Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

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


Oh I'm sorry! Perhaps you can provide some suggestions on how I can avoid citing irrelevant information, moving the goalposts and gatekeeping!

"Don't confuse relevant with significant or important - the issues were significant and/or important, but they not relevant."

I bet you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Your OP specifies four engines, not four props. Doesn't the He-177 qualify as four-engined, in one sense?
Click to expand...
I also visited this thread thinking of the He-177, though you could say it's a grey area.

If I remember correctly there was also a planned night fighter variant and they also experimented with all manners of heavy guns and rockets to convert it into a sort of gunship.
In retrospect, the He-177 might have been a good twin engine fast bomber, without all that extra metal needed to withstand a dive and with a pair of powerful engines in the 2000-2500hp class (which Germany didn't have at the time)
 

Agreed, it's always struck me as a promising design burdened with the ridiculous diving requirements.
 
Admiral Beez said:
When empty but for fuel, oil and crew the Stirling IV transport, powered by four Bristol Hercules XVI engines might have been a hoot to push about.

View attachment 655723
Click to expand...
I think you were closer than you might think. The Sterling always had a reputation for being agile and the Transport version could only have improved on that.

For agility the Sterling would be my contender for the title
 
Lancaster was mentioned already. From the book I'm reading now, young pilot's first impressions:
"They are the most beautiful kites imaginable to fly — they climb like a bat out of hell, very light and responsive to the controls. The main trouble is trying to keep the speed down . . . Quite easy to land — you feel them down like a Tiger Moth...
These kites steep turn beautifully. ... Coming back feathered an engine and flew hands and feet off on three. Cut another engine on the same side and flew on two. It maintains height easily. When we were on three it was climbing at 160 on plus 2, 2200 rpm. They're wizard."
(Charlwood, Don. Journeys Into Night: Remarkable first-hand accounts from the Bomber Command. Lume Books. Kindle Edition.)
 
Have you read Don Charlwood's book, "No Moon Tonight"? Superb.
 
JDCAVE said:
Have you read Don Charlwood's book, "No Moon Tonight"? Superb.
Click to expand...
I have not. But thanks for the hint. No Kindle edition so far, but I'll include it into my wish list.
From Amazon's review of "Journeys into night":
"It forms a companion piece to Charlwood's highly-regarded elegy on Bomber Command, No Moon Tonight, expanding on the author's experiences as a WWII navigator. "
 
msxyz said:
In retrospect, the He-177 might have been a good twin engine fast bomber, without all that extra metal needed to withstand a dive and with a pair of powerful engines in the 2000-2500hp class
Click to expand...

It had promise, but it was poorly executed, and was beset by manufacturing and development issues ranging over quite a period of time, it also did not meet performance targets; in mid 1942 E-Stelle 177 reported that the aircraft had a range of 1,305 miles, with a maximum speed of just 244 mph while carrying a 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) load, lower than expected, which led to conclusions that maritime attacks could not be made before March 1943. The He 177A-3 was also a maintenance hog; after every sortie each aircraft required extensive maintenance checks, a 25 hour servicing owing to the sophistication of some of the equipment on board, which suffered consistent failures operationally. It was recognised as being far more maintenance intensive than the Fw 200.

And then there were production difficulties, which constantly delayed the type's operational debut. By early 1943, it was recorded that 26 faulty DB 610 engines had to be replaced within the Staffeln. By August 1943, only 20 He 177A-3s were built and there was a shortfall of around 800 (!) replacement serviceable engines required for completed aircraft and airframes on the production line. Bearing in mind that production and delivery was slow and intermittent to the Staffeln, this was a serious blow to the type's availability.

In operational service the aircraft experienced constant mechanical faults, which reduced available numbers, let alone the continuing engine issues, which, by April 1944 only four replacement units had been delivered for 60 He 177s in service. Attrition was high as well, with crashes suffered by inexperienced crews; II/KG 1 lost seven aircraft alone in training accidents during the type conversion in May 1944.

Once operational KG 1's aircraft suffered losses against Soviet positions during low-level ground attack runs, surely not a sensible attack strategy for such a large aircraft, and several were shot down during raids in July 1944 against advancing Soviet armour. Following these, I and II KG 1 aircraft were withdrawn back to Germany, and some had their equipment stripped and were scrapped rather than undergoing repair.

By this time, even during trials of newer versions, problems were being encountered, in March 1944 during trials of the V15 prototype it suffered severe oscillation, but it did achieve speeds of 710 km/h (441 mph) in diving trials. By mid 1944, production of the He 177A-5 was being wound down following Albert Speer's decree that fighter production was to be emphasised and that further production of heavy bombers was to be halted...
 
Last edited:
Eric Brown's take on the He 177 is worth examining for perspective. He said that its climb was ponderous and in flight the aircraft was sensitive to turbulence, but he found that stability was positive in all axes, but that control sensitivity was high for such a large aircraft, believing the elevator to be dangerously light. When performing diving trials, at a 400 km/h dive the aircraft handled well, and control responsiveness was good, particularly in the elevator, which might explain its sensitivity, although he remarked that aircraft had suffered structural failure in flight so he was very careful with not over exerting use of the elevator.

As a dive bomber, Brown stated that it was vital to know the exact weight of the aircraft before making diving attacks, with pull-out acceleration of 2.3G and a weight of 27 tonnes, this was extremely important. The aircraft had an automatic pull-out device, but, in his word, "...it really was somewhat nail-biting to have to treat a giant like this immense Heinkel bomber as though it were made of glass", concluding that "...dive bombing in a Junkers Ju 87 was one thing, but in a monster like the He 177 it was little short of ludicrous."

He states that the stalling characteristics were mild with pronounced buffet at 185 km/h (115 mph) and with the undercarriage lowered it buffeted violently at 140 km/h (87 mph), which led Brown to fear the aircraft had suffered structural damage. Landing roll was lengthy and the aircraft showed no desire to want to slow down, heavy braking inducing excessive judder and a tendency for the aircraft to swing as it slowed down. Brown believed the brakes were too inadequate to slow it and with the very real threat of ground looping the aircraft, knowing that it had undercarriage difficulties, plus the delicate handling in flight, led him to thinking it was far too fragile handling-wise for an operational bomber. Retrospectively he stated that during his career he really enjoyed test-flying the numerous German aircraft he flew, but with one exception, the He 177.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me ? how can you call the B-29 ugly she is the best looking piston engined bomber we have ever made .
 
I personally think the B-29 is a beautifully elegant machine, with that big rounded fin and its sweeping dorsal and those long high-aspect ratio wings. I'd love to see one flying in the flesh one day. I've crawled around a B-29 before, but not a flyer. It is so different in so many ways compared to the Lancaster, B-17, B-25 and so forth, in which I've done the same. It truly was a complete sea-change in big aircraft design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
478
Dimlee
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
15K
PAT303
P
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
marathag
Menu
Log in
Register