aiming at was the fact that the Spitfire required about three times the number of working hours a Bf-109 needed, it was not far from the Italian aircraft and He-112 in that respect... "less well suited" maybe? To me it amounts to pretty much the same in the end, but English is my second language after all.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 29, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> ...
> If the two radiators increased drag over the alternative of a larger frontal scoop, what was the point of doing it? If the wing radiators were worse than a big frontal scoop I think the redesign made in the F would have certainly addressed it, instead it kept them and improved on them. Hence the idea of room for improvement on the frontal scoop He-112.



Emil needed greater cooling capacity over Dora and earlier versions because the DB 601A made almost 2/3rds more power than Jumo 210. So it is either one much bigger radiator, or 2 smaller radiators to cool the more powerful engine. The new engine was also longer and heavier, with a heavier prop, so relocating radiator(s) behind the center of gravity served well to ballance out the change 'in the nose'.
The 109F introduced improved radiators, that were wider but also shallower, so greater percentage of radiators was burried in the wing than before; also the boundary layer passage was introduced, with intention that radiators receive as much of the non-disturbed air flow as possible.
All of this is not to say that frontal scoop on the He 112 was an ideal soution, but probably not that a big problem, too.



> Well...
> 
> What I was aiming at was the fact that the Spitfire required about three times the number of working hours a Bf-109 needed, it was not far from the Italian aircraft and He-112 in that respect... "less well suited" maybe? To me it amounts to pretty much the same in the end, but English is my second language after all.



Do we know for a fact that, after the same lead-in time of a given factory, the Spitfire required about 3 times the number of working hours as Bf 109?
Your English is great, BTW


----------



## Balljoint (Oct 30, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Do we know for a fact that, after the same lead-in time of a given factory, the Spitfire required about 3 times the number of working hours as Bf 109?
> Your English is great, BTW



Comparison may be difficult without a handicap Me-109 factor for slave labor, distributed production and occasional bombing. However since the Bf/Me 109 was an adaptation of the fast private aviation Bf-108 Taifun and the Spitfire has its roots in racing, it’s fair to infer that the Spit may be a bit more involved.

Repair and rebuild is perhaps a measure of production complexity. The simpler Hurricane includes much tube and fabric construction that could be repaired at the squadron level while the Spit went back to the factory for less severe damage. Fortunately, Lord Beaverbrook set up an excellent repair system such that the BoB shortage was pilots not planes. My gut judgment is that the Me-109 is maybe midpoint between those two.

I can’t really say but my impression is that the Men in Black did a damn good job of keeping the LW planes repaired in the field, at least in the Soviet Union.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2015)

The aircraft industry did not employ slave or unskilled labor until 1942-43, when the war situation was such that Germany needed every able-bodied man and needed to increase it's output. Add to Messerschmitt's factories being bombed from 43 onward.

So there will be a notable difference in the finish quality between a Bf109E and a Bf109K, for example.


----------



## GregP (Oct 30, 2015)

From personal experience, the Bf 109 is NOT simple to work on. There are many things that WOULD be simple if the order of assembly was followed but, once the aircraft is together, you don't have the luxury of order of assembly. For instance, if the landing gear attach points are being assembled onto a NEW Bf 109, they are easy. If the Bf 109 is assembled, then someone is down in the cockpit, head first, in a very uncomfortable and awkward position trying to remove and reinstall the bolts that hold the brackets on while the rudder pedals and other items are all in the way. We finally said enough and removed all the pieces ... and, in fact, completely disassembled the cockpit for access, including removing the instraument panel.

That precipitated a completed strip and repaint of the cockpit since we now had access. In fact, we made a new instrument panel, too. They wouldn't do that in wartime, but there are a lot of things in the Bf 109 that are easy if assembled in the correct order and are otherwise nearly impossible to accomplish unless you have the flexibility of a 20-year old, and even then it would be tough. I daresay many repairs on other aircraft are in the same arena of being OK if done during assembly and tough if a field repair is the task. But the Bf 109 is tighter than any other WWII fighter I have workled on and that includes most American fighters, a Zero, a flying wing, and a B-17. 

I expected that because the Bf 109 is quite small compared with the others, I DID manage to get inside it through the rear hatch, but it was definitely on the uncomfortable side. A repair is one thing. Several hundred or more repairs would be a nightmare to contemplate. I'd almost rather make new ones than change out damaged landing gear on a regaular basis. The only parts of the repair that were straightforward were repairing the wing and changing the engine mount.

