What is it with Heinkel products?

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

Exactly. Of course Germany, the UK and France focused heavily on military designs in the mid 30s, whereas the US aviation industry still produced mostly airliners and mail, liaison and sporting aircraft. That does not change the fact that they were, for most of the 30s, producing significantly more planes than any European power and that their established capacities were larger too. So they were certainly not behind in aircraft production from 1933 to 1941.

The US had the first true modern bomber in the Martin B-10, an export success also. Curtiss, Seversky also had comparable planes to Me 109 / Spitfire, they simply were not as good.
 
It wasnt a case of subsidies. There were large orders for aircraft, thats for sure, but the industry found ways and spent money in setting up a production system geared to mass production. The UKs "shadow factory" system under the able direction of men like Nuffield and Beaverbrook produced fantastic dividends in 1940. The Germans did not adopt this system until later in the war, and neither did the US. The French di, and in 1940 their industry went from one of the least efficient to one of the most efficient in a very short space of time.

The US did not adopt prioncipals of standardisation or mass production, or central control of resopurces until 1941. Up until that time the US industry may have been large, but it was not efficient, and it did not produce partuculalry outstanding aircraft either. Aircraft like the P-51, P-47, the later (successful) marks of the B-17, and many others, all were rapidly developed into war winning types only after the adoption of modern techniques of mass production and centralized control of labour, and other strategic resources. The same can be said about the Germans, though their heavy investments in R&D did mean they started with high quality products in the first place.

I accept Erichs position that Heinkels aircraft designs, relative to their competitirs were less well developed. What is not explained by this simple statement is why....I think its because heinkel as a concern genenerally was left on the outer when it came to the division of resources....someone in the RLM did not like Heinkel, and they suffered as aresult
 
Stop dodging the point. When there is no war there is no need for mass production. Fact remains: THE US HAD THE LARGEST AVIATION INDUSTRY IN THE 1930s. Period.

And the Hawk 75 was easily among the best fighters of the early war period, second to only the Spitfire and the 109, likely even superior to the Bf 109 C-D. The US also had probably the best transport aircraft in the world. They were working on 4 engined, long range bombers as soon as 1934. With the B-10 they had the first modern, all metal bomber in the world. The early B-18 and B-17 may not be as impressive as later war bombers, but when compared to Wellingtons / Do-17s they are not exactly outclassed either.

And Heinkel's designs surely didn't simply "suck". zoomar put it pretty much perfectly.
 
Steady up, you are getting too worked up, Im sure this discussion can be fruitful for everyone. But I have to say ......who's dodging the point? Large does not mean efficient, unless as the largest, you produce the most aircraft. and the US aero industry did not produce the most aircraft in 1938-40 (and I assume not the most before that either) . it did not produce the second most, not even the third most, in 1939, despite announcements by its leader to build the biggest airforce in the world. This was not achieved in 1939, it wasnt achieved in 1940, it wasnt achieved in 1941, although by that time it was starting to increse its level of efficiency and the shortfalls in the USAAF and the navy were more to do with Lend Lease obligations.

In that same period (1939-41) Britain, with a fraction of the factory space, a fraction of the targets, and a fraction of the workforce, managed to produce more aircraft of higher quality. Even Germany, with a far less efficient infrastructure outproduced the Americans, as did the Soviets (though quality was not as good for the Soviets). I think that stands as silent testimony to the latent innefficiency of the US aircraft industry at that time. It was a problem easily remedied, and the subsequent efforts 1942-5 demonstrate that in spades, as the Americans adopted centralised control and brought in people like GM and other subcontractors to expand the effort enormously

I didnt say heinkels designs "sucked". I did say they were less well developed, which is a fairly obvious observation, and suggested reasons why. It goes to the near feudal nature of the nazi administration. Upset the wrong people,, and you are on the outer, its as simple as that. I thik some of the Heinkel designs showed great promise, but most of them showed obvious signs of under-development.....f
 
You said "Germany was ahead of the US from 1933 until 1941 in aircraft production.". Which is flat out wrong.

Roosevelt wanted to increase the airforce numerical strength. A goal that is only indirectly related to the strength of the aviation industry base of the US. His "failure" to do so within a year doesn't reflect the industrial strength alone, rather a lot of political quarreling and many other factors. Your any effect = single cause logic is flawed.

And again. How much perceived pressure was on US homeland 193x-1941? How much on England, France?
Where there is no need to rationalize production there is no rationalization. All the European states were gearing for war, the US weren't. Yet the industrial base was already there, allowing for a tremendous increase to be realized 'if need be', or in other words: post Pearl Harbor.

And you didn't say Heinkel designs sucked, Erich did. As for your typical "Nazi"-under-people babbeling: Which Heinkel design was doomed for political reasons? Which design was "under-developed"?
 
