5% of power is around 1,6% in speed i don't think that the drag of flamedampers is near of hs-293. the limited difference in speed for 2nd row and 3rd row we agree that is probably drag derivated, but as are descript the weapons on the image 2nd3rd row have same weapons.
He177 Speed and Climb
- Thread starter krieghund
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
5% of power is around 1,6% in speed i don't think that the drag of flamedampers is near of hs-293. the limited difference in speed for 2nd row and 3rd row we agree that is probably drag derivated, but as are descript the weapons on the image 2nd3rd row have same weapons.
Hello Vinzenco
Now 1,6% means that a plane capable to 480km/h with 95% power would be capable appr. 488km/h with 100% power. And how much certain items effected speed is sometimes a bit surprising, for ex in Spit V the removal of carburettor intake ice-guard would have increased speed 8 mph (that is almost 13km/h).
Juha
Last edited:
so you came in my position the flamedampers and 5% of power was not enough for recovery the large drag from 2 hs-293, so if they have same speed is because they hae other drag, the bombs underwing
- Thread starter
- #25
Unfortunately, you can't make a silk purse out a sow's ear. The He-177 just has too many issues (and I like this aircraft!) it really needs to be in the configuration of the He-277 and He-274(French AF seemed to have success with theirs)
However, at the end of the day Germany just doesn't the resources to support a "Heavy Bomber Command"
The only actual use of the He-177 as a heavy bomber massed mission I can think of was the attack on the railway center at Velikye Luki by KG-1 with 87 aircraft, otherwise it was just sporadically employed and more of a danger to its crews. A post-war USAAF evaluation called it a kludge. Capt. Brown had a low opinion about it as well.
However, at the end of the day Germany just doesn't the resources to support a "Heavy Bomber Command"
The only actual use of the He-177 as a heavy bomber massed mission I can think of was the attack on the railway center at Velikye Luki by KG-1 with 87 aircraft, otherwise it was just sporadically employed and more of a danger to its crews. A post-war USAAF evaluation called it a kludge. Capt. Brown had a low opinion about it as well.
Hello Vincenzo
sorry, no, I just tried to show, that the question is more complicated than pure power loss question without putting effort to digging out info of effects of the flame dampers to the speeds of He 219A and of Ju 88C
Juha
Hello Vinzenco
yes, I have them samewhere, IIRC I have even posted the Ju88C data somewhere in this site earlier, but I haven't time to dig them out just now. BTW we are probably in wrong track, the Gm in the table is after all probably the normal Gm (weight after ordanance was dropped and ½ of the fuel load used), I thought that A-5 info is with the max medium range bomb load (4 t) but it is in fact with 3 t bomb load, in the row of A-5 the weight calcs aren't right (1 t off) but in the cases of A-3/R2 and A-6 they are correct. So Gm speeds are for after bombing at almost extreme range, but why A-3/R2 speed is too low? Typo? Should be 488, 490 or 498?
BTW in Brown's Wings of LW the max speed of He 177A-5 at 80% of max t/o weight is given as 487km/h. The engine power given is that without flamedampers (t/o power 2x2950hp). the 80% weight (24,8 t) is fairly close to that of the Gm (25,3 t) of missile carrier A-3/R2 and the armament options clearly indicated to a missile carrier. So maybe the speed in the first row is a typo and the right speed for A-3/R2 after launching its missiles and using ½ of its fuel was 488km/h. Or the underwing missile shackles had the same effect on speed as the flame dampers.
Juha
yes, I have them samewhere, IIRC I have even posted the Ju88C data somewhere in this site earlier, but I haven't time to dig them out just now. BTW we are probably in wrong track, the Gm in the table is after all probably the normal Gm (weight after ordanance was dropped and ½ of the fuel load used), I thought that A-5 info is with the max medium range bomb load (4 t) but it is in fact with 3 t bomb load, in the row of A-5 the weight calcs aren't right (1 t off) but in the cases of A-3/R2 and A-6 they are correct. So Gm speeds are for after bombing at almost extreme range, but why A-3/R2 speed is too low? Typo? Should be 488, 490 or 498?
BTW in Brown's Wings of LW the max speed of He 177A-5 at 80% of max t/o weight is given as 487km/h. The engine power given is that without flamedampers (t/o power 2x2950hp). the 80% weight (24,8 t) is fairly close to that of the Gm (25,3 t) of missile carrier A-3/R2 and the armament options clearly indicated to a missile carrier. So maybe the speed in the first row is a typo and the right speed for A-3/R2 after launching its missiles and using ½ of its fuel was 488km/h. Or the underwing missile shackles had the same effect on speed as the flame dampers.
Juha
Last edited:
I'm able to confirm some of the speeds given for the He 177 A-3/R2: A document named "Vorläufige Flugstrecken He 177 A-3/R2 für Rüstzustand C (mit Abstützung, Schlössern und Kehlanlage)" confirms the speeds for VReise at the given alts and the range. No performance given for Kampfleistung or max power except some climb data for Kampfleistung. The climbt times in the doc available in this thread are with Kampfleistung.
Range with Sparflug = 1800rpm and 0.95 ata in horizontal flight
Range with Dauerleistung = 2300rpm and 1.15 ata in horizontal flight
The data is given as November 1943 and the document itself is dated January 1944.
