Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

blue swede said:

Well, it could do almost everything better than the Lancaster. It was comparable to the B17 and was better in most catagories to the B24. Okay, I'll admit it wasn't as good as the B29, but it had a different role.
8)

Click to expand...

You really do not know anything about WW2 Bombers do you? The He-177 better than a Lanc and was comparable to the B-17?

First of all the Lanc is arguably the 2nd best bomber behind the B-29 because overall it was better than the B-17 and the B-24. The He-177 was not even comparable to the B-17.


Heinkel He-177

Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Sub Contractor: Arado Flugzeugwerke
Type: Six-Seat Heavy Bomber and Missile carrier
Models: A-0 to A-5
First Flight:
V-1: November 19, 1939
A-0: November 1941
Service Delivery:
A-1: March 1942
A-5: February 1943
Engine: 2 Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1

Note: Each engine comprised of two V12 liquid cooled engines geared to one propeller.

Dimensions:
Span: 31.44m (103 ft. 1¼ in.)
Length: 22m (72 ft. 2 in.)
Height: 6.4m (21 ft.)

Weights: (A-5)
Empty: 37,038lb. (16,800 kg)
Loaded: 68,343lb (31,000kg)

Performance:
Maximum (at 41,000lb.): 295mph (472km/h)
Initial Climb: 853 ft/min (260m/min)
Service Ceiling: 26,500 ft (7080m)
Range with Fritz or Hs 293 missle: 3,107 miles (5000km)
Armament: A-5/R2:
One 7.92mm MG 81J manually aimed in nose
Ammunition: 2000 rounds
One 20mm MG 151 manually aimed in forward ventral gondola
Ammunition: 300 rounds
Two 13mm MG 131 in remote front dorsal turret
Ammunition: 750 rounds per gun
One 13mm MG 131 in electric aft dorsal turret
Ammunition: 750 rounds
One 20mm MG 151 cannon in in tail position
Ammunition: 300 rounds

Bomb Load: A-5/R2:
Sixteen 110 lb. (50kg) SC 50, four 551 lb. (250-kg) SC 250 or two 1,102 lb. (500 kg) SC 500, or two LMA III parachute sea mines, LT 50 torpedos, or Hs 293 of FX 1400 missiles.


Production:
8 Prototypes
35 He 177A-0 (Mainly Arado built)
130 He 177A-1 (Arado built)
170 He 177A-3 (Heinkel Built)
826 He 177A-5

Comments
Arguably the largest bomber built by the Germans, the He 177 suffered many flaws and turned into one of the Luftwaffe's biggest failures (when compare service use to the amount of resources invested.) A significant problem that plagued the program from the beginning was a ludicrous requirement that this extremely large aircraft be capable of dive bombing. This combined with the attempt to reduce drag by coupling the engines, while theoretically sound, proved to be impossible in practice for no aircraft in history had engines that would so readily burst into flame. 75% of the prototypes crashed and a good percentage of the 35 A-0 pre-production airframes were written off in crashed or in-flight fires.
About 700 served on the eastern front using 50mm and 75mm guns for tank-busting while a few brave aircrews ineffectually bombed England.
The He 177 proved to be such a big problem that Goering forbid Heinkel to develope a four engine version (though Heinkel did anyways, the result being the He 277).
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177.html

Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)

whereas the lanc was

blue swede said:

Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)

Click to expand...

Does that mean the He-177 was a very good anti shipping platform. It does not matter if you can do the mission if your engines blow up before you reach the target. The B-29, Lancaster, B-17, and B-24 were all better bombers than the He-177. They could carry heavier loads and handled better. Now the He-274 and He-277 evolutions of the He-177 may have proven to be good bombers, had they made into production phase.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

blue swede said:

Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)

Click to expand...

Does that mean the He-177 was a very good anti shipping platform. It does not matter if you can do the mission if your engines blow up before you reach the target. The B-29, Lancaster, B-17, and B-24 were all better bombers than the He-177. They could carry heavier loads and handled better. Now the He-274 and He-277 evolutions of the He-177 may have proven to be good bombers, had they made into production phase.

Click to expand...

Agreed Alder, well said. As you said, if they where put into production, which they weren't, so we will never know other than the paper statistics.

Exactly. The He-177 had pretty good performance for an aircraft her size, but she was just do dangerous.

As for the He-274 we can ask the French they flew it in Dec. 1945.

blue swede said:

Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)

Click to expand...

It didn't have to be.... 8)

Although it did mine the sh*t out of Tokyo Harbor!!!

blue swede said:

Well, I thought I read somewhere that the problems with the engine design have been overblown and that it was more of a maintenance issue. And, with respects, I don't recall the B29 being used as an anti-shipping platform. 8)

Click to expand...

And I dont recall the He-177 flying at 35,000ft at 350mph with 20,000lbs of bombs for over 7000 miles...Funny isnt it?

LOL

Here is a little on the He-274. Couldn't find anything about the results of the French tests though.

Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French

Engine:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

Originally designated He 177 A-4, the He 274 was a high-altitude development of the He 177. Like the He 277, the He 274 dispensed with coupled engines and mounted four single powerplants. While originally considered a version of the He 177, growing incompatability of parts led to the redesignation to He 274 and reassignment of the project to SAUF. French resistance workers conspired to slow down development of the He 274 so that the prototypes were not ready at the time of the German withdrawal in July 1944. The French took possession of the prototypes and redesignated them ASA 01A. The prototypes finally flew in December 1945 with French markings.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he274.html



Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943

Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

An attempt by Heinkel to rectify the problems of the He 177 by mounting four single engines in place of the dual coupled engines, the He 277 was originally met with indifference by Goering. Heinkel was actually banned from developing this aircraft and secretly proceeded by designating it the He 177B. During a meeting with Hitler, Heinkel mentioned the aircraft as a solution to a specification Hitler was making. Hitler ordered the type into production, at which point it reclaimed it's legitimate name of He 277. Numerous prototypes were built but on July 3, 1944 production was halted as the German aviation industry focused on fighter production.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he277.html)



The only difference I found between the 274 and the 277 was that one was builit in Austria (277) and the other in France.