On post # 65, did anyone else notice that the side view shows an intake immediately behind and below the propeller and the front voew doesn't have that intake represented?


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> From personal experience, the Bf 109 is NOT simple to work on. There are many things that WOULD be simple if the order of assembly was followed but, once the aircraft is together, you don't have the luxury of order of assembly. For instance, if the landing gear attach points are being assembled onto a NEW Bf 109, they are easy. If the Bf 109 is assembled, then someone is down in the cockpit, head first, in a very uncomfortable and awkward position trying to remove and reinstall the bolts that hold the brackets on while the rudder pedals and other items are all in the way. We finally said enough and removed all the pieces ... and, in fact, completely disassembled the cockpit for access, including removing the instraument panel.
> 
> That precipitated a completed strip and repaint of the cockpit since we now had access. In fact, we made a new instrument panel, too. They wouldn't do that in wartime, but there are a lot of things in the Bf 109 that are easy if assembled in the correct order and are otherwise nearly impossible to accomplish unless you have the flexibility of a 20-year old, and even then it would be tough. I daresay many repairs on other aircraft are in the same arena of being OK if done during assembly and tough if a field repair is the task. But the Bf 109 is tighter than any other WWII fighter I have workled on and that includes most American fighters, a Zero, a flying wing, and a B-17.
> 
> ...



Hehe that was exactly one of the contention points between the 109 and 112, the Messer was designed for ease of production, the Heinkel for ease of maintenance, in both cases the non-prioritized attribute suffered by comparison...

Amazing that you have had such chances to work on those iconic aircraft, congrats!


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 30, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Emil needed greater cooling capacity over Dora and earlier versions because the DB 601A made almost 2/3rds more power than Jumo 210. So it is either one much bigger radiator, or 2 smaller radiators to cool the more powerful engine. The new engine was also longer and heavier, with a heavier prop, so relocating radiator(s) behind the center of gravity served well to ballance out the change 'in the nose'.
> The 109F introduced improved radiators, that were wider but also shallower, so greater percentage of radiators was burried in the wing than before; also the boundary layer passage was introduced, with intention that radiators receive as much of the non-disturbed air flow as possible.
> All of this is not to say that frontal scoop on the He 112 was an ideal soution, but probably not that a big problem, too.



Sorry for the delay, crazy day...

I understand and agree with all that, but that double scoop makes me VERY uncomfortable! 



> Do we know for a fact that, after the same lead-in time of a given factory, the Spitfire required about 3 times the number of working hours as Bf 109?
> Your English is great, BTW



Man, I will have to dig in my sources, from what I can recall the Spit was time consuming and ease of production didnt really play a role in its design process. In any case, yes, all aircraft improved its production time during the war, that is perfectly natural, but we will see which one really was the easiest (hopefully).

Thx, but my English does have a tendency to desert me whenever I feel too confident on my fluency... or I type or talk too fast.


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 30, 2015)

Found the source, Corelli Barnett in "Audit of War", claiming that a Spit VC took 13.000 hours to build compared to the 4.000 of a Bf-109G, but IIRC the G started at the 6.000 hours of the F and only later would lower to 4.000 and then 2.000 man hours... so I am not sure that comparison holds water and I lack data for later Spit mods.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2015)

Thanks, I'll look it up


----------



## JAG88 (Oct 31, 2015)

Silly of me, I completely forgot that Heinkel went on to design the He-100 and that in its final version it did feature a radiator for a DB 601 installation, so perhaps hey would have gone with some larger version of its retractable radiator?

Anyway, I think the only shot this aircraft would have had is if the KM carriers had been completed, one of the A-1s was used a a prototype for a carrier version and with its wider landing gear it would have been a better proposition than the 109T.

A pic, just because I like inverted gull wing aircraft....






And a schematic:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 1, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> Found the source, Corelli Barnett in "Audit of War", claiming that a Spit VC took 13.000 hours to build compared to the 4.000 of a Bf-109G, but IIRC the G started at the 6.000 hours of the F and only later would lower to 4.000 and then 2.000 man hours... so I am not sure that comparison holds water and I lack data for later Spit mods.



Shouldn't you feel a little skeptical of figures that's obviously been rounded off, up or down maybe a great deal ,to come out to in exact 1000 hour increments .
To come out exactly 2/3 rds of the previous figure, and then exactly 1/3rd stretches belief.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 1, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> Shouldn't you feel a little skeptical of figures that's obviously been rounded off, up or down maybe a great deal ,to come out to in exact 1000 hour increments .
> To come out exactly 2/3 rds of the previous figure, and then exactly 1/3rd stretches belief.



