He-111: any growth potential?

At the end of the day the He111, like the Do17, Ju87 and (to a lesser extent) Ju88, proved itself and effective weapon when used in direct support of ground troops in an environment of air superiority. Under those circumstances its shortcommings didn't matter too much so it wasn't worth improving. Outside those circumstances it was badly vulnerable. What the LW was really missing was a strategic bomber and a fighter capable of escorting it.

There's nothing wrong with the He-177A3 which entered production during November 1942. WWII Germany could not afford to devote 12% of the military budget to heavy bombers as Britain did so there weren't enough He-177s to make a difference.

tomo pauk said:

Where would you've put it: on Do-217 or He-111?

Click to expand...

The Do217 is superior to the HE111 in every way, so naturally it would be the one the DB603 goes to.
Frankly the DB603 would be better employed with the Ju188/288 and He177B.

The He 111 was not designed as a tactical bomber.

Most peoples medium bombers were "general purpose" but some were a bit more general purpose than others.

IFyou have air superiority most any bomber can be used for tactical support or interdiction (bombing supply convoys/troop movements/ rear areas.)


Twin engine bombers could be and were strategic bombers in 1938/39/40 and after. German bombers could hit practically anywhere in France and a good deal of England from bases in Germany, French bombers could just about anywhere in Germany. Certain British 2 engine bombers could hit just about anywhere in Germany from England. Japanese bombers where hitting Chinese targets over many hundreds of miles over water.

EVERYBODY underestimated the amount of bombs needed to do the desired damage. EVERYBODY overestimated the ability of the bombers to "get through". EVERYBODY overestimated the likely hood of civilians "panicking" in the streets. And so on. What was considered a strategic bomber in 1939/40 was no longer considered a strategic bomber in 1943/44.

For the Americans, were the XB-21 and B-23 tactical bombers or strategic bombers?

The British did not give up on Wellington after the MK III ( 1300-1400hp engines) and went on to build thousands of later marks with 1600-1700hp engines. It didn't turn it into a world beater but it did increase the aircraft's capabilities.
Similarly a He 111 with an extra 100-300hp per engine would have increase capability, including better engine out performance. From the charts provided by Kreighund it appears that the single engine ceiling at 12,000kg was just 2,000 meters. That may very well be at standard temp and pressure (59 degrees F). At higher temperatures power goes down and lift at the same speed also goes down making the ceiling much lower. Figure is also for a plane in "good" condition and not with battle damage (flaps of metal sticking out or big holes in the plane) increasing drag. A few hundred extra horsepower (or even 100 extra hp) may very well be the difference between getting back on one engine and not getting back.

wiking85 said:

The Do217 is superior to the HE111 in every way, so naturally it would be the one the DB603 goes to.
Frankly the DB603 would be better employed with the Ju188/288 and He177B.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
So how would you improve the He-111?

How far can we go??

And when???

Germans generally had pretty crappy defensive armament layouts and were a week late and dozen Marks short when it came to power turrets.

TWO Mg 131s weigh just 5kg more than a single American .50 cal. A powered dorsal turret (or mount with 150 degrees traverse) with twin MG 131s not remotely aimed would be a major improvement that might be fitted to all three German Bombers (DO-217, Ju 88 and He 111), however it didn't exist. Also the single gun turret may not have been the best possible. Please note that gun had limited traverse inside the turret. Trying to control both power traverse and manual traverse at the same time may have been difficult. Perhaps one of our German experts can comment on power elevation?? Power traverse (even gross traverse) beats manual traverse but may not be the full equal of the allied power turrets, not all of which were equal either. An understudy area??

An He 111 with 1400-1500hp Jumo 211s, a powered twin MG 131 mount top and bottom (even a 150-180 traverse mount and not a "ball" turret) and perhaps a mount under each wing for a 300 liter drop tank might offer some interesting options.
How hard it might be to rearrange the bomb bay I don't know. Not move spars but arrange for horizontal stowage that might allow for 1100lb bombs inside (even two?) with fuel above? or two on one side with tank on the other side?

