What is it with Heinkel products?

[Markus]

The he-100 would have progressed from the Db601Aa(Db601M) to the Db601N to the Db601E.

If the aircraft was already capable of 400mph think how much faster it would have been with the 601E.


As to Udet, isn't that a German word for "monkey-wrench"?

Yes, but the liquid cooling system was very complicated and even more vulnerable than usual.

Evaporative or "steam" cooling promised a completely drag-free cooling system. Unfortunately, the systems also proved complex and terribly unreliable in practice. Huge expanses of the airframe's outer skin had to be devoted to cooling, which made such systems susceptible to combat damage.

OK for a testplane but not for a warplane. And no, Udet, isn't a German word for "monkey-wrench".


@davebender:

Ford declined to produce the Merlin. No idea if this was because of his general dislike of "not invented here" or the fact that he was a racist, nazi-loving dick.

 

[Shortround6]

The He-100 compares well with early war U.S. fighter aircraft like the P-39 and P-40. Heinkel should have offered it to the U.S. Army Air Corps during 1939. Power it with a Ford Motor Company copy of the RR Merlin, which Henry Ford offered to produce for American use.

The He 100 was too small. Ford didn't offer to build Merlins until the summer of 1940 and promptly reneged on the offer. Ford Did build R-2800s though.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, but the liquid cooling system was very complicated and even more vulnerable than usual.

The later "production" versions ditched the troublesome cooling system and went ot a more conventional radiator.

And no, Udet, isn't a German word for "monkey-wrench".

In this case it might be. Story goes that Udet didn't listen carefully to the pre-flight briefing and failed to change prop pitch setting before going into the dive. Automatic prop pitch change mechanism wasn't working properly.

Ford declined to produce the Merlin. No idea if this was because of his general dislike of "not invented here" or the fact that he was a racist, nazi-loving dick.

He "claimed" it was because he was a pacifist and while he would sell war material to the US, he wouldn't supply war material to foreign countries at war. Initial contracts called for only 1/3 of the engines to go to the US.
He "claimed" to be able to produce a lot of things much faster than anybody else and while some of his factories did do wonders in production they never reached the production rates he initially claimed or did it as soon as he had predicted.

 

[Milosh]

Ford declined to produce the Merlin. No idea if this was because of his general dislike of "not invented here" or the fact that he was a racist, nazi-loving dick.

More likely Ford would not get enough $$$$$.

Ford did take the engineering drawings of the Merlin. He then spent $2 million dollars developing his own v12 engine. After a year gave up on the engine but all did not go to waste. He made it into a v8 that went on to power the Sherman and other military vehicles. Some 25,741 v8s were built.

Ford of England did build Merlins.

 

[Timppa]

More likely Ford would not get enough $$$$$.
Ford of England did build Merlins.

And approximately 60% of the 3 ton tracked vehicles produced for the German army were manufactured by the Ford Werke A.G. company. War can be a good business.
Ford Motor Co. - Nazi Slave labor

The US government even paid Ford $1.1 million in consideration of bombing damage.

 

[BombTaxi]

Most nations building military aircraft in the 1930s were hampered by unregulated market where a variety of manufacturers built aircraft of similar specifications in relatively small numbers. It wasn't until the rearmaments of 1936-39 that the UK, Japan and Germany really started to standardise on successful types and build them in large numbers. Of course, this occurred even later in the US, and didn't really happen at all in the USSR.

Having said that, it is slightly disingenuous to compare individual manufactures output of specific types, as this doesn't take into account the size of the factory and it's workforce, nor the technical expertise required to translate a prototype into a successful mass-production type. To use a well-known example, when the RAF decided to standardise on the Spitfire, Supermarine, a small concern specialising in seaplanes, flying boats and racing machines, had to sub-contract a large part of a relatively modest order to larger, more experienced concerns such as Vickers, as they simply couldn't deliver on schedule any other way...

 

[zoomar]

I believe the story goes that Udet took it to edge of dive envelope and beyond. The Plane broke up in flight and Udet had to use his parachute. I believe a max dive angle of 50 degrees is mentioned which is hardly in the same category as the JU 87 90 degree dive.
Weither that requirement was wise is one question. But the fact that the He 118 could not meet the requirement as written means that there wasn't favoritism shown.