Given that most sources tends to round those numbers (after all, several producers were usually involved and an exact number may not be representative of all) instead of giving an exact to the minute number no, what bothers me is the possible temporal mismatch between the compared variants.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 1, 2015)

I doubt than anyone expects it to the minute, or even 10 hour increments. But 1000 man hour increments are pretty vague.

That's about like measuring speed in 100 mph increments only.

It's just that I have worked in a production environment before, assembling Kenworths.

Those plant managers certainly how many man-hours each truck took, down to THE man-hour. There was lots of production varients, (each custom built supposedly) They knew what each variation added or took away from assemble time.
With the supposed German passion for keeping records I'm really surprised that no one can't get it down closer than a 1000 man-hour + or -.


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

The problem isn't that the German didn't keep records, Tom. The problem is that some were lost in bombing raids.

There is nobody who knows how many Bf 109's were made due to loss of records. Ditto exact aerial victory claims and vetted awards.

The USA has their records, but NOBODY has compiled a list of victor type, victim type, position, altitude, and pilot identities., etc. The problem is that the various services didn't keep records of the same information ... and they all worled for the same Department of Defense! Germany, the UK, Japan, and the former USSR all lost records. We didn't and can't get a complete analysis.

So I'm not surprised other contries who suffered bombing and other military actions have a hard time with complete records.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 1, 2015)

So the records were all destroyed.
Yet they know that the early models took 6000 hours, then 4000, then 2000 ?

And bombing destroyed the Spitfire VC records too ?


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

The records weren't all destroyed and I didn't say that. Why did YOU?

I said records were lost. The ones that are left are incomplete.

So we can make estimates only, based on the information we have. That being the case, people can "estimate" anything they think is defensible, even when it isn't. Doesn't make their estimates right, but they get made anyway.

The British probably KNOW about how many hours were expended to make about how many Spitfires. The problem is finding the numbers. When I try to search British records, I can always find something, but can never find many of the things other people seem to find. There doesn't seem to be a good place with most of the data that is accessible to the public. It's more of a collection of websites that are difficult to catalogue unless you KNOW them.

And it's the same for the USA and everyone else.

It seems almost like a consipracy to keep the data away from easy view by the public because we don't really need to know and if we did, they might have to account for things that happened.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 1, 2015)

What I'm trying to say in my own way is when you see a figure that can't be broken down any finer than 1000 man hours, it's a guess.

Not a SWAG, but a WAG.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 1, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> I doubt than anyone expects it to the minute, or even 10 hour increments. But 1000 man hour increments are pretty vague.
> 
> That's about like measuring speed in 100 mph increments only.
> 
> ...



Lets put it this way, a good dozen or so factories were making Bf-109s and not all used the same methods, not all of them made the same model at the same time either (one of Milch's rationalization efforts was to kill each producer's love for customization and adding "their" flavor to the 109), not all of them used the same type of labor, ones used PoWs, other slave labor that was constantly "replaced", other German women; ones could make a larger proportion of the parts in-house, others needed more extensive sub-contracting, ones used new machine tools, others whatever they could scrounge; now there is the small issue of when, a factory that has been making the same model for six months will make them faster than another one that has just transitioned into making that very same model...

In that context I can imagine a Bf-109G2 taking (lets say) anywhere from 6.251 man-hours in factory A, to 5.873 in B, to 5.770 in C, and so on... but that is in lets say March 1942, three months later A would do in in 5.891 hours, B in 5.521 and C, which has just had to renew part of its labor force, in 6.150 hours; three months later A is down to 5.602 hours, but B is now making 109G6s so its up to 6.400 hours and C down to 5.987...

You can of course make an average if you want to be accurate, but in that case you will be accurate for, at best, that month and that is a very specific and partial snapshot that may nor be representative unless you really look into the details and circumstances of each plant.

The numbers given are clearly a very rough and rounded average to give the reader an idea of the general effort required to make the aircraft by a highly decentralized industry, aircraft made in a couple factories would be far easier to pinpoint and provide a more accurate, and yet still only approximate, number.

See here the case of the Ju-88, you will see how much the hours dropped over time, and the small uptick on the average when, likely, the first producer started to make A4s late in the month, and the massive spike when production shifted to the A-4 all across the board.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

Well said, Tom, and I can't disagree.

