1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

He 112B with Jumo 210G is listed as having 230kg of fuel, that's about 310l. Even less than early Bf 109.
He 100D is listed as having 300kg, same as Bf 109 E an later.

There's no such thing like a Me 209-II - that's a wiki invention. The designation was just used for two different aircraft.
The second Me 209 first flew after the Me 309, in very late 1943. Impossible to get it in service in 1943. Both 209/309 failed because they were (far) more expensive and were either not faster or less maneuverable (or both) than the most recent 109G.

Do you have estimated production cost (in RM) for the Me-209 and Me-309?

riacrato said:

SR6, seriously, how was the He 111 a "lousy" tactical bomber for 1940 or any time prior?

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your definition of a "tactical bomber". B-17s were used as tactical bombers on occasion. The He 111 is about the same class of bomber as a Vicker's Wellington. If you think the Wellington was a good tactical bomber then I guess the He 111 is too. They all can bomb tactical targets but compared to something like an A-20 it is a little lacking for low level attacks. Top speed at sea level is around 200 mph( give or take 15mph depending on model and weight). Gun armament for ground attack is a little lacking in many models. The step front models had three 7.9mm machine guns, Nose, top and ventral "dustbin". Only the nose gun is really useful for strafing and it is fed by 75 round drums. This makes a Blenheim look good with it's one fixed belt fed gun. Or a Fairey Battle

Liquid cooled engines?
The He 111B with DB 600 engines ( with carburetors, 30 of them in Spain in Feb 1937?) is supposed to have had a range of 1030 miles with a 1653lb bomb load. A rather strange ability for a tactical aircraft in 1937.

I have no doubt that He 111s were used against tactical targets but that doesn't really make it a tactical bomber. Even later versions with a gun out the front of the Gondola ( two forward firing guns?) are not what one would choose if one had a choice.

The He 111 did somethings rather well and might have contributed even more had it been given more development and so much time and effort wasted on the bomber "B" program.

davebender said:

400 liters. Me-109.
535 liters. Fw-190.
770 liters. Me-309.
1,100 liters. Fw-187.

How much internal fuel do the He-100 and He-112B carry?

Click to expand...

The V series capacity was 369 liters according to historical archives, the A series production aircraft are reputed to be 420 liters but I don't have documents indicating this. However fuel capacity doesn't indicate the whole story. Heinkel document D.Bl.1220 dated 31 may 1939 states that V-4 with 369 liters will range to 1050km at 8km at a cruise speed of 510kph. The Bf109E will only range 698 km at 408 kph on the same engine and throttle settings. This is very similar to the situation between the P-51B and the Spitfire IX with essentially the same engine and throttle settings the P-51 would cruise about 50 - 70 mph faster.

Taking a lead off of Shortround6 I complied a fuel consumption table between the Bf109 and He100;
Bf109E-3 at 1000meters DB601A (MAX SPEED= 505)

265kph/165mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/192 lbs, 86 miles per 100lbs of fuel
417kph/259mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/330 lbs, 78 miles per 100lbs of fuel

He-100 at 1000meters DB601M (MAX SPEED = 566)

365kph/227mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/192 lb, 118 miles per 100lbs of fuel
512kph/318mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/330 lbs, 95 miles per 100lbs of fuel
_____________________________________________________________________
Bf109E-3 at 3000meters DB601A (MAX SPEED= 535)
300kph/186mph for a fuel burn of 135liters/216 lbs, 86 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
443kph/275mph for a fuel burn of 207liters/328 lbs, 82 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

He-100 at 3000meters DB601M (MAX SPEED= 627)

428kph/266mph for a fuel burn of 135liters/216 lbs, 122 miles per 100lbs of fuel
512kph/318mph for a fuel burn of 207liters/328 lbs, 103 miles per 100lbs of fuel

_____________________________________________________________________
Bf109E-3 at 5000meters DB601A (MAX SPEED= 566)
350kph/217mph for a fuel burn of 150liters/240 lbs, 90 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
454kph/282mph for a fuel burn of 180liters/282 lbs, 100 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

He-100 at 5000meters DB601M (MAX SPEED= 670)

480kph/298mph for a fuel burn of 150liters/240 lbs, 124 miles per 100lbs of fuel
560kph/347mph for a fuel burn of 180liters/282 lbs, 123 miles per 100lbs of fuel

If one were to put this in practice, plan a ferry mission with both aircraft to take off from the same airfield cruise climb to 5000m at 1,23 ata and to cruise at the economical setting of 0,77 ata. A 30 minute reserve is held on board. Distance credit is given for the climb but not for the decent. The Bf109 will have 400 liters and the He100 will have 369 liters. Which will cruise the furthest?