Thanks. I stand corrected on that particular. I think I knew that...once..

 

[zoomar]

The He-100 compares well with early war U.S. fighter aircraft like the P-39 and P-40. Heinkel should have offered it to the U.S. Army Air Corps during 1939. Power it with a Ford Motor Company copy of the RR Merlin, which Henry Ford offered to produce for American use.

Really? Besides the fact that a the USAAF in 1939-40 is very unlikely to accept a German-designed warplane for service, I doubt the He-100 could be adapted to use any engine other than the DB 601 without substantial redesign.

 

[zoomar]

The he-100 would have progressed from the Db601Aa(Db601M) to the Db601N to the Db601E. If the aircraft was already capable of 400mph think how much faster it would have been with the 601E.

I have read that one of the reasons the He-100 was not adopted was the supposedly limited supply of DB 601 series engines. I also believe the RLM suggested that Heinkel redesign the plane to take the Jumo 211/213 series engine (I can't remember which), but Heinkel determined the plane would need significant redesign (with a loss of performence) to do this and declined.

One advantage of the Bf-109 (so I have read) was its ability to take progressively more powerful (and larger/heavier) powerplants (Jumo 210 to DB 601 to DB 605 to RR Merlin in its Hispano variants). From all I know, the He-100 was much more closely designed around its original engine than the Bf-109 and thus had less long-term potential.

 

[davebender]

Ford helped to build the VW factory in Germany as well as tank factories in the Soviet Union. They also built B24 bombers, Jeeps, etc. for the USA. Apparently they were more interested in money then ideology. That being the case, why not build the He-100 for export sales? It would compete against the P-36, P-39 and P-40 for those sales.

Engines are a critical issue. However I find it difficult to believe Ford Motor Company couldn't build a competative V12 aircraft engine if they really wanted to. Ford was arguably the premier automobile company during the 1930s.

 

[Markus]

Engines are a critical issue. However I find it difficult to believe Ford Motor Company couldn't build a competative V12 aircraft engine if they really wanted to. Ford was arguably the premier automobile company during the 1930s.

I´m sure Ford would have gotten the engine working ... eventually but he needs to get it working before the Merlin and Allison enter mass production in the USA.

 

[BombTaxi]

Ford helped to build the VW factory in Germany as well as tank factories in the Soviet Union. They also built B24 bombers, Jeeps, etc. for the USA. Apparently they were more interested in money then ideology. That being the case, why not build the He-100 for export sales? It would compete against the P-36, P-39 and P-40 for those sales.

Engines are a critical issue. However I find it difficult to believe Ford Motor Company couldn't build a competative V12 aircraft engine if they really wanted to. Ford was arguably the premier automobile company during the 1930s.

Why should Ford be interested in ideology? Their role was to deliver value to shareholders, not deliver politically acceptable projects. As for building aircraft engines, an aircraft engine and a motor vehicle engine are very different beasts, and being good with the latter doesn't mean you will be good with the former. Plus, as Ford had no expertise or history in the field, they would be forced into a costly buy-in of skills, resource and hardware which will make the end product very expensive, in a field where well-established players were already making proven products in volume. All of this makes it very hard for Ford to make money - so what's the point of getting involved? From Ford's point of view, aero engines were a potential disaster waiting to happen, and therefore not worth getting in to.

 

[parsifal]

Germany was ahead of the US from 1933 until 1941 in aircraft production. Prior to the formation of the Luftwaffe, the Germans maintained at least the expertise for production, by her clandestine overseas contacts with companies like Fokker, SAAB, Solothurn, Hispano Suiza and the secret military links with the USSR.

Once Hitler came to power, Hitlers "economic miracle" was simply to pour the countries resources into defence industries, This was a short sighted policy, in that over the longer term Germany's ability to sustain itself in a long war was very tenuous. But by pouring large amounts of money into favoured industries, these industries were able to modernize and expand output very quickly. But Nazi Germany was not ever run efficiently. Its administration was more akin to a series of badly run feudal feifdoms rather than an efficient modern state. If you ended up on the outer by upsetting the wrong people, and you were a businessman, you were going to suffer as a result of that indiscretion. thats precisely what happened to Ernst Heikel....at some point he upset one too many people, and from that point on was not a favoured industry. I will concede, however, I think this ex-communication occurred after the war broke out.