Of course, it could also come out VERY close to an even number ... but will almost NEVER be exatcly an even number, just as you said.

I tend to disbelive things that are rounded to 1,000, too. At teh same time, 985 ropunds very nicely to 1,000 and I have calculated that myself. i was careful to say 985.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 2, 2015)

The trouble with rounded out numbers is you have no idea which way they were rounded out. 
It could be 2499 rounded down to 2000, or 1501 rounded up to 2000. Or if it was 2160 rounded down to 2000, or whatever.
Kind of unless for comparing.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 2, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> The trouble with rounded out numbers is you have no idea which way they were rounded out.
> It could be 2499 rounded down to 2000, or 1501 rounded up to 2000. Or if it was 2160 rounded down to 2000, or whatever.
> Kind of unless for comparing.



Its a matter of scale, you can compare roughly 13.000 with roughly 4.000 because the outcome is clear regardless, one number is greater than the other to the tune of one being several times the value of the other, on the other hand you cant compare roughly 800 with roughly 900, if it is too close then precision matters a lot more and you cant really compare because you dont know how it was rounded or calculated and could very well end up comparing 851 vs 849 and claiming a difference of a hundred.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> Lets put it this way, a good dozen or so factories were making Bf-109s and not all used the same methods


 And how did those "methods" differ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> Yep, I was still thinking in terms of the OP and the possible growth of the He-112, it and the 109 were 1935 aircraft that underwent some significant (and necessary) aerodynamic modifications and improvements in order to try to reach their full development potential, the MC200 was a 1937 aircraft and the Ki-61 an even later one, both benefited from advances in the field and hence began as cleaner designs from the start.
> ...



To get back on this for a moment.
The combat-worthy He 112B was featuring a modified wing vs. the early prototypes, with structural changes as well as decreased wing area; it is suggested by Wikipedia that this was just a part of the major redesign. So basically the He 112B was contemporary with MC.200, that shared the wing design with MC.202.
The initial big wing was probably the reason the early 112 lost the contest to the Messer - too big a wing for mere 600-something PS.
As for the Ki 61 - yes, it was a newer design, but also bigger and heavier than the 112B or Messer, eg. the fuel quantity was twice of what Spit or Emil carried, but it was still faster than the Daimlerized He 112 or Emil.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 2, 2015)

I disagree.
12501 could be rounded up to 13000. 4499 could be rounded down to 4000. That's significant enough to alter the comparison.

And when the Bf 109 man-hours are compared with itself, early to late time it is definitely significant.

The 4000 man-hours down to 2000 man hours looks like a extreme example of cutting production time. 
But it looks a great deal less extreme when you realize the actual figures could have been 3501 hours verses 2499.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 2, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And how did those "methods" differ???



Organization, some plants still held to the old ways, other companies were quicker to adopt mass production methods and were thus more efficient, and then you have Junkers and its Takt Time system that could be argued was even ahead of its day.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 2, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> To get back on this for a moment.
> The combat-worthy He 112B was featuring a modified wing vs. the early prototypes, with structural changes as well as decreased wing area; it is suggested by Wikipedia that this was just a part of the major redesign. So basically the He 112B was contemporary with MC.200, that shared the wing design with MC.202.
> The initial big wing was probably the reason the early 112 lost the contest to the Messer - too big a wing for mere 600-something PS.
> As for the Ki 61 - yes, it was a newer design, but also bigger and heavier than the 112B or Messer, eg. the fuel quantity was twice of what Spit or Emil carried, but it was still faster than the Daimlerized He 112 or Emil.



Not only the wing, it was almost a new aircraft, you are correct in that, just to keep in mind that getting the DB601 in 1940 also implied a significant redesign for the MC202, it was also a different aircraft, and that was the point of the OP, development potential, in spite of the 1937 redesign the 112 still had room for improvement in areas already noted as would the 200 in its 205 and 205V incarnations, especially since the 112 got only ONE prototype equipped with a 601 and, therefore, very little development of the aircraft so powered, add to it that it spent less than six months at Heinkel before being shipped off to Japan and you will see that little was done for that development path.

The Ki-61 was a later aircraft that took advantage of the advancements of the day and Heinkels work on the He-100, things simply moved very fast at the time.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 2, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> I disagree.
> 12501 could be rounded up to 13000. 4499 could be rounded down to 4000. That's significant enough to alter the comparison.
> 
> And when the Bf 109 man-hours are compared with itself, early to late time it is definitely significant.
> ...