Bf109 - Take off and climb to 5000m at an avg 270kph, time to alt is 6.3 minutes-28 liters and 33 km. with the remaining fuel less reserves is a flying time of 1.8 hr at 350 kph for a total of 651km.

He100 - Take off and climb to 5000m at an avg 300kph, time to alt is 5.3 minutes-24 liters and 28 km. with the remaining fuel less reserves is a flying time of 1.7 hr at 480 kph for a total of 851km.

If the He100 had 420 liters it would have ranged to 1014 km.

Shortround6 said:

I guess it depends on your definition of a "tactical bomber". B-17s were used as tactical bombers on occasion. The He 111 is about the same class of bomber as a Vicker's Wellington. If you think the Wellington was a good tactical bomber then I guess the He 111 is too. They all can bomb tactical targets but compared to something like an A-20 it is a little lacking for low level attacks. Top speed at sea level is around 200 mph( give or take 15mph depending on model and weight). Gun armament for ground attack is a little lacking in many models. The step front models had three 7.9mm machine guns, Nose, top and ventral "dustbin". Only the nose gun is really useful for strafing and it is fed by 75 round drums. This makes a Blenheim look good with it's one fixed belt fed gun. Or a Fairey Battle

Liquid cooled engines?
The He 111B with DB 600 engines ( with carburetors, 30 of them in Spain in Feb 1937?) is supposed to have had a range of 1030 miles with a 1653lb bomb load. A rather strange ability for a tactical aircraft in 1937.

I have no doubt that He 111s were used against tactical targets but that doesn't really make it a tactical bomber. Even later versions with a gun out the front of the Gondola ( two forward firing guns?) are not what one would choose if one had a choice.

The He 111 did somethings rather well and might have contributed even more had it been given more development and so much time and effort wasted on the bomber "B" program.

Click to expand...

The He 111 is first and foremost a medium bomber. I doubt many in the 1930s saw medium bombers to be used only for strategical or tactical use. The medium bomber certainly is capable of both but naturally geared more towards the tactical role.

You said however, the He 111 was lousy in that role. Which is by all means far from the truth. Its performance in any of the theaters it was used as such (Poland, France, Balkan, Norway, Africa, Barbarossa…) cannot be called "lousy" at all.

And lowlevel battlefield support is not the only role in tactical aerial warfare and in the doctrine of the LW not what Kampfgeschwaders were typically meant to do. The lack of fixed guns doesn't indicate anything nor does it make the bomber lousy. It's a thing of preference, that's all. Liquid cooled engines? Yes liquid cooled engines, what's wrong with them? The Ju 87 and IL-2 did quite well with those in a tactical role didn't they? Sea level performance? Please.

Sr6 that you call tactical bomber, from your description, i call ground attack plane in this i'm agree He 111 is not a good attack plane.

OK, then what is a 'tactical bomber'?

One that flies "tactical missions"?

B-17s and Lancasters flew tactical missions on occasion, are they tactical bombers?

Heavy, medium and light bombers are classifications that changed meaning with both country and time. Finding precise definitions is difficult. AS I have noted before, the Fairey Battle was NOT intended as a "tactical" bomber although it was a "light bomber".

The British Whitley and the Wellington were "heavy bombers" in the late 30s when there were no British 4 engine bombers. The Wellington got "demoted" to medium later even as it got bigger engines and more capability. The Whitley may have gotten 'demoted' or perhaps later people just assumed that twin engine bombers (unless powered by "monster motors") were "mediums". Does anybody doubt that the British twin engine bombers were intended for "strategic bombing".

So where does the He 111 fall ? Was it a general purpose bomber, the best the Germans could do with a pair of 750-900hp engines (when designed). Or was it specifically designed to support the army, even if not in direct battle over the front, by interdiction mission behind the front? How far from the front were these interdiction missions supposed to be?


BTW the He 111 was about 2,000lb lighter at Max take-off than a MK I Whitley.

Heinkel document D.Bl.1220 dated 31 may 1939 states that V-4 with 369 liters will range to 1050km at 8km at a cruise speed of 510kph. The Bf109E will only range 698 km at 408 kph on the same engine and throttle settings

Click to expand...

He-112B was more expensive to mass produce.
He-112B carried less internal fuel.
German test pilots liked both aircraft.
Me-109 airframe did not reach maturity until Me-109F entered service. He-112B also had room for further development.

IMO RLM made the right decision by chosing the Me-109 over the He-112B for mass production. As of 1937 they don't know exactly how the Me-109 and He-112B airframes will perform when fully mature. However more internal fuel and lower production cost are decisive advantages over the long term.

davebender said:

He-112B was more expensive to mass produce.
He-112B carried less internal fuel.
German test pilots liked both aircraft.
Me-109 airframe did not reach maturity until Me-109F entered service. He-112B also had room for further development.

