Heinkel He 112

[davebender]

If this were true the He-111 would have been cancelled during the fall of 1940, completely replaced by the Do-217. And someone besides Heinkel would have won the Bomber A competition.

Engines are the real issue. Germany had essentially no military aircraft engine industry at all in 1934. By 1939 they were still struggling to produce enough DB601 engines. That forced the Luftwaffe to make tough choices as to which aircraft programs would get engines. Give 1938 Germany an adequate supply of DB601 engines and I am reasonably sure the He-112 / He-100 program would be building and selling aircraft. The Luftwaffe would almost certainly purchase some in addition to foreign sales.

 

[Civettone]

I think the claim is that the bias was against Heinkel building FIGHTER aircraft.

Even if there were sufficient DBs I still don't see any reason to produce both the Bf 109 and the He 112. If they had really wanted to have both they could have. Then there would be few Bf 109s and few He 112s but the total number of the DB powered fighters would probably have been the same.


Kris

 

[Marcel]

I would love to see that Marcel. If nobody else is interested you can also just send the Dutch version to me


Kris

Hi Kris, it's not an official report. It's from the publication of the Dutch defence department called "Illusies en Incidenten", which describes politics, build-up and actions of the Military airforce during the run-up to WWII. Tonight I'll see if I can get my scanner working under my new Linux OS and then send it to you. Maybe you could PM me your e-mail adres?

 

[davebender]

Even if there were sufficient DBs I still don't see any reason to produce both the Bf 109 and the He 112.

Britain produced the Spitfire and Hurricane simultaneously. The USA produced the P-38, P-39 and P-40 simultaneously. The Soviet Union produced MiGs, YaKs and LaGs simultaneously.

These fighter aircraft were cutting edge technology during the late 1930s. Without hindsight you cannot be certain which aircraft model(s) have the best development potential. Having two or three fighter types in production provides insurance that at least one will turn out to be a war winner. That holds true even if both models are powered by the same engine as was the case for both British and American fighter aircraft. The only catch is you need enough engine production capacity, which Germany did not have during the 1930s.

 

[Civettone]

Marcel its my nickname at hotmail.com

Dave, you are right, we recently also had a discussion about the value of having two fighter designs in production, so one could always function as a backup. I think then we were talking about the He 100 and Fw 190 but yes, the He 112 would also be an option.
Yet ... it would be nice if the He 112 actually had some advantage over the Bf 109 in one field, for instance (much) better range, more versatile, carry more bombs, easier to produce or something. That I don't see with the He 112.
But then again, I also don't see it with the LaGG-3 or P-40.

Kris

 

[riacrato]

That decision depends on what ist the bottleneck. For German fighters in 1939 (as well as later) the engine clearly was the bottleneck, hence the decision not to overstress engine production even more by introducing another fighter.

How about the Allison powered US fighters or the Russian ones? No idea. But for the British it seems the airframe of the Spitfire itself was the bottleneck so it was acceptable to keep other designs with the same engines in production as long as the Spitfire could not meet demand alone. Also the Hurricane was a more simple and cheaper design, a crucial feature in the months leading to the BoB.

The He 112 was inferior to the Bf 109 even in that regard. While you have a valid point with what you say about development potential it was very clear that the He 112 was not up to par in that aspect. You could even say the later prototypes and production planes already incorporated serious re-designs when compared to the original model, whereas the 109 was 'stable' in that regard until the F and G models.

EDIT: Like Civ said, the underlying problem of the He 112 is that it really doesn't offer anything significantly better than the Bf 109, while being clearly worse with regards to mass production, maturity of the design and (to some degree) performance.

Now the He 100, that is the more interesting discussion (with similar outcome )

 

[davebender]

I doubt the He-112 per se woud enter mass production as it was too expensive. It will be the follow-on He-100 that enters mass production if DB601 engines are available.

The He-100 might not have a lot of development potential. However long term potential isn't the priority when being invaded by the Soviet Union or Japan. Finland, Romania and China would be thrilled to purchase inexpensive He-100s during 1939. Switzerland, Turkey, Hungary, Spain, Sweden, Greece, Yugoslavia and Norway are also potential customers. Plus a few Luftwaffe squadrons operating the He-100 for comparison purposes.