To get speeds of clean He 177 one has to count-in additional speedloss from the external bomb carriers, on the Ju 188E they are accounted for with 5 km/h per carrier.
Range with Sparflug = 1800rpm and 0.95 ata in horizontal flight
Range with Dauerleistung = 2300rpm and 1.15 ata in horizontal flight
The data is given as November 1943 and the document itself is dated January 1944.
To get speeds of clean He 177 one has to count-in additional speedloss from the external bomb carriers, on the Ju 188E they are accounted for with 5 km/h per carrier.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
There was nothing wrong with the He-177 airframe.
During 1938 Heinkel recommended the He-177 be powered by four Jumo 211 engines. Milch refused (Goering and Udet both make this claim). During September 1942 Goering finally over ruled Milich. When the He-177B prototype finally flew during December 1943 aerial performance was considered excellent but it was too late to matter.
If the fat guy had over ruled Milch during 1938 we'd be discussing why the He-177B was so good compared to Allied bombers rather then discussing why it took so long to fix He-177A teething problems.
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
I don't think so Dave.
Cutting the cloth one way impacts it's use availability in other ways.
As I recall didn't someone at the time do a calculation on the necessary fuel requirements of a large 4 engined bomber force conclude that it would require more than the total aviation fuel available to the LW?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree.
If the He-177B (4 x Jumo 211 engines) goes into mass production during 1941 then other German level bombers such as the Do-217, Ju-290, Fw200 and He-111 would probably end production. That will change the war in unpredictable ways.
However during 2012 we would still be discussing what a great aircraft it was. Even if the He-177 wasn't produced in numbers large enough to significantly alter the course of the war.
If the He-177B (4 x Jumo 211 engines) goes into mass production during 1941 then other German level bombers such as the Do-217, Ju-290, Fw200 and He-111 would probably end production. That will change the war in unpredictable ways.
However during 2012 we would still be discussing what a great aircraft it was. Even if the He-177 wasn't produced in numbers large enough to significantly alter the course of the war.
Shortround6
Major General
I don't think so. Structural weaknesses, crap defensive armament and not quite fast enough to not need armament.
Is it a day bomber or a night bomber?
Better than the real He 177 quite possibly but that is damning with faint praise.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
There would be multiple variants. A substantial number would be equipped for maritime attack. Some may even be long range transports ILO the historical Ju-290.
On He 177 defensive armamment, IMHO the dorsal armament was good, I'm not sure on the tail position, maybe as effective /ineffective as that of B-25H/J, underside rear position more or less identical to that of He 111/Ju 88, undernose forward more or less like that of Fw 200, nose handheld 7.92mm gun, pretty ineffective against 43- cannon armed/.5 armed fighters.
Juha
Juha
Shortround6
Major General
The Armament isn't bad by 1940-41 standards but falls increasingly behind.
A single 7.9mm MG out the nose is pretty poor. Right up ( or down) there with later Bristol Blenheims. perhaps OK on the night bomber version?
part of the problem IMHO is the gun positions don't quite line up with the crew listed. 6 man crew? Tail gunner=1, + aft dorsal gunner =2, + forward dorsal gunner=3, + forward gondola gunner=4, aft gondola gunner =5, nose 7.9mm gunner =6. WHO IS FLYING THE PLANE?
Obviously one or more gun positions are MANNED by the same man or more than 6 men are carried.
While the 20mm cannon is a powerful weapon both 20mm gun positions are manually operated and have limited traverse and elevation?
rear belly protection is also by manually aimed gun/s.
The remote control dorsal barbette may or may not have had problems or had problems early that were straightened out?
The dorsal manned turret is described in some sources as powered traverse but manual elevation?
A single 7.9mm MG out the nose is pretty poor. Right up ( or down) there with later Bristol Blenheims. perhaps OK on the night bomber version?
part of the problem IMHO is the gun positions don't quite line up with the crew listed. 6 man crew? Tail gunner=1, + aft dorsal gunner =2, + forward dorsal gunner=3, + forward gondola gunner=4, aft gondola gunner =5, nose 7.9mm gunner =6. WHO IS FLYING THE PLANE?
Obviously one or more gun positions are MANNED by the same man or more than 6 men are carried.
While the 20mm cannon is a powerful weapon both 20mm gun positions are manually operated and have limited traverse and elevation?
rear belly protection is also by manually aimed gun/s.
The remote control dorsal barbette may or may not have had problems or had problems early that were straightened out?
The dorsal manned turret is described in some sources as powered traverse but manual elevation?
wuzak
Captain
Won't a He 177 powered by four Jumo 211s be underpowered? Considering also that it would have more drag than the He 177 with teh DB606/610 powerplants.
The Me 264 prototype was powered by 4 x Jumo 211s (later to be re-engined with BMW 801s, or was that another prototype), and that was very underpowered. I suppose the Me 264 was a bigger airframe too?
The Me 264 prototype was powered by 4 x Jumo 211s (later to be re-engined with BMW 801s, or was that another prototype), and that was very underpowered. I suppose the Me 264 was a bigger airframe too?
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I believe there were some performance stats in this thread....
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...g-cover-designation-really-existed-22578.html
