Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True, but on the same page the author writes that his engine problem was cured with a new engine. The original motor was sent back to Rolls Royce. He never said that his assigned Spitfire was any slower or faster than others in his squadron.
...
There was no problem attaching auxiliary tanks under the belly of the G 55....
The prototype of MC 200, as all the early monoplanes as the G50, had some problem of stability, so the the wing profiles were changed and wash out added. While the MC 200 wing was mantained both in MC202 and 205, both G55 and Re 2005 had different profiles than their predecessors.
...
You also have large flat fuel tanks in the wing.
At the time the He 100s were built the 109s were not being fitted with the armor, bullet proof glass and self sealing tanks they would have later in the BoB. It is hard to believe the HE 100s were fitted all three in 1939 when the 109s going into combat in Poland didn't have all three.
That were not of self sealing variety?
Indeed, and with the number of changes going to the 109F variant and the (supposed) low parts count and mass production optimization of the He 100, switching over production rather than retooling for the 109F may have made a good deal of sense.Well yes, radical changes might have been necessary for further growth, but is it really that big of a deal considering the radical changes that the Bf 109 (F) and Fw 190 (D) went through? But any speculation on preformance (of the new variant), etc is really just that, speculation.
Also, I did some quick calculations on the wing loading between the Bf 109E and He 100D-1, and I found that the He 100 has a wind loading of 171.2kg/m while the Bf 109E has one of 159.5kg/m. Thoughts?
Also remember that the 190A greatly increased in weight from the A-1 to A-8, and a DB-601 powered version should have been significantly lighter. (enough that it may have had similar wing loading on the original small wing but certainly lower on the large one -and with a high lift airfoil at that, it very well may have out-turned the spitfire and maybe even hurricane while still being faster)EDIT: It is worth noting that the Fw 190A had an even higher wing loading of 241.3kg/m(!).
All of the he-100s produced had surface evaporation cooling. The retractable radiator on the D-1 subtype were to fix the problems with overheating during taxi and climb.
A proposed production version would have had a much larger belly radiator and no surface cooling. You can find a picture of this online.
Indeed, from the limited information I've seen, the claims are that the pre-production He 100D-0 used surface cooling with a small, supplemental retractable radiator beneath the cockpit.The initial (albeit extremely short) production version of the He-100 (the D-1) did not have surface cooling and also had armor. The performance was brought down a tad, but not nearly as much as you suggest.
Take the Mustang off that list, it was about as overbuilt and correspondingly heavy for its size as the P-40 and P-39 (and pretty much all American fighters). It just had the advantage of exceptionally low drag for its weight and size.Fw 190 possessed THE fighter airframe of ww2 (for land-based fighters), and was seldom equaled, let alone surpassed by another piston-engined airframes.
It was constructed vey strong, actually TOO strong. It was heavy. It was good for ground attacking, but all this weight was bad for the Air superiority role. It s not luck that the best Air superiority fighters of the was were NOT famous for their toughness(Spitfire,P51,KI84,La7
Also remember that the 190A greatly increased in weight from the A-1 to A-8, and a DB-601 powered version should have been significantly lighter. (enough that it may have had similar wing loading on the original small wing but certainly lower on the large one -and with a high lift airfoil at that, it very well may have out-turned the spitfire and maybe even hurricane while still being faster)
However, they were reportedly encountered and shot down even as late as 1943!The He 113 had excellent performance
Now there was a fighter.
I am not worried about the cannon's weight, I would be worried about it actually working in 1939 and 1940. If it doesn't (and the 109s engine cannon didn't work in those years) you are down to the two machineguns or if we are feeling charitable, four MG 17s in the wing roots.
I would also be worried about the effect of self-sealing tanks. I have the book in question and it doesn't say one way or the other. However most if not all of the He 100s were completed in 1939 with the last ones finished in very early 1940.
Records are not good. Officially there were NO 100Ds. There were 5 pre series aircraft V1-4 and V8. There were 3 A-O aircraft or block I aircraft, V5, V6 and V7. The block II aircraft comprised the V9/A-04, the V-10/A-05 and the A-06 - A-014 but not all may have been completed. The Block III aircraft were to be designated A-015 - A-025. Exact cut off of production is not given. either 24 or 25 airframes total were built. 6 went to Russia, 3 went to Japan one or two were tested to destruction in ground rigs, one crashed in Sept 1938 (V3) and the V8 went to the Deutsches Museum.
