He-119 Coupled Engines

Discussion in 'Engines' started by davebender, Jan 19, 2010.

  1. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Heinkel He 119 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Heinkel had extensive experience with coupled engines during 1936 to 1938. So why did they have so much trouble getting the arrangemet to work properly on the He-177 bomber?
     
  2. riacrato

    riacrato Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Project Manager in FADEC industrialization
    I don't think enough data is available to rule out the He 119 wouldn't have run into the same problems as the He 177.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree. However if coupled engine development began during 1936 (i.e. as soon as the DB600 was certified for production) then Heinkel had 3 years R&D experience with the system before the He-177 prototype first flight. That's long enough to accumulate a considerable amount of test data.

    Personally I still prefer the Dornier tandem engine approach for a zerstorer. But Heinkel might have followed up the He-119 with a zerstorer design of their own using coupled engines.

    The Me-110 appears to have been a dead end design with a max speed of about 350 mph. The Me-210 had all sorts of development problems. That should have left RLM open to alternate ideas for a follow-on zerstorer.
     
  4. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    The problems with the 210 weren't known until it was test flown, the Arado 240 also had a number of problems.
    These were conventional twin engine planes. Unconventional aircraft, while not necessarily worse, would have posed and even bigger risk. This would have meant continuing development of the conventional aircraft (or a new design of conventional type) as back up. Given the usual 1-2 year delay between concept and flying prototype timing of a 110 replacement (or even substitute) might be little tricky.
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Tandem engines were "conventional" for Dornier. So something like the Do-335 presents no special development risks as long as it's a Dornier design.

    I agree that coupled engines were unconventional (for everyone). So were jet engines. Yet lots of money was poured into both projects.
     
  6. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Tandem engines in a nacelle, either over wing or under wing or between wings were conventional for quite few people besides Dornier, see a number of French planes or see the Handley Page V/1500 among others.

    tandem engines with one propeller at the nose and another behind the tail surfaces were not quite the same thing.
     
  7. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    THE ENGINE INSTALLATION IN THE HE177 WAS THE PROBLEM NOT THE ENGINE

    THE INSTALLATION IN THE HE119 WAS DIFFERENT FOR THE DB606 AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS KEPT IN SERVICE AS A TEST BED FOR THE DB610 AND DB613

    IT GAVE NO ENGINE RELATED TROUBLES
     
  8. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Which brings us back to my original question. If Heinkel had the coupled engine working just fine in the He-119 then why did it take so long to make it work properly in the He-177? Heinkel already knew what sort of engine mount, cooling system and shrouding arrangement would work.
     
  9. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    The reason is called the RLM...they had to open their shirt buttons to see cause they had their heads fully inserted..(lucky for us eh!)

    I have worked in several air force's HQs and I can tell you with first hand knowledge how stuff can go pear shaped really fast especially where hard headed personalities control the subjects and you can't tell them they are wrong.
     
  10. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I served in the USN during 1979 to 1985. I served in the U.S. Army during 1986 to 1999 (when I retired). I had my share of HQ problems too. I was counting on new guys like you to fix all the problems that I couldn't during my 20 years of service! :lol:
     
  11. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Part of the problem may have been that while the engines in the 119 used the same gearbox and spacing as the 177 the actual space available for the entire installation may have been some what larger in the He 119.

    With the idea of reducing drag the cowl/nacelles of the HE 177 might have been a little restrictive and forced the too close placement of fuel/oil lines and exhaust.

    Just speculating but a successful application of an engine in one installation does not always mean a successful installation in a second application.
     
  12. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree. However knowing what will work in the He-119 should make it a lot easer to make the same engines work in a different airframe.
     
  13. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
Loading...

Share This Page