Not to me, but to each its own.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> Organization, some plants still held to the old ways, other companies were quicker to adopt mass production methods and were thus more efficient, and then you have Junkers and its Takt Time system that could be argued was even ahead of its day.



In reference with the 109, I think you'll find that there was little difference in the way the aircraft was assembled. Each company may have been run a little differently but in the end you had the same tooling and jigs at each production facility.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2015)

Why round out man hours at all?

People go to great lengths here, to point out a mile an hour difference of an aircraft's speed at sea level, creating pages of arguments going back and forth over minute percentages of boost and so on...

So tell it like it is...if a Bf109 at a certain factory, during a certain month took 3,512 hours to produce, then say so...


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 2, 2015)

they probably assign each task as a "flat rate"...like when you take your car to the dealer. they have a manual that tells them how long completion of that job should take. if a new mechanic does the task it might take him a little longer...an average mechanic will come in around the specified time...a good ambitious mechanic ( and also a hack cutting corners ) will come in under that time. so the time to build is probably a compilation of all those tasks added together....or not...lol


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 2, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In reference with the 109, I think you'll find that there was little difference in the way the aircraft was assembled. Each company may have been run a little differently but in the end you had the same tooling and jigs at each production facility.



Jigs yes, tooling maybe, production method and organization? No. By mid-war Milch and the RLM still had to coordinate for efficient producers to pass knowledge along and thus allow the less advanced producers learn and catch up. After all Bf-109 production started like this:







And eventually evolved into this:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2015)

JAG88 said:


> Jigs yes, tooling maybe, production method and organization? No. By mid-war Milch and the RLM still had to coordinate for efficient producers to pass knowledge along and thus allow the less advanced producers learn and catch up.



Jigs and tooling will always be the same regardless of *final assembly methodology*, detail parts and sub assemblies (especially those built off assembly tools) will always require about the same assembly methodology regardless where they are built. I think after that we are in agreement. What you are showing is how is how the final assembly line was made more efficient (formal assembly stations on a line rather than static assembly stations moved manually) but it's a lot more complex than just physically assembling the aircraft. In the end the assembly process has to be uniform when several locations are producing the same airframe, to maintain production tolerances and in the end interchangeability.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 2, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Jigs and tooling will always be the same regardless of *final assembly methodology*, detail parts and sub assemblies (especially those built off assembly tools) will always require about the same assembly methodology regardless where they are built. I think after that we are in agreement. What you are showing is how is how the final assembly line was made more efficient (formal assembly stations on a line rather than static assembly stations moved manually) but it's a lot more complex than just physically assembling the aircraft. *In the end the assembly process has to be uniform when several locations are producing the same airframe, to maintain production tolerances and in the end interchangeability.*



It wasnt, that was one of the problems with German production, which is why Milch had to put his foot down and demand that all producers limit themselves to building a standard Bf-109 model and quit making special variants and in general refrain from modifying the airframe and equipment to add their own personal twist to them. Those continuous changes kept the production low and created differences between aircraft that complicated maintenance, production and the availability of spares.

It took time and sweat to make the German factories AND workers forget their artisan ethos and mentality.

Add to that the migration to a production line that had to be done with the least possible detrimental effect on production and subject to resource and space availability, and you will understand why you can have factory A using Takt Time and factory B using traditional assembly halls at the same time and for the same model of aircraft creating a wide efficiency gap.


----------



## GregP (Nov 3, 2015)

Not exactly sure they used Takt time in WWII, but it might amount to the same concept.

all I can add is that if they coulf produce a Bf 109 for 4,000 man-hours, then EVERYONE whould have been building them I don't think anybody else came very close to that number for any other major fighter. That says a lot for Willy's design expertise (or that of his staff).

I have not seen the man-hours required to manufacture a DB 601 / 605 compared with the merlin and I wonder now if they were even close to one another. A good thing to investigate when I get time.

Also have not seen a man-hours for a VDM propeller compared with, say, a Rotol ... but would also be interested. This can lead you down the path of not being able to find the data but ... it also might be there for anyone to find.

I just don't have time right now ... hopefully taht may cnage in 6 months!

Great pics above! Thanks.