According to the book there were no company records of B, C, or D versions or at least no surviving records.
Detail design work on the 4 gun wing was halted very early during project (or at least by the time the first few planes had flown.
The He 113 had excellent performance
Now there was a fighter.
If I might be permitted to make a slight correction, Neil said they got a "genuine" 325 mph, which doesn't have quite the same ring about it as "only," in fact one could be forgiven for thinking that he was actually quite pleased with it, especially as he later says, " In terms of performance, the Mk.XII could outdistance a FW190 - as it was obliged to do when operating in the reconnaissance role - and also the Typhoon. As regards in-fighting, there were few opportunities to test our Mk.XII's capabilities, although we were always confident we could outperform anything the opposition could put up, most encounters resolving themselves into high-speed chases or escapes,"Squadron Leader Neil of No. 41 Sqn noted that Spitfires built to Mk XII specs (1735 bhp with +12 lbs. Boost) were good for only 325 mph at sea level; .
Indeed, from the limited information I've seen, the claims are that the pre-production He 100D-0 used surface cooling with a small, supplemental retractable radiator beneath the cockpit.
The D-1 production aircraft supposedly equipped armor, were armed (and employed as factory defense), along with a deepened rear fuselage housing an expanded belly radiator and elliminating the surface cooling.
One part of the confusion may be that evaporative cooling was still used, but I believe this was true of all German water cooled engines that featured pressurized cooling systems. The coolant was allowed to (partially) boil in the cooling jacket and better transfer heat due to phase transition and particularly avoid hot spots, and featuring a centrifugal steam separator with the radiator being used to both cool the hot liquid and condense the limited amount of steam before returning it to the header tank. Evaporative cooling ended up being quite practical, especially with glycol or similar coolants in short supply (mainly used only as antifreeze in german engines), but it was surface cooling that went nowhere. (being extremely vulnerable, unreliable, and prone to overheating/warping aircraft skin -the same would apply to surface cooling omitting an evaporation/condensation component and simply piping hot coolant along the aircraft wing/fusalage surfaces -which the prototype and D-0 He 100s also did for both oil and coolant)
Some G 55s are said to be capable of carrying a pair of 160kg bombs under the wings. With suitable piping and pumps it would seem that 30imp gallon tanks would not be big problem. Post war versions (G 59s) definitely carried drop tanks ( they also used Merlin engines) 0f 125 liters (27.5 Imp gallons).
What type and thickness were the wing profiles of the G.55 and Re.2005?
That was the G.55S (S = silurante, or, very roughly, a 'torpedo fighter'). What was the cost in drag with two separated radiators, ease of modification? FWIW I like the idea
The cooling system in the all built versions of the He-100 used evaporative, ie condensing steam in the wings, for cooling. The tiny retractable radiator was added between the wing header tank circuit, and offered negligible cooling when retracted.
We know that the last production block (D-1) used this system as photos of the engine bay exist that show several features related to the steam cooling system.
As for the deeper radiator on the D-1: I believe that you are getting confused with the proposed production/export model for Japan, which did do away with the complex cooling system and replaced it with a deeper radiator. A quick comparison of photos of the Soviet 100d with the d-1s will show their radiators to be the same.
Furthermore, at least one He-100 was flown with He-177 style radiators. Although this may have been as part of aerodynamic testing for that program.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you or the author got something wrong as I have found nothing to support that the Japanese bought D-1's (the version without surface cooling prevalent in all previous versions).
The 3 sold to Japan were the D-0, designated as the AXHei by the IJN/IJA and a factory was being constructed at Chiba to produce them. They were not intended as export, and had to receive permission from the RLM before sales to any country was considered.You misunderstood.
There was a variant of the He-100 with an enlarged radiator in a deepened fuselage intended for license production in Japan.
I meant that this might be where he is getting the idea that the "D-1" had no surface cooling. In reality the later production block aircraft possessed tweaked versions of the cooling system from the v series.
The 3 sold to Japan were the D-0, designated as the AXHei by the IJN/IJA and a factory was being constructed at Chiba to produce them. They were not intended as export, and had to receive permission from the RLM before sales to any country was considered.
Seven of the prototypes were sold to Russia:
V1, V2, V4, V5, V6 and V7