By comparison, the US aero industry was grossly undercapitalized throughout the prewar period. It was also innefficient, producing aircraft in a similar way to the french...ie instead of adopting mass production techniques aircraft tended to be hand made, one at a time, using small numbers of multi-skilled workers. Proper production lines were not set up until after British lend Lease money was pured into the American military establishment, and British technicians moved in to advise and assist the Americans in setting up their factories. That started to happen from about 1938. Once the war broke out and the orders poured in, the US penchant to organise their industrial potential took off and they never looked backed.

But the pre-war muddles that the US laboured under is the reason Goring tha the Nazis dismissed the US as a serious war making country. It explains why Goring thought the US was only really capable of producing Toasters and TVs bewfore the war.....in a sense he was right.

 

[Markus]

I would not call the US aviation industry inefficient. If the customers order only small numbers of different types of a/c you are most efficient if you have multi-skilled workers, who can build a fighter today and an airliner tomorrow. Investing in mass production techniques would be a waste of money for production runs in the twin digits, or low triples. Instead I would try to standardise parts as much as possible, so they can be used in the manufacture of different designs.

 

[riacrato]

Germany was ahead of the US from 1933 until 1941 in aircraft production. Prior to the formation of the Luftwaffe, the Germans maintained at least the expertise for production, by her clandestine overseas contacts with companies like Fokker, SAAB, Solothurn, Hispano Suiza and the secret military links with the USSR.

Source? US aviation industry was afaik the largest in the world in the 1930s. And US designs were quality wise forerunners aswell, many having a direct influence on e.g. German designs and strategies.

 

[BombTaxi]

The US may have had the biggest aviation industry, but that doesn't mean it had the best products. The US had a definite lead in civil aviation, although the Germans also turned out some innovative and effective civil types as part of the re-armament program - the civilian versions of the Fw200 and Ju52 immediately come to mind. But what was the US producing contemporary to the Bf109 or Stuka which could give these types a run for their money?

US military production was still largely short runs of a bewildering variety of types all competing for the same roles, and was much like the UK in this respect. The Germans had, OTOH, standardised on the 109, 110 and Stuka in the fighter, heavy fighter and dive-bomber roles respectively.

 

[Markus]

But what was the US producing contemporary to the Bf109 or Stuka which could give these types a run for their money?

Ju87 - SBC/SBD
Me109 - H75(E3 vs. A-3/4)

 

[Erich]

back to the original posters thread question


in a word H products sucked, he never had the proper tech crews nor the financial backing to carry any of his innovative ideas beyond almost an experimental stage

 

[parsifal]

Source? US aviation industry was afaik the largest in the world in the 1930s. And US designs were quality wise forerunners aswell, many having a direct influence on e.g. German designs and strategies.

Cant make any comment about the industry as a whole , but the military aero-industry was not efficient. It may have been large, but it was not efficient. According to Ellis the US produced under 6000 aircraft in 1939, whilst the British in that same period produced over 9000. This was after FDRs announcement in 1939 to produce an air force of over 10000 machines.

The reports by the british purchasing commission are also enlightening, though I confess I have not put my fingers on them at this minute. The British reported an industry languishing in the post depression doldrums before the war, requiring major injections of cash and technology in order to bring them up to world standards. im not talking about the aircraft themselves, but the factories building them. A little digging would reveal these reports quite easily.

As a single volume refernce, you could try Overys economic analysis, though this is a little dated now. A modern take on this subject is "The Economics of World War II" edited by M Harrison, Cambridge University Press 1998. This provides a pretty good overview of the development and transformation of the US aircraft industry from pre-war basket case to wartime leader and the "arsenal of democracy"

 

[Markus]

It is a case of supply and demand. If the supply drops and stays low for a long time, suppliers leave the market, in this case reduce their production capacity. The UK´s aviation industry by contrast was in high gear for war even before 39, propped up by lots of subsidies.