He 112 as the only day-fighter for LW in 1936-43?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,640
4,862
Apr 3, 2008
For the sake of discussion - the He 112 wins the contest for the new fighter, and it is accordingly produced en masse.
(the Bf 110 gets produced in a limited quantity for the roles of long range recon and as a fast bomber/strafer so it can hit enemy airports before the main bomber force arrives)
Once the DB 601A is there, the He 112 gets it, ditto for other engines of DB 601/605 familliy. BMW 801 powers the bombers/attackers (or, if you want it badly, it gets installed on the He 112), the He 112 is not to be replaced with any other piston-powered fighter in production & service.

With all this prelude - what consequences this might have on Luftwaffe/German/Axis fortunes of aerial war of 1939-43-45?
 
Hard to say, getting good information on the He 112 is not easy.
Some numbers just appear to good to be true. Like the max cruise of 301 mph at 13,120ft using a Jumo 210Ea engine (carburetor?)
Or max range of 683 miles? speed and altitude not given. Anybody know the fuel capacity? one source say 320 liters.
Plane weight 4,960lbs.
figures are from old William Green book
This site has different and may be better? Heinkel He-112B The Forgotten Fighter.

So it is almost as fast as a Hurricane on much less power, (granted the Hurricane is a lot bigger and heavier)
Hurricane I with 2 pitch prop does 305mph at 13,000ft using 2850rpm and 6 1/4 lbs of boost.
Hurricane is 1400lbs heavier.

You only have a 183 sq ft wing on the later planes. Stick in the DB 601 engines and a lots of fuel and the wing loading goes to pot real fast.

What was the airfoil on the He 112?
It looks thick but looks can be deceiving, it did use a long cord so thickness may not be as great as it appears, However it had about the lowest aspect ratio of any fighter used in WW II.

Effect of that?
 
The "too good to be true" performance claims is probably without any kind of armor and/or equipment for use as military aircraft (guns/ammo?/radios).
Jumo 210E was a bomber engine, B/D/G was used in fighters.
Another problem was ists productivity, I doubt it could be produced as fast as the Bf 109.
 
Are we getting the He112b? The development that followed the selection of bf109 for mass production? That was a significantly different aircraft.
 

Yak-1 series have had the wing of 184 sq ft, the Bf 109E have had 176 sq ft, MC.202 - 182 sq ft. So the wing size of the He 112 is almost identical to the similar & widely used 'continental' fighters. With regard to the speed, the 300+ mph speed figures were probably for the later Jumo 210s, like the G (670 HP at 13500? ft).
2x101 L of fuel was housed in the wings, 115L was housed under the pilot = 317 L total (70 imp gals) - data for the He 112B.
Wing of the Hurricane was too big and too thick, consequence being that a lot of aircraft were making about the same speed on 60-70% power, or were 10-20% faster on same power.

What was the airfoil on the He 112?
Click to expand...

Not sure.

It looks thick but looks can be deceiving, it did use a long cord so thickness may not be as great as it appears, However it had about the lowest aspect ratio of any fighter used in WW II.

Effect of that?
Click to expand...

Good rate of roll?

RW Mk. III said:
Are we getting the He112b? The development that followed the selection of bf109 for mass production? That was a significantly different aircraft.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer the He 112B, I find the wing less of the airbrake than it seemed at the 112A.
 
The He112B was the result of airframe improvements (as it was with any other type) and it would be interesting to see how the 112 would have evolved if it was in production, like.the Bf109 and Fw190.

One of the reasons the early 112 had performance issues, was it"s open cockpit and other penalties. The B series saw alot of improvements and of interest, was the He112's canopy design that offered high visability.
 


Thank you.
Thing is there were two different He 112s, the one the flew against the Bf 109 in the tests and the one that wound up being exported. The entire wing was changed, Span, planform, area (247 sq ft to 183 sq ft?) and construction (two spar to one main spar and two auxiliary spars).

I don't really have a problem with fighters having 170-190 sq ft wings, just don't tell me they are long range fighters.
The Japanese Ki 61 used a 215 sq ft wing of high aspect ratio and good attention to drag to get it's range (along with 550 liters of internal fuel, at least in early versions?)

If you want to replace the 110 you need need range/endurance like the 110. The 110 carried 635 liters(?) of fuel per engine internal.

We have a bunch (conflicting) of performance figures for the Jumo 210 powered He 112 and none (or very little) for a DB 601 powered version.

Stick armor in the He 112, expand the tankage to 500 liters or more (drop tank and 320 liters inside isn't going to work) make it self sealing, install the DB 601 engine.
Are you really going to get a fighter much better than the 109E? perhaps you will. Is it going to be any better than the 109F-0 in performance?
 

Yes, on all accounts.