And thanks Joe for keeping the eye on the manufacturing ball. I can say we have found the wing bolts on the Ha.1112 to be hand-fitted ... that is, they only fit where they fit, and nowhere else. So there was still a lot of hand-fitting ... at least in Spain. The only German Bf 109 I ever got close to ALSO had hand-fitted wing attach bolts ... and several other tapered fits.

I bet it was a hand reamer! Can't go anywhere else, but they fit like a glove in the right slot ... (and not an O.J. Simpson glove, either).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> And thanks Joe for keeping the eye on the manufacturing ball. I can say we have found the wing bolts on the Ha.1112 to be hand-fitted ... that is, they only fit where they fit, and nowhere else. So there was still a lot of hand-fitting ... at least in Spain. The only German Bf 109 I ever got close to ALSO had hand-fitted wing attach bolts ... and several other tapered fits.
> 
> I bet it was a hand reamer! Can't go anywhere else, but they fit like a glove in the right slot ... (and not an O.J. Simpson glove, either).



 I bet you'll find the same thing on Japanese aircraft where interchangeability was said to be horrible.


----------



## JAG88 (Nov 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Not exactly sure they used Takt time in WWII, but it might amount to the same concept.



Well, since Takt is a German word and the concept was invented pre-war by Junkers...

Takt time – Early work at Junkers in Germany | Michel Baudin's Blog

There are a few other entries on takt on the blog, good read.



> all I can add is that if they coulf produce a Bf 109 for 4,000 man-hours, then EVERYONE whould have been building them I don't think anybody else came very close to that number for any other major fighter. That says a lot for Willy's design expertise (or that of his staff).



I think I read somewhere the P-51 was down to 2.700 hours by the end of the war.



> I have not seen the man-hours required to manufacture a DB 601 / 605 compared with the merlin and I wonder now if they were even close to one another. A good thing to investigate when I get time.
> 
> Also have not seen a man-hours for a VDM propeller compared with, say, a Rotol ... but would also be interested. This can lead you down the path of not being able to find the data but ... it also might be there for anyone to find.
> 
> ...



My pleasure! 

No clue about the engines though...



> And thanks Joe for keeping the eye on the manufacturing ball. I can say we have found the wing bolts on the Ha.1112 to be hand-fitted ... that is, they only fit where they fit, and nowhere else. So there was still a lot of hand-fitting ... at least in Spain. The only German Bf 109 I ever got close to ALSO had hand-fitted wing attach bolts ... and several other tapered fits.
> 
> I bet it was a hand reamer! Can't go anywhere else, but they fit like a glove in the right slot ... (and not an O.J. Simpson glove, either).



I seem to recall that was an issue with German industry, people tended to use their proprietary screws and bolts on supposedly standardized equipment... thus screwing the maintenance people.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> They tried it and apparently weren't impressed with the results, so it wasn't something that they pursued on a large scale.
> 
> In the larger picture, we can see that a great deal of time, money, labor and material went into exploring alternatives for the Fw190. This holds true with the Bf109 and other production types. So on the one hand, the He112 could have been upgraded or enhanced but on the otherhand, how many prototypes would it take to hit on the right combination?
> 
> ...


All good points, though as far as Heinkel aircraft development was concerned, that implies investing a bit more on competing single engine fighters to complement the 109 and 190 might have avoided the need for such exhaustive development investment across those other types.

With the 109 you have the 112 in the same timeframe, but the He 100 could/should have totally displaced further He 112 development and offered a competitor/complement to the Fw 190 program with closer manufacturing cost to the 109.

The He 100 should have retained the He 112's strengths as best as possible while incorporating newer engineering and design and more efficient manufacturing. The problem seems to have been both political preference against Heinkel (and towards Messerschmitt) and Heinkel focusing on experimental high-speed design and speed-record setting subtypes than a practical, efficient military aircraft design. Supposedly abandoning further development when the Jumo 211 became the only remotely viable powerplant available further accentuates this. (a decently flexibly engineered He 100 should have already been testing Jumo 211 powered variants as well as fully conventional radiator arrangements) In fact, supporting the Jumo 211 would have necessitated conventional radiator development as no variants were available with pressurized evaporative cooling compatible cooling systems. (the 211F introduced pressurized cooling somewhat later and would have allowed more compact/low drag radiator designs as well, but not for early testing, and probably well after surface cooling systems had been proven unworkable)

They didn't need an aircraft absolutely cheaper to manufacture than the Bf 109, but they needed one attractive enough all around to supplement or replace it. (total cost from production to service in the field -both handling/performance qualities and reliability/maintenance qualities)

Heinkel's wooden wing pet project might have been a smarter idea to continue development of (compared to his speed record pet projects) even if the RLM didn't like the idea, having the He 100 at least designed with wooden wing variants tested and cited for manufacturing cost and overall serviceability would have been significant. (a modular wing design able to accept either metal or wooden wings in the field would have been excellent if it could be done at reasonable cost and reliability)

If continued He 112 development could have met all those qualities better than the He 100 program ended up doing, then yes that's an extremely good argument for the He 112.