 

[ChaseR83]

Build time for the 112 was its main disadvantage IMO,

But a reasonable person would see the value in not placing all your eggs in one basket. Since the Luftwaffe wanted to re-arm quickly the Bf 109 makes sense in that respect.... but building a complementary fighter in addition to the 109 seems like common sense.

I don't see how the 112 didn't have development potential... in its original form. Yes the open cockpit was outdated... but they was nothing else wrong with the A-series planes. The time consuming re-design was of little value... the smaller wing and new fuselage, and weight reduction did little to boost performance.

The B series was maybe 10mph faster than the A, with higher wing loading to boot. Had a modified A series stayed in production long enough for engines to catch up.... even more powerful versions of the Jumo... a heavily cannon armed 112 would have been valuable against bomber formations... or it could have carried 2 drop tanks for longer range... etc.

The 112 had another advantage... it was built tough. Even country that flew the 112 did so in lousy conditions... muddy airfields, no spare parts, etc, they kept flying.

How many other fighters built in 1938 were still flying in '45 with their original engines?

 

[Marcel]

EDIT: Like Civ said, the underlying problem of the He 112 is that it really doesn't offer anything significantly better than the Bf 109, while being clearly worse with regards to mass production, maturity of the design and (to some degree) performance.

Now the He 100, that is the more interesting discussion (with similar outcome )

It's true that the A-version of the He112 was virtually non-existant in the sense that they kept on re-designing it. Hence the Bf109 won as it was at that time a more mature design. The B version of the He112 (prototype V9) was another matter. This was an aircraft that AFAIK was considered to be better than the Bf109B, having the same engine. By that time it was too late for Heinkel as the opinion was already set on buying the Bf109. As I said, the Dutch tested V9 and were considering to buy the He112 with DB601A engine. Unfortunately they never did this (too expensive, typically Dutch ) so we'll never know how it would have performed against the Bf109E.
Many people are talking about inferior performance of the He112 compared to the Bf109. Remember the He112 was only Jumo-powered, while the Bf109 later on had a much better engine, which the He112 could have had.
I also don't understand the argument that the Bf109 was easier to mass-manufacture as the He112 had an elliptical wing. The British never seemed to have that problem. Their output of fighter during BoB was twice as high as the Germans had and we all know the shape of the Spitfire's wing

Having said all this, I don't think the He112 would have made things very different. If it had any advantages it wouldn't have been significant. But I think the RLM made a mistake in not buying the He100. It's longer legs would have made it more suitable for the BoB. And those engines could have been made available by cancelling the Bf110C.

 

[davebender]

To the contrary, a Spitfire airframe required over twice as many man hours to produce as a Me-109 airframe. Britain achieved high production of the Spitfire the same way the USA achieved high production of the horribly expensive P-38s and P-47s. They threw money at the problem.

WWII Germany cannot afford high priced fighter aircraft on top of what it costs to maintain 150 or so army divisions in combat. Nations like Finland, Romania and the Netherlands cannot afford high priced aircraft either.

 

[Marcel]

Nations like Finland, Romania and the Netherlands cannot afford high priced aircraft either.

We had the G.1, quite expensive. The Germans had their Bf110, also quite expensive. And the He111 had elliptical wings as well, which didn't prevent it from being the main bomber during most of the war. My believe is the He112 wasn't chosen because it wasn't ready at the right time. Same counts for the He100, it was just too late as authorities had already chosen.
About the acquisition of aircraft in The Netherlands in the '30ies we could have a whole different discussion. Most of the decisions were political and didn't make much sense. The Dutch actually lost a lot of money and effectiveness because of these political wanderings. But I will not bother you with the boring details Be assured that the money wasn't the biggest problem.

 

[ChaseR83]

It stikes me as odd....

That a government run by a dictator was worried about cost??? Man-hours to build maybe, but I doubt cost was the factor. But then again any aircraft with very high attrition isn't a good bargain ( cough, cough Bf 110, cough cough ) is poor bargain, especially in lost pilots.

 

[davebender]

any aircraft with very high attrition isn't a good bargain ( cough, cough Bf 110

The Me-110 didn't suffer high attrition until 1940. The Luftwaffe reacted promptly by slashing Me-110 production in half and most of those went to the night fighter force. As has been pointed out elsewhere, not many Me-110s were still serving as day fighters by the fall of 1940.