I have no intention to make the P-51D out of He 112(B).
OTOH, Luftwaffe does not need the 700+ miles worth of radius, initially they need to cover Poland (whole, preferably) and better part of France; once that north of France and Belgium (+Netherlands if possible from 1939-ish point of view) is under German control they might want to cover what is left of France + a good deal of UK if the UK comes out to play (that they did - whoops). For that to achieve, the Daimlerized He 112 will need to bump up the internal fuel up to at least where Bf 109E was (400L as we all know), if not to 500L, and a drop tank (300L, as per historically on LW 1-engine fighters), while being more streamlined (to up the mileage along with speed).
Caen to Manchester, as the crow flies, is 300 miles; same for Rotterdam to Manchester.


On same engine, it might be at least as good as the Bf 109E - for all of it's qualities, Emil seem to be the slowest of all DB 601A powered 1-engined fighters, the streamlining left a lot to be desired. The 109F cured a lot of that (cantilever tail, retractable tailwheel, smooth nose, better air intake, better radiators, no cannon barrels protruding, just one cannon barrel opening...), however the He 112 already had some of these features. All in all, I'd settle if the He 112 can be in-between (performance-vise) the 109E and 109F0. It will still offer the better canopy and undercarriage.
 
He 112B was not a success while serving with Romanian AF, so IMHO not so great a/c
 
Juha3 said:
He 112B was not a success while serving with Romanian AF, so IMHO not so great a/c
Click to expand...

The Jumo 210 was making 2/3rds of power of M-105, and 50-60% of power the German engines of 1941-43 were doing. No wonder the He 112B was not a success. Here, as the only day fighter up until 1943, the He 112 with 50-100% increase of power (DB 601, 605) should be something else.
 
tomo pauk said:
Thousands - really?
Click to expand...

Positively amazed that you were not aware of this. See Peter Schmoll's " Me 109 Produktion und Einsatz " (MZ Buchverlag, 2017) for Me 109 losses - there is, for example, on pages 191-193 a full break down of Me 109 losses for 1944 and 1945 headed " Totale Verluste Durch- Ohne Feindeinwirkung" ( Total losses through- and without enemy intervention). So for the month of December 1944 alone, Me 109 losses 'ohne Feindeinwirkung' (ie 'accidents') total 570. This is more or less the monthly figure for Bf 109 accidents for EVERY SINGLE MONTH through 1944. ( although accidents in October and November 1944 were not quite so high, 'just' 400 Me 109s lost through accidents in each of these two months). So, yes, thousands of Me 109s were lost in accidents, primarily because the aircraft was 'tricky' to take off and land, especially for inexperienced pilots. You are presumably also not aware that Wolfgang Falck wrote a piece in the German fighter pilot's association magazine stating that one of the major 'failures' of the Luftwaffe was preferring the Me 109 to the He 112....
 
Last edited:

Thank you for the data samples.

I've looked at the US aircraft lost at CONUS in ww2. USAAF have suffered ~7000 fighters lost, December of 1941 to the end of 1945. They also lost 6000 bombers, and 10000+ of other types (mostly trainers? liaison? plus transports). Total of ~23000. Plus how much the USN and Marines lost?
In theaters of the war, USAAF was loosing two aircraft not due to enemy cation for each aircraft lost due to enemy action in theaters vs. Japan (rouhgly 5000:2500). In theaters vs. Germany, ratio was 1 loss that was not due to enemy action vs. 2 lost due to the enemy action (roughly 7000:14000; all figures until February 1945).
Basically USAAF lost two aircraft without enemy action for each aircraft lost due to the enemy action, despite the elaborate training program. My point being that putting most of the blame on Bf 109 for accidents is probably not correct.
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
Thank you for the data samples.

My point being that putting most of the blame on Bf 109 for accidents is probably not correct.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying...what else would you put it on? Bad weather, poor training? The Bf 109 was a small, high-powered fighter that was difficult to take off and land because of torque, narrow-track gear, poor visibility, narrow-cramped cockpit, high-wing loading etc etc..My point being many 'thousands' of Bf 109s losses were 'avoidable' as Falck said when arguing that the Jagdwaffe may have been better off putting the He 112 into service rather than the Me 109. The figures quoted above don't include damaged or combat losses.
 

The He 112 with DB 605s of 1500+ HP, much increased torque and wing loading (due to heavy powerplant, armament & ammo, fuel and protection) would not remain as docile as the historical He 112Bs.
Pilot training was certainly not a bright spot for Luftwaffe past 1942, fresh pilots with half, if so, hours of flying will still be challenged with the 'Chad He-112's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
marathag
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
9K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
K
Overlord/D-Day and the Me-262
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
pigeon
Menu
Log in
Register