GregP said:


> The "potential" thing is ripe for practical argument/discussion. You can probably "fix" the faults of MOST airplanes. The real question is, "is it economically feasible to do so?" A fully "tweaked" He 112 might have been a really great prototype with performance to spare ... and the RLM still might not have bought it, so you have to decide if the potential investment is worth the risk. I've always wondered why none of Germany's allies bought it in quantity, and there is likely a good reason, potential development notwithstanding. They apparently built 104 of them, which would not be profitable.


Retaining the thicker wing of the 112 might not have been a bad thing. It LOOKS thick, but without any definitive confirmation on the airfoil section used, it's hard to tell if it's using a thick airfoil or just a thick, low aspect ratio wing with relatively long chord. Additionally, one solution for improving high speed drag would be to extend the leading and/or trailing edges of the wing to conform to a thinner airfoil shape at the expense of increasing area and decreasing aspect ratio -if the wing root is the only section using a particularly high thickness to chord ratio, having highly tapered wing root extensions would be an even simpler modification, akin to what the Me 262 HG-I adopted. 

Low aspect ratio is bad for low speed lift to drag ratio, but the elliptical shape compensates for that while low aspect ratio is good for strong wings with high roll rate and potential to exploit a thin airfoil stretched to a relatively decent area and internal storage capacity . (honestly it's probably something more post-war straight-winged jets should have attempted short of adopting swept wings, but that's another topic)

The elliptical shape might have increased manufacturing cost/time unless smart engineering workaround for that were found as well. (I'm not sure if that is as true for the wooden wing or not)

A heavily tapered straight wing is a good compromise (the He 100 and especially He 162 did such), as is an elliptical wing with a straight leading edge (like Republic tended to use, and Heinkel used on the He 178 and He 280, very thin and wooden in the former's case). The He 162's wing is a good example of physically thick, low aspect ratio with a thin airfoil section used and high internal capacity. (that's the sort of engineering they should have been focusing on pre-war, granted I believe the He 162 -like most jets- dispensed with self-sealing concerns entirely)

If the wing alone was one of the more costly elements of the 112, particularly the section outboard of the gear attachments (and gull bend), then replacing that entirely with a lower cost compromise (like a highly tapered straight wing) might have been best. Having the wider spaced gear that still retracted outward like the 109 should have allowed detachable outer wing sections (potentially modular wood or metal installation too), so that could have been one area to focus on design streamlining as well. (and one of the areas the He 100's inward retracting gear might not be an improvement, especially if the thick wing center section provided space for both fuel and machine guns -and potentially cannons once the MG 151 became available)



> The Bf 109 was ripe with faults but, for all it's faults, was a VERY good offensive attack fighter that was fairly cheap to make given the level of performance it achieved ... which was near or at the top of the field. It is quite possible the DB-powered He 112 had every bit of the performance of the Bf 109 at a greater cost, and never got a big order simply due to the price difference. Or ... it may have NOT had the performance the Bf 109 had, and was STILL more expensive.


One advantage of the He 112 not being in service and mass production (compared to the 109) would mean more substantial design changes and fixes without disrupting existing production lines. Where the 109's refinements were curtailed in favor of maintained volume production, the He 112 (or 100) could have delved unimpeded until actual mass production commenced.

It's also not just 109 costs that must be considered, but Fw 190 costs too ... the 190 was a significantly more expensive aircraft to manufacture and a cheaper (but not 109 cheap) competitor might have complemented it well to the point of proving its other qualities were strong enough to displace the 109's raw manufacturing costs. (from raw performance to versitility in operation, to operational costs -material and man hours- to material costs going into manufacturing -like a wooden wing that might not make the aircraft's price tag any lower but reduced strategic material usage -ironically by the time wooden combat aircraft design requirements came up mid/late war, they ran into shortages of the right sort of wood, craftsmen, equipped factory space, and particularly glue to manufacture reliable aircraft components whereas developing that early war would have paid off much more -contracting some of Gotha's extensive wooden construction likely would have been wise as well, industry wide at least if not for Heinkel specifically given his company's and engineers' more existing expertise there)




> For instance, I think the AR 240 had potential, and it was fast enough that if Arado couldn't fix the stability, I bet a rival firm could have and then the Germans would have HAD their "Mosquito" or at least close to it ... but it never happened for real.
> 
> You have to appreciate/marvel the potential that went untapped in the German aircraft industry ranging from the Me 264 to the Fw 191 to the AR 240 and so on down a long list of "might-have-beens" up to and including the BV 155 high-altitude version of the Bf 109. The potential was amazing in a lot of cases.