IMO RLM made the right decision by chosing the Me-109 over the He-112B for mass production. As of 1937 they don't know exactly how the Me-109 and He-112B airframes will perform when fully mature. However more internal fuel and lower production cost are decisive advantages over the long term.

Click to expand...

You are correct in your statements about the he112. However I was discussing the He100 which is a completely different aircraft. It used less major components and was easier and faster to produce designed with mass production in mind. The He112 was not.

Forget the He112, Heinkel GmbH did and concentrated everything on the He100. It is interesting to note that the speed record aircraft had a lot in common with the standard He100 airframe but the Me209 was just a lash up not resembling the Bf109 at all.

Heinkel tried to sell the He100 design whole over the world but nobody was really interested. No good sign for a good fighter.
cimmex

Fair enough but the He-100 had issues also.

He-100 does not have a universal engine mount. It requires the DB601. With the benefit of hindsight that's not a problem. However 1939 Germany cannot predict the future. What if Junkers has a technical breakthrough and produces an Uber 1,500 hp version of the Jumo 211 engine during 1941? Me-109 could take advantage of the new engine but the He-100 cannot.

He-100 carries only 350 liters of internal fuel. To make matters worse it's in vulnerable wing tanks. Me-109 carries 400 liters of internal fuel in a fuselage tank protected by a laminated dural armor bulkhead.

Heinkel spent far too much time and effort attempting to make the evaporative cooling system work. They were still tinkering with the system during 1939. It was a technical gamble that failed.

The Japanese Ki-61 shows what the He-100 could have been if Heinkel had made different design choices. But would such an advanced airframe be production ready during 1939? I tend to doubt it.

IMO it's more likely the Heinkel Ki-61 clone would be competing against the Me-309 during 1942 for a long range fighter contract. Both are good designs so that would be an interesting competition. However these long range aircraft would not be competing against the short range and dirt cheap Me-109.

davebender said:

He-100 does not have a universal engine mount. It requires the DB601. With the benefit of hindsight that's not a problem. However 1939 Germany cannot predict the future. What if Junkers has a technical breakthrough and produces an Uber 1,500 hp version of the Jumo 211 engine during 1941? Me-109 could take advantage of the new engine but the He-100 cannot.

He-100 carries only 350 liters of internal fuel. To make matters worse it's in vulnerable wing tanks. Me-109 carries 400 liters of internal fuel in a fuselage tank protected by a laminated dural armor bulkhead.

Heinkel spent far too much time and effort attempting to make the evaporative cooling system work. They were still tinkering with the system during 1939. It was a technical gamble that failed.

The Japanese Ki-61 shows what the He-100 could have been if Heinkel had made different design choices. But would such an advanced airframe be production ready during 1939? I tend to doubt it.

IMO it's more likely the Heinkel Ki-61 clone would be competing against the Me-309 during 1942 for a long range fighter contract. Both are good designs so that would be an interesting competition. However these long range aircraft would not be competing against the short range and dirt cheap Me-109.

Click to expand...

1. The He100 shared the same type of engine mount with the Ki-61. The He-100 can interchange the engine readily with the 601Aa (+100PS at CA), 601N (+200PS at CA) and 601E (+300PS at CA). With the Db601E, computer modelling puts the aircraft in the region of 450 mph.
2. By universal engine mount you mean to attach a new engine you need different size engine bearers to the firewall? Heinkel's solution reduced a lot of weight but still provided the same measure of structural support. Heinkel had plenty of experience with the Ju-210/211 engines and Heinkel's installation in the He112 look better aerodynamically than the same engine installed in the Bf-109B/C.

3. The He-100 prototypes carried 369 liters, and some books report the erroneously labeled 'D' model with 420 liters and like I stated I can't confirm that. In 1939 and early 1940 everyone's fighters shared no tank protection but the German's were ahead in this technology as their bombers were protected at that time. Also many WWII fighters had wing tanks and from a fire point of view, in the wings is better than in the fuselage. As a historical reference the Bf-109 did not receive a self-sealing tank until after the BoB and the laminated bulkhead was removed with the Bf-109G's production to save weight.

4. The cooling system did eventually work. The TsAGI reports indicate that they flew He100 WkNr 3006 quite a lot and their chief test pilot Suprun put on a spectacular air show with it. The Japanese transfered the system to a Ki-61 for testing and had 35 successful flights. The He119 was also successful so I think the Heinkel guys finally got a handle on it. Also it was discovered that the system could take battle damage to the evaporators and still provide a level of cooling as it was a leaky system anyway as opposed to a pressurized radiator system which if it develops a leak your history.