Me-110 fighter production.
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1939. 156. Essentially none at all.
1940. 1,006. Fewer then 100 per month.
1941. 594. Fewer then 50 per month.
1942. 501.
1943. 641.
1944. 128.

 

[Shortround6]

The Me-110 didn't suffer high attrition until 1940. The Luftwaffe reacted promptly by slashing Me-110 production in half and most of those went to the night fighter force. As has been pointed out elsewhere, not many Me-110s were still serving as day fighters by the fall of 1940.

Me-110 fighter production.
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1939. 156. Essentially none at all.
1940. 1,006. Fewer then 100 per month.
1941. 594. Fewer then 50 per month.
1942. 501.
1943. 641.
1944. 128.

Perhaps WiKi should check with it self?

Messerschmitt Bf 110 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Number built 6,170 [1] "

 

[davebender]

About half of that number were recon and light attack variants. Roughly 3,000 Me-110s served in the fighter role and most of those were night fighters.

 

[riacrato]

We had the G.1, quite expensive. The Germans had their Bf110, also quite expensive. And the He111 had elliptical wings as well, which didn't prevent it from being the main bomber during most of the war. My believe is the He112 wasn't chosen because it wasn't ready at the right time. Same counts for the He100, it was just too late as authorities had already chosen.
About the acquisition of aircraft in The Netherlands in the '30ies we could have a whole different discussion. Most of the decisions were political and didn't make much sense. The Dutch actually lost a lot of money and effectiveness because of these political wanderings. But I will not bother you with the boring details Be assured that the money wasn't the biggest problem.

The elliptical wing of the He 111 was dropped after the early versions exactly for the fact that they were time consuming to build. The later versions still had a redesigned, to some degree swept wing but it wasn't elliptical any longer.

 

[davparlr]

Here is some info I found while doing my weekly "He 112" internet search.

He 112B:
Engine: Junkers Jumo-210 680 HP
Speed (ground level): 430 km/h
Speed (optimal altitude): 510 km/h
Climb: 700 m/min
Range: 1100 km

Bf 109B:
Engine: Junkers Jumo-210 680 HP
Speed (ground level): 420 km/h
Speed (optimal altitude): 470 km/h
Climb: 600 m/min
Range: 700 km

Again I can't vouch for accuracy because I found it on the net.

Data I have shows

He 112B-0
Engine: Junkers Jumo-210 680 hp
Speed (SL): 430 km/hr (267 mph)
Speed max: 510 km/h at 4000m (317 mph at 13,120ft)
Range: 900 km (560 miles)

Bf 109B-1
Engine: Junkers Jumo Da 640 hp
Speed max: 470 km/hr (292 mph)
Range: 750 km (470 miles)

He 112V-10
Engine: DB 601A 1100 hp
Speed (SL): 458 km/hr (285 mph)
Speed max: 570 km/hr (354 mph)
Range: 1150 km (715 miles)

Bf 109E-1
Engine: DB 601A 1100 hp
Speed (SL): 467 km (290 mph)
Speed max: 570 km/hr (354 mph)
Range: 660 km (410 miles)

It is apparent that the He 112 had about 75 % more range than the Bf-109 with the DB 601A engine. Now the question is that, since range can be swapped for time on target, would an extra 75% percent time on target (35 min vs. 20 min) have significantly affected the outcome of the BoB? (I'm not really sure 75% range converts to 75% time on target, so, it's a guess to make a point).

 

[davebender]

He 112 had about 75 % more range than the Bf-109 with the DB 601A engine.

And yet the He-112 carried significantly less fuel. I find that difficult to believe.

 

[Marcel]

I see two things in this thread, some are talking about lower fuel capacity (hence shorter range) and others are talking about longer range and quoting numbers. Maybe all could give their sources so we could decide which numbers are the most reliable? I'm sure that most info about the He112 has disappeared in the mist of time and info on the bird will be very unreliable. Difficult to say hwat the performance would have been...

 

[davparlr]

I see two things in this thread, some are talking about lower fuel capacity (hence shorter range) and others are talking about longer range and quoting numbers. Maybe all could give their sources so we could decide which numbers are the most reliable? I'm sure that most info about the He112 has disappeared in the mist of time and info on the bird will be very unreliable. Difficult to say hwat the performance would have been...

My source is "German Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner and Heinz Nowarra. While it has not been flawless, it has been very dependable on most of the discussion we have had on German aircraft.