There was nothing wrong with the He-111 medium bomber. It was arguably the best of it's type during the mid to late 1930s. Early variants also performed well as passenger / cargo aircraft for Lufthansa. The price of 265,650 marks (with engines) also made it inexpensive compared to the competition.

For the currency challenged.....
1 U.S. dollar was approximately 2.5 German marks.
So the He-111H medium bomber cost about $ 106,260 (complete with engines). Less then half the price for an American made B-26 medium bomber.
 
That is interesting. I believed that German weapon systems were generally more expensive than their Allied analogues due to higher quality of materials (and scarcity thereof later in the war), and higher precision in manufacturing. Seems that it wasn't the case in bombers. Where could I find other comparative figures?
 
One has to be careful when comparing monetary prices for equipment, esp. government funded war goods. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if a B-26 was significantly more expensive than a He-111, but as with most US bombers the B-26 is significantly heavier, with more powerful engines, better armed and I think also better armored. So the extra money goes somewhere.
 
Last edited:

One needs more than just currency conversion.

Heinkel also used 'slave labour' which reduced the cost.
 

I did say that, and i stand by the statement. Germany in 1939 produced over 8000 military aircraft, the US managed only 5500. In the years prior to that it is even worse in comparison. Comparing quality comes up the same story. German aircraft were superior to those being produced in the US. You named the P-36 as perhaps representing the best fighter produced in the US at this time. At that same time the Germans were producing the Me109, which most people would argue was a superior type to the P-36. The Germans were also producing the Me110, ther was nothing comparable in the US at that time. At the outbreak of the war the Germans were test flying the FW190, there was nothing even remotely comparable in the US at that time. The SBD was not fully in production, the Ju87 was fully combat tested by that time.

To try and justify the poor showing of US production in the leadup to the war doesnt stand up to close scrutiny either. Roosevelt issued the expansion order in 1939, expecting the order to be complied with in that same fiscal year. It took nearly three years to meet. It doesnt matter where the inniefficiency arises, the result was an inneficient aircraft industry just the same. And the US was re-arming as quickly as it could, without damaging its post depression recovery. It was not rearming at a leisurely pace as you assert.....You say that the British were faced with the prospect of war, the US was not. this is true, but the British were also labouring under the most acute blockade , with meagre cash reserves ( I know you think that is unimportant, but with respect, you are wrong on that score) the US was notunder any blockade, and had the largest cash and gold reserves in the world, and again, the US had a workforce roughly four times that of Britain, yet only managed to produce half as many aircraft.

from your statements about the Nazis, it reads like you think the Nazis were a good thing ....I dont babel (sic) about the Nazis, and whilst your statement at that point enters near incoherency ("Nazi Babeling under the people" what the hell are you trying to say? ) , their administrative innefficiency is well documented and manifestly plain for anyone who wants to take a good look at their performances. They took an economy 2nd only to the US and squandered it. Or do you think they managed their miltary production well before 1942?

Designs which I think suffered for political reasons include the He177,the He274 (and following that the he 277) the He 116, the He219, the He 100 to name some that come to mind easily.

I would suggest that you listen a little more carefully to Erich, rather than simply to dismiss what he has to say, and attempt to shout him down, so to speak. The man has an enormopus amount of knowledge on the LW, perhaps you might learn a little more by asking him what he means, and why, rather than to simply imply he doesnt know what hes talking about (and should keep quiet)
 


Come on, the US industry did not get large orders before 38, so of course they did not make many planes. And one can argue about the Me109´s superiority. In 39 the E-1/3 were being introduced that were ~15mph faster than the export Hawks. A fact that was of minor relevance in combat. And while the SBD wasn´t in production, the SBC was. Ok, she was a biplane but the Ju87 had a fixed landing gear.


To try and justify the poor showing of US production in the leadup to the war doesnt stand up to close scrutiny either. Roosevelt issued the expansion order in 1939, expecting the order to be complied with in that same fiscal year.
Click to expand...

Never confuse a politician´s bla-bla with facts. It takes time to design a plane, test it, set up production facilities. If FDR seriously expected this could be done in a year he had lost his mind. Personally I think he was talking politics.
 

While the US may have been producing more planes in total, Piper cubs, Taylorcrafts, Aeroncas, Stinsons, Wacos, Cessnas and the like, these are hardly warplanes. With the type of construction used the factories that built them were hardly in a position to convert to warplane construction. Most of the engines came from companies that would provide wither engines for trainers or do subcontract work. 4 cylinder Continentals, Lycomings and Franklins don't translate into combat engines very well and 5 cylinder Kinners, 6 cylinder Rangers and 7 cylinder Jacobs engines while doing a good job in trainers and light transports were also hardly combat engines. Much like the British Blackburn and De Haviland engines or the German Argus, Bramo, Hirth and Zundapp engines
 

Basically, who cares?