Germans tried to jump to remote aimed gun turrets/barbettes. Sometimes they worked and sometimes they took a while to work.

No doubt I appreciate your well-laid posts, was merely trying to swing the things on-topic, after the DB-603 elegy

tomo pauk said:

Agreed.
So how would you improve the He-111?

Click to expand...

Scrap it.
By 1940 it was old and by 1941 it needed to be replaced by something better; the Ju88 was it. So answering the OP, the HE111 was at the end of its development life with the H-series.

The JU-88 didn't have the range/bomb load combination the He 111 had.

Neither could do what the other was best at. They complemented each other.

Shortround6 said:

The JU-88 didn't have the range/bomb load combination the He 111 had.

Neither could do what the other was best at. They complemented each other.

Click to expand...

In 1940 after the dive bombing requirement compromised the Ju88 design. By the time the A4 version rolled around the Ju88 had it deficiencies corrected.

This indicates the A1 version of the Ju88 could carry up to 2500kg of bombs:
Junkers Ju 88A-1"Battle of Britain"

A better version from the German wikipedia which compares versions:
http://translate.google.com/transla...a=X&ei=Xs3tUMntIIO68wS0lYCwCA&ved=0CFYQ7gEwAw

For the A1 series with maximum internal fuel in all bomb bays and externally mounted bombs (up to 2400kg) the range was just over 2000km (1250 miles).

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111
With a full bomb load in the H6 version (1941), the range was only 1250 km.

OK, I'll bite. Given 20/20 foresight regarding the failures of both aircraft which would have replaced the He111 (He 177 and Ju288 ) and why (unreliable engines and remotely controlled barbettes), here's what Heinkel might have proposed to the RLM in 1939 as a radically redesigned He 111 to give the Luftwaffe a large multipurpose medium bomber at least equal to the US B-25 and B-25.

Take the basic He 111 fuselage, deepen it to provide improved internal weapons stowage and a manned tail gunner position with a 20mm cannon. Return to a revised stepped windscreen arrangement in the forward fuselage with a proper 2-gun power turret in the nose. Delete the lower gunner position for more reinforced hardpoints for external weapon stowage and provide a power-operated dorsal turret in place of the hand-held mounting. Retain and improve the two waist positions. Consider a redesign of the wing, creating more span and possibly move it to a mid-wing position as in the He 177, and provide more internal tankage. Twin DB-605 or Jumo 211. Then take this plane, "zwilling it", and voila, there's your heavy strategic bomber as well.

zoomar said:

OK, I'll bite. Given 20/20 foresight regarding the failures of both aircraft which would have replaced the He111 (He 177 and Ju288 ) and why (unreliable engines and remotely controlled barbettes), here's what Heinkel might have proposed to the RLM in 1939 as a radically redesigned He 111 to give the Luftwaffe a large multipurpose medium bomber at least equal to the US B-25 and B-25.

Take the basic He 111 fuselage, deepen it to provide improved internal weapons stowage and a manned tail gunner position with a 20mm cannon. Return to a revised stepped windscreen arrangement in the forward fuselage with a proper 2-gun power turret in the nose. Delete the lower gunner position for more reinforced hardpoints for external weapon stowage and provide a power-operated dorsal turret in place of the hand-held mounting. Retain and improve the two waist positions. Consider a redesign of the wing, creating more span and possibly move it to a mid-wing position as in the He 177, and provide more internal tankage. Twin DB-605 or Jumo 211. Then take this plane, "zwilling it", and voila, there's your heavy strategic bomber as well.

Click to expand...

In essence: build an entirely new plane

If you believe the JU 88A-1 could fly 2000km with a 2400kg bomb load I have this nice bridge for sale that connects Manhattan and Brooklyn for sale at a really cheap price.

try doing the math.