Other than I think even the 277 and the 274 would not have been as good as the B-29.

I use the same site there, that you got that info from. Its a pretty good website. I agree that they could have been some damn good bombers (the 274 and 277), however we shall never know.

And let's throw the -29 in there...

SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 141 ft. 3 in.
Length: 99 ft. 0 in.
Height: 27 ft. 9 in.
Weight: 133,500 lbs. max.
Armament: Eight or ten .50-cal. machine guns in remote controlled turrets plus two .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon in tail; 20,000 lbs. of bombs
Engines: Four Wright R-3350s of 2,200 hp. ea.
Cost: $639,000
Serial Number: 44-27297

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 357 mph.
Cruising speed: 220 mph.
Range: 3,700 miles
Service Ceiling: 33,600 ft.

The B29's had very serious engine problems early in its life. At one point, it was so bad, the program was on the verge of cancellation due to the engines having a tendency to overheat and catch fire (plus it was made from magnesium, which was a b***h to machine correctly, and can ignite and burn if overheated).

Eventually the probelms were solved and performed reliably well.

Flyboy made a good comment about the mining operations the B29 performed. The mining of the coastal area's and inland sea of Japan did more to impact the economy of Japan than the firebombing did. At one point, coastal shipping would come to a standstill untill the mines were cleared.

Although the German bombers looked good on paper, they were still a generation behind the allies. In fact, their long range bombers were more on a par with the B24's and Lancs.

The 29 is undisputadly the best bomber of WW2. I dont know how someone can even compare the He-177 to it.

I believe I had earlier acknowledged the B29 capabilities and am not comparing the HE177 to it.
But getting back to the B17, I don't think it was ever used as an anit-tank weapon either. I do seem to remember the Grief used for such a purpose, as well as a bomber, anti-shipping rocket platform and transport.
Funny, isn't it?
8)

blue swede said:

But getting back to the B17, I don't think it was ever used as an anit-tank weapon either. 8)

Click to expand...

They didn't have to!

When we run this thread it should be titled "The 2nd best bomber of WW2," or the "Best Heavy Bomber of the ETO/ MTO." 8)

HE177 stats

1 mph faster than the B17
Same range as the B17.
9,000 feet lower service ceiling.
But 4 less crew.
80% bomb load of the B17.
A little less paper capabilities than the B17, but a little better than the B24.
Range same as B24.
5,000 lb. bomb load more than the B24.
4 less crew.
Same speed as B24.

So, I do think it's as worthy of consideration as these American bombers.

Otherwise, it's the B29 and nothing else to talk about. 8)

blue swede said:

I believe I had earlier acknowledged the B29 capabilities and am not comparing the HE177 to it.
But getting back to the B17, I don't think it was ever used as an anit-tank weapon either. I do seem to remember the Grief used for such a purpose, as well as a bomber, anti-shipping rocket platform and transport.
Funny, isn't it?
8)

Click to expand...

No but you did say that the He-177 was better than the B-29, so yes we should compare it.

Who cares if the B-17 did not do those missions, even though yes it was used as a Transport (in fact there were versions built as transports). In fact lets look at the roles the B-17 played:

Bomber - Most versions
Search and Rescue - B-17H
Heavy Bomber Escorts - YB-40
VIP Transport - C-108
Transport - CB-17
Guiden Missle/Rocket Platform - QB-17L
Recon - RB-17
Staff Transport - VB-17
Guided Bomb - MQ-17G
Naval Patrol/Anti Ship - PB-1
Photo Recon - F-9
Anti Ship - Fortress MK II/ IIA
Electronic Warfare - Fortress MK III

So as you can see the B-17 could do everything that the He-177 could do except Anti Tank. The real question is was the He-177 very successful as a Tank Killer. I doubt it. I know it sucked as a Dive Bomber (yes Hitler required that it be able to dive bomb and it was not effective as that ).

So where are we going with this?

blue swede said:

HE177 stats

1 mph faster than the B17
Same range as the B17.
9,000 feet lower service ceiling.
But 4 less crew.
80% bomb load of the B17.
A little less paper capabilities than the B17, but a little better than the B24.
Range same as B24.
5,000 lb. bomb load more than the B24.
4 less crew.
Same speed as B24.

So, I do think it's as worthy of consideration as these American bombers.

Otherwise, it's the B29 and nothing else to talk about. 8)

Click to expand...

Alright lets see 1mph faster. Big deal. Could it fly that speed with a full bomb load? Probably not.
80% of the bomb load of a B-17? How do you get this figure? The He-177 could carry:
Sixteen 110 lb. (50kg) SC 50
or
our 551 lb. (250-kg) SC 250
or
two 1,102 lb. (500 kg) SC 500

That comes out to no more than 2204lb of bombs. That is only about a 4th of the B-17's bomb load and no where near 5000lb more than the B-24.

And just what are the paper cababilites of the B-17 and the B-24? Can you explain what paper cabalities are?

The B-17 and B-24 were far more capable than the He-177 and the Lancaster was overall better than they were.

Okay, I concede. The HE177 doesn't quite match up to the B17 or Lancaster.
And the B29 was the best STRATEGIC bomber of WW2.
8)