These dates have little or nothing to do with which country had a a bigger aircraft Industry or which country was producing more military Aircraft during the 30s.
While the Allison was first run in 1930 the first engine wasn't delivered to a customer until 1931. However this date also means nothing. Was is more relevant is that by the beginning of 1938 only 20 Allison engines had even been ordered let alone delivered and that includes a single XV-3420 24 cylinder engine.

According to Wiki, since you seem to like that source, work on what would be the DB 601 started in 1929, twp prototypes were running in 1931 (second Allison isn't ordered until 1933) 1933 is the year that DB got a contract for 6 development engines of the DB 600 and by 1935 they are working on the fuel injected DB 601. Feb 1937 the Germans are placing an order for 150 DB 601s. Daimler Benz in 1937 can't build DB 600s fast enough to equip He 111 bombers and the Jumo 211 is used as an alternative powerplant. Heinkel had built a new factory at Oranienberg just for He 111 production starting in May 1936 with the first bomber rolling out one year later. This factory was planned for 100 planes per month. A small number in light of what WW II would actual need but a rather large production number for bombers in 1936-37.
The Jumo 211 entered mass production in 1937 with orders for over 1000 engines to start. Allison didn't get an order of that size for another 2 years. Then Allison had to build the factory building to make the engines to complete that order.

The whole Idea that Germany was starting from behind doesn't really hold up.

Heinkel designs alone (made by several other factories)

512 He45's
481 He46c's (not counting a&bs)
60+ He 50's
700 He 51's
200? He 59's
200+ He 60's
280 He 70's

over 2400 Heinkel warplanes built in the 1930s not including trainers, prototypes or ANY He 111 bombers or He 112 fighters.

The point of my earlier post was that a simple comparison of total numbers doesn't really tell the story.

How many 50hp Piper Cubs or Taylorcraft does it take to equel a He 59 twin engine Floatplane (twin 660hp V-12s and over 12,000lbs empty) from a production stand point?

Granted the US had built about 600 D-3s before converting production to the C-47 version but considering the first DC-3 flew at the very end of 1935 that doesn't work out to a very high production rate per month.

In some things the US was ahead of the curve but the idea that the Germans were way behind production wise doesn't hold up. The US also didn't have acres of unused, equipped factory space waiting to spring into action.
 
Folks,

I'm struggling to understand the purpose behind this argument. Simply put, no manufacturer builds things that aren't wanted by customers. Ergo, any country that is ordering low-rate production of military aircraft will get precisely thattype of aviation industry unless the aircraft companies can achieve overseas orders. Where the US aviation industry exceeded everyone in the world was in "potential capacity" due to a huge workforce (a large proportion of which was unemployed following the great depression and hence available for new jobs in aviation), the geographic space to build new factories free from fear of attack and a larger civil aviation customer-base during the inter-war period.

Questions on efficiency are somewhat moot because you are only efficient if you have to be. Britain and Germany had to be efficient because they did not promote extensive manufacturing capabilities within their respective areas of domination, hence manufacturing was confined to a relatively small geographic area. For Britain, setting up aircraft production in Canada and Australia proved problemmatic and largely occurred contemporaneously with US expansion of military aircraft production. The US, per my previous point, had a large available landmass and workforce and hence could afford to expand without the corresponding need for efficiency. US expansion happened long after Britain and Germany had already embarked on rapid rearmament, and that lag continued until late-1942 after which the US outstripped everyone.

Sadly, I have no contribution to make on the subject of Heinkels, other than to point out that the He112 simply did not have the makings of a viable combat aircraft capable of surviving in an operational environment.

I'll now duck for cover...

Cheers,
Mark
 
An interesting read on the development of aircraft production from the 1930s through to the end of the war.

Aircraft production - Parts 12

Given the size of its civilian airline business, the US was a surprisingly small aircraft market in the early 1930s.

Germany was the largest aircraft producer in the world by 1935, at least in terms of raw aircraft numbers. It is a little more difficult to quantify airframe weight though.

In the immediate lead-up to the war British and US production escalates far more rapidly than German production.

Between 1936 and 1943, US aircraft production doubled (or almost doubled) every year. British production triples between 1938 and 1939 and then doubles again in 1940, as the country concentrates on fighter production.

German aircraft production climbs more slowly, at increments of a 33-50% increase per year between 1938 and 1942. After 1942, when fighter production becomes increasingly important (60% of all aircraft produced by Germany in WW2 were fighters, compared to 35% in the UK and 30% in the US), output goes up by two thirds in 1943 and then by two thirds again in 1944.

This however, is too late. By 1941, the US, the UK and Germany are each producing roughly the same airframe tonnage. The US then proceeds to equal combined German/UK tonnage in 1942, beat it by 50% in 1943 and then more than double their combined tonnage by 1944.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What is this?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
B
Roald Dahl RAF Logbook : anyone has it ?
Replies
4
Views
378
bobolex
B
What is a TF-51H?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Tom Fey
T
Wondered if anyone knows what it is ?
Replies
5
Views
1K
AMCKen
A
Menu
Log in
Register