Factual evidence is mostly circumstantial from what I've seen, but the case of the Ar 240 really seems to point to RLM prejudice towards the Me 210 project and lack of interest or resources being fed to the 240, particularly given its relatively early development dead-end. (there was the larger Ar 440 development, but maintaining focus on the original 240 and refinement thereof seems like it would have matured much more quickly, especially had more powerful engines -realistic engines like the DB-605, 213, and 603, or BMW 801, not the likes of the Jumo 222)





JAG88 said:


> GregP said:
> 
> 
> > From personal experience, the Bf 109 is NOT simple to work on. There are many things that WOULD be simple if the order of assembly was followed but, once the aircraft is together, you don't have the luxury of order of assembly. For instance, if the landing gear attach points are being assembled onto a NEW Bf 109, they are easy. If the Bf 109 is assembled, then someone is down in the cockpit, head first, in a very uncomfortable and awkward position trying to remove and reinstall the bolts that hold the brackets on while the rudder pedals and other items are all in the way. We finally said enough and removed all the pieces ... and, in fact, completely disassembled the cockpit for access, including removing the instraument panel.
> ...


Given notes on the He 100's access panels and cramped engine installation in general (let alone the horribly complex pump system in the surface cooled systems), Heinkel definitely didn't maintain the same focus on ease of serviceability and maintenance with the He 100 as the He 112 ... another area where the He 100 could or should have been better but failed. (the main reason to go for a new design rather than further 112 development was to comprehensively fix more fundamental design flaws of the 112 and allow new technology to be introduced from the ground up ... this doesn't appear to have eventuated)






JAG88 said:


> Silly of me, I completely forgot that Heinkel went on to design the He-100 and that in its final version it did feature a radiator for a DB 601 installation, so perhaps hey would have gone with some larger version of its retractable radiator?
> 
> Anyway, I think the only shot this aircraft would have had is if the KM carriers had been completed, one of the A-1s was used a a prototype for a carrier version and with its wider landing gear it would have been a better proposition than the 109T.


There was a lot of discussion on this and information thrown back and forth (and attempted deduction based on limited information and conflicting incomplete accounts of testing), and the results were rather ambiguous as far as the final (supposed D-1) variant of the He 100 is concerned.

That said, there was more definitive conclusions on Heinkel's retractable radiator being a dead-end compared to low-drag wing mounted radiators with boundary layer bleed plates/ducting (that might not be the right terminology, but the context was the sort of low-drag radiators used in the 109F and Spitfire V -or might have been IX- as well as the Mosquito among others). The two major alternatives were nose mounted radiators (or annular Junkers style ones) which traded low drag for low weight and compact, reliable, easier to maintain, less vulnerable installation. (the third option was an even more optimized low drag ducted radiator installation similar to what the Mustang implemented or short of that other fuselage/wing-center buried radiator modules like the P-39 used)

Given the He 100 also relied on a wet wing (which would have had fuel capacity cut when switching to self-sealing fuel cells) and the relatively small wing likely needing to be enlarged for further development with larger engines (DB601E or Jumo 211F), switching to a new wing with embedded radiators might have been the better route for further development. (omitting the fuselage radiator in favor of fuel tankage) Either that or a refined, low-drag fixed-position fuselage radiator and redesigned wing suited to self sealing tanks. (the wing-root embedded gun locations would be one of the bigger reasons for avoiding wing-mounted radiators, though the two might not have been mutually exclusive if designed with both in mind)


And yes, the He 112 likely would have been better suited to carrier use as well (more so with extended wings), and better take-off and landing performance than the 109 in general. (though to be totally fair, adding wing root extensions like the 109H proposed would have probably been a better solution than the 109T as well, particularly with a folding mechanism included for the outer wings and fuel tankage increased in that nice thick wing root extension region)


----------