5. Yes the Ki-61 is an interesting speculation considering it was based on the He100. The Heinkel design team also had a 10.8m span wing in the works at the same time they made the interchangeable small span wing for the speed record. That would provide for more fuel and an increase in armament. Personally I would have opted for five MG151/15...one engine mounted and four in the wings like the FW190 configuration.

Shortround6 said:

OK, then what is a 'tactical bomber'?

One that flies "tactical missions"? .......
.

Click to expand...

a tactical bomber is a bomber that flying tactical mission and use bombs as alone or near only as attack weapons, this is only my opinion

My definition.

An aircraft that can deliver firepower accurately enough for use as Close Air Support and has significant armor protection against ground fire. Such aircraft must fly low and slow when attacking so fighter escort is essential.

Ju-87 is probably the best early war example. By 1943 there were quite a few competitors but the updated Ju-87D was arguably still the best of the bunch until the post-war Skyraider.

cimmex said:

Heinkel tried to sell the He100 design whole over the world but nobody was really interested. No good sign for a good fighter.
cimmex

Click to expand...

It was the He112 he tried to flog but end the end only produced 68 aircraft. The He100 on the other hand, Russia wanted more than the six they got and the jigs being shipped to Japan were sunk in route. They however received their DB601's and three He100's. Also in 1938 the Japanese delegation to Heinkel obtained a set of engineering drawings. I think the events of 1940 put an end to sales.

Hungary had a choice to produce the newer He-100 but opted for the He-112B instead. That does not speak well for the He-100.

davebender said:

Hungary had a choice to produce the newer He-100 but opted for the He-112B instead. That does not speak well for the He-100.

Click to expand...

Could you cite the source for that.

Actually, Hungary could not do the deal for the He112 because they had run out of money and the German Foreign Office did not want to antagonize Romania seeing the trouble over the Transylvania issue (and they favored Romania who got He112 aircraft.) ....they still got three aircraft though (they purchased three Bf109D and three HE112B-1)

Heinkel had started negotiations for licence manufacture at Manfred Weiss Aircraft Engine Company but it was late 1939 and we know what happened next. Kind of put a damper on sales.


(What a great idea that would have been, they could build the planes and the engines)

Vincenzo said:

a tactical bomber is a bomber that flying tactical mission and use bombs as alone or near only as attack weapons, this is only my opinion

Click to expand...

By this definition a tactical bomber is practically any airplane that can carry bombs.

While a tactical bomber does not need to strafe it is a useful addition in capability. On the other hand the extra fuel tanks and larger wing needed to fly 500-1000km radius missions DO detract from a planes usefulness in tactical roles.
Do tactical bombers bomb from level flight at 2000-5000 meters or should a tactical bomber be capable of either low level bombing or glide bombing even if it cannot dive bomb?
If you were designing ( or issuing specifications for) a "tactical bomber" as opposed to a "strategic bomber" or even a general purpose bomber, what you would ask for?

Increase speed at low level?
Heavier weapons load at expense of fuel (range)?
Ability to use shorter or cruder airstrips?
Increase protection?
other?

The Do 17, while it could not carry the payload of a He 111, was reputed to be more maneuverable and better suited to low level flying. Would it be a better "tactical bomber" than the He 111?

Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hungary wanted to and apparently they preferred the He-112B over the He-100. Romania and Spain also opted for the He-112B rather then the He-100. Why would that happen if the newer He-100 design was considered superior?

Shortround6 said:

By this definition a tactical bomber is practically any airplane that can carry bombs.

While a tactical bomber does not need to strafe it is a useful addition in capability. On the other hand the extra fuel tanks and larger wing needed to fly 500-1000km radius missions DO detract from a planes usefulness in tactical roles.
Do tactical bombers bomb from level flight at 2000-5000 meters or should a tactical bomber be capable of either low level bombing or glide bombing even if it cannot dive bomb?
If you were designing ( or issuing specifications for) a "tactical bomber" as opposed to a "strategic bomber" or even a general purpose bomber, what you would ask for?

Increase speed at low level?
Heavier weapons load at expense of fuel (range)?
Ability to use shorter or cruder airstrips?
Increase protection?
other?

The Do 17, while it could not carry the payload of a He 111, was reputed to be more maneuverable and better suited to low level flying. Would it be a better "tactical bomber" than the He 111?

Click to expand...

not all the plane that can carry bombs are bomber.

maybe usefull but so you've a attack plane (or what it's the difference to a attack to a bomber). range maybe need also in tactical mission, airports are no everywhere or agible.
yes usefull things for a tactical bomber.
All are usefull.

Maybe but the limited load and limited choice of load maybe go in favour of 111, however i think that 88 take the place as tactical bomber best of 111