- Thread starter
- #21
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
This is specifically contradicted by the Griehl and Dressel book on the He177 that specifically mentions that it was structurally strengthened to support dive bombing and was repeatedly tested to dive bomb, where it experienced too many problems to ever fill that mission profile. The Lancaster is meaningless to discuss the HE177, as it was designed from the beginning for the role, which the HE177 wasn't, but was subsequently forced into it, compromising the design. I'm not saying the weight didn't go up as a result of extra fuel tanks or the addition of traditional radiators, but the addition in weight also and predominately went up as a result of structural strengthening to support dive bombing.The only real problems for the He 177,caused by the decision,were a potential increase in weight and a corresponding radical undercarriage design. Even so the He 177 was never capable of being a dive bomber. It was an inherently weak design,and never was modified to dive bomb. Too much is made of this aspect of the design process with the benefit of hindsight.
The definitive account of the HE177 states this clearly.
\These are the facts:
At a meeting at Karinhall on 13th September 1942 he asked Heinkel if the project could be saved. Heinkel replied that the engine problems were cured but "the airframe has to be strengthened for dive bombing." It was at this point that Goering said "It does not have to dive." A relieved Heinkel told the Reichmarshal that the He 177 could go straight to the squadrons,which it patently could not.
The on going structural problems were highlighted by Generalstabsing Roluf Lucht on a visit to the Heinkel works at Marienehe in September 1942. He wrote that there was "a neglectful and dwindling treatment of the question of structural strength." He warned Prof. Heinkel of ominous parallels between the He 177 and Me 210.
What's the source for this?
And this 'fact' is after the original sin of modifying the basic design for dive bombing, it had been compromised. The reason it couldn't go to squadrons was the engine fires, as the major structural issues had been ironed out by 1942, but the engine fires were just starting to be dealt with. Remember too that until this point the structural issues were mainly appearing during repeated diving tests! In fact the second prototype broke up mid-air when dive tested. When the dive requirement was finally deleted all that time had been lost dealing with making the aircraft useful for diving, rather than correcting the main deficits, which included the engines and some structural issues.
Had diving never been added, the aircraft entered into testing in 1938 as per the original schedule, and all the effort that went into making it dive capable been instead expended on improving the airframe for level bombing then it would have more likely than not been fully airworthy by 1941-2.
As it was as soon as the dive issue was resolved the engine problems were focused on, not really being solved until 1943 with the 4 propellor version. Then they had to work on making it reliable for level bombing starting from that point. AFAIK there is no information about how the He177B handled either from the Germans or the Allies. I think that would be far more representative than the He177A5, as so much effort had gone into making that version flyable with its engine problems and dive bombing issues, rather than correcting the deficits with horizontal handling. BTW at least according to Wikipedia changing the tail design significantly improved the HE177Bs handling.
And Eric Brown, who you cited earlier and most people like to point to as to the flaws of the He177A, only tested the He177A5, not the He177B.