1. the JU 88-1 is not rated to carry 2400kg of bombs all external. To carry the fuel needed BOTH bomb bays hold fuel tanks.
2. The Empty weight of the JU 88A-1 was just under 17,000lbs. it was about 4800lbs lighter than the A-4 which only works to your advantage here.
Max wight is 12450kg or just about 27,400lbs leaving you about 10,400lbs of load. 2,400kg bombs is 5280lbs which leaves 5120lbs. Trouble here is that 3580 liters of fuel weighs 5675lbs putting the plane 555lbs over weight. And this is not quite the end. the 17,000lbs is empty equipped. Guns are on board but not ammo? Oil tanks need to filled? how about about 800lbs for the 4 man crew, complete with flying togs and parachutes? we are now around 1700-1800lbs over weight. Either bombs or fuel have to go.

BTW, the first source you listed gives the max weight of the A-1 as 22844 lbs which really cuts into the bomb/fuel load.
Discrepancy between loaded wights may (or may not) be due to the practice of using rockets for take-off assist in "overload" condition. Usually called the A-2 when rockets were fitted?

Old book by William Green (often discredited now) gives a range of 620 miles to the JU-88 with full bomb bays (wing tanks only) at 217mph at 18,050ft.
Ranges and/or speeds with external loads are not given.
One interesting performance specification is is a max ceiling of 32,150ft (weight not given), service ceiling of 26,250ft at 19,750lbs and 22,700ft at 22,840lbs. I wonder what the service ceiling (and speed) was at even 25,800lbs (allowing for burning off 1600lbs of fuel from the Wiki 12,450kg weight)?

The A-4 gets better with a max take-off of about 14,000kg but since the the empty weight also climbed to around 9880kg the practical payload of bombs and fuel didn't change that much from the "12450kg" A-1. Shows a good improvement on the 10,400kg A-1 though

The He 111 could carry 2,000kg INSIDE (no additional drag) while carrying the fuel for 1200 miles. (3458 liters in the wing tanks?)

It could carry 1000kg inside for 1528 miles using one bomb bay tank. And having several hundred less hp than an JU-88A-4 carrying a single 500kg bomb 1953 miles. I wonder what it could do with the JU-88A-4s engines and 600-900 liters in drop tanks?

Perhaps somebody has some manuals or charts for primary sources?

Dive bombing requirement gave Ju-88A a CEP of 50 meters (test conditions). An accuracy He-111 or any other non dive bomber could never hope to match before the introduction of post-WWII bomb sights.

I can scarcely think of a more worthwhile compromise.

I found this interesting aircraft based on the He111 from 1937:
Heinkel He 116 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps with stronger engines it could have been more useful

Not 111-based, mutation of the He 70.

Denniss said:

Not 111-based, mutation of the He 70.

Click to expand...

Technically so was the He111, so it was a version of the He111 from a common ancestor.

The He 111 was morphed into the Zwilling version, and there is nothing saying the center section could not be a bomb bay instead of just a wing joing the two halves. There is development potential there, particularly if the bomb bay could be redesigned, but I like the 4-engine version of the He 177 much more than the 5-engine He 111Z.

He 11Z:

Actually, I'd like a 4-engine He 219 better, too ... or a 4-engine Ju 88 like the Ju 488.

wiking85 said:

I found this interesting aircraft based on the He111 from 1937:
Heinkel He 116 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps with stronger engines it could have been more useful

Click to expand...

Long range mail planes and/or record breakers seldom make good warplanes. They usually are not stressed for combat maneuvers (even bomber type maneuvers) or rugged enough for frontline airfields.

While you can modify practically anything it is often a question is it worthwhile or if you have a different goal just design a new plane with that goal in mind rather than trying to cram square peg in round hole.

All too true, Shortround. The Focke Wulf Fw 200 Condor is an example of a civil plane turned military. It suffered from not being stressed to military standards. Here is a typical overstress on landing: