would the He112 instead of the Bf109 have made any difference

Would the choice of the He112 make any difference to the luftwaffe?

  • Yes, the Heinkel fighter was way better than the Bf109

    Votes: 11 15.5%

  • Yes, it would have made matters worse as the He112 was inferior to the Bf109

    Votes: 13 18.3%

  • No, but the He100 would have made a difference

    Votes: 19 26.8%

  • No, it didn't matter

    Votes: 28 39.4%
  • Total voters
    71

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

Can you imagine saying in 1938...we would beat the French in six weeks and then we fight the British and so we need long range aircraft.

Thrown out the Luftwaffe for sure.
 
Hi Marcel
You are right... and I am right
V8 build with DB 600Aa
V7 build with DB 600Aa
V9 build with Jumo 210C later changed for Jumo 210Ea
V10 build with DB600Aa later changed for DB 601Aa
V11 build with DB 600Aa later changed for DB 601Aa

I've got data about range for prototype V10with DB 600Aa only.
 
Hi Netsailor,

>Bf 109E-1 (DB 601A):
>fuel: 400 litres
>range: 560 km

The range chart for the Bf 109E/B as reproduced in Radinger/Schick's "Me 109" gives a penetration depth of 250 kg for a Bf 109E with a 500 kg bomb, including 7 min full throttle flight over the target. Fuel consumption for warm-up, climb and all other non-productive uses is considered, and the table is called "operational figures with tactical deduction", indicating that the table is purposefully pessimistic. The idea is that not even the squadron dog will run out of fuel when missons are planned according to this chart.

(Unfortunately, Radinger/Schick features only the 500 kg bomb case, which was tested with the Emil but never used operationally. A clean Me 109E would have been more interesting of course.)

For the He 112 with a DB601 engine and just 317 L fuel even to reach parity with the Me 109 with the same engine and 400 L fuel capacity, it would have had to enjoy a 26% cruise speed advantage - and to beat it, even more. As far as I can tell, the He 112 did not have such a speed advantage even judging it by Heinkel's own numbers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi again,

>The range chart for the Bf 109E/B as reproduced in Radinger/Schick's "Me 109" gives a penetration depth of 250 kg for a Bf 109E with a 500 kg bomb

This should read "250 km for a Bf 109E with a 500 kg bomb", of course.
Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Ah, that's interesting, in my book, the V10 was designed for a Jumo, but got a DB601 instead because of shortage of Jumo's at that moment. No DB600 is mentioned regarding to the V10. Also about the V11, a DB601 is never mentioned. Hmm, maybe I should buy a new book?


Is there anything known about the cruisespeed of a DB601 equiped He112? I know it's top speed was something like 570km/h.
 
Hi Marcel,

>Is there anything known about the cruisespeed of a DB601 equiped He112? I know it's top speed was something like 570km/h.

That's about the top speed of the Me 109E, too, and with the same engine, that probably works out to a virtually identical cruise speed (which is mostly determined by the engine setting).

Accordingly, I don't expect any range advantage for the He 112 - on the contrary, with a smaller tank it should have an inferior range.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hohun, Bf 109 was a aerodynamical crap, even Germans noticed that and introduced a F version with "face lifting". Jumo-schmitts and Emils airframes gave too much resistance, that influed on fuel consumption.
Heikel had very smooth gull-shaped wings (wing area 17,2 m2 against 16 m2 on Bf 109) and movable radiator to minimize resistance. Anyway I'm a litte confused about He 112 prototypes range, cause Rumanian sources (single air force which used Heinkel figters in large number) claims operational range 825 km for He 112B-1 .

Marcel, He 112 cruise speed:
425 km/h for V9 prototype (Jumo 210C)
447 km/h for V10 (DB 600Aa)
420 km/h for B-1 (Jumo 210E)
 
Hi Netsailor,

>Hohun, Bf 109 was a aerodynamical crap, even Germans noticed that and introduced a F version with "face lifting".

By the same logic, I could condemn the He 112 as aerodynamic crap because Heinkel couldn't save the type despite numerous face-lifts, having to design the much cleaner He 100 to be competetive with the Me 109.

However, that kind of logic doesn't address the engineering facts and doesn't help us at all.

>Rumanian sources (single air force which used Heinkel figters in large number) claims operational range 825 km for He 112B-1 .

With a different engine and an unknown mission profile, that figure unfortunately is a bit difficult to compare. Trying to reverse-engineer the Me 109E/B chart in Radinger/Schick, I'd say that you'd get a range of 680 km for the Me 109 with 7 min combat and a climb back to 7 km altitude from 1 km in mid-flight for a "clean" Me 109.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Yeah, strange as they are attrackted to this tread

IMHO the He100 could have been. It was much faster and had a longer range. The He112B was probably better than teh contemporarely BF109B, but was never developed further. As it turned out to be a "rolce royce with a Fiat engine" as some pilots described it.
 
I think Luftwaffe should produce both Bf109 and He112. It's like British Spitfire and hurricane.
 
I don't know how good it would've been. just found this in a book I have. "Heinkel He 112 in Action"/Squadron Signal. They are speaking about the combat performance of the He 112 while with the Rumanian Escadria 51 vanatoare.
pg.48
"...The results of investigations into the combat activity of the Heinkel fighters were far from encouraging. In order to form a broad picture of the He 112, it is necessary to quote from the official report, compilied in August of 1941: The clumsy He 112E, powered by a Jumo 210E, proved to be unsuitable for aerial battles due to its low horizontal speed, insufficent climbing capacity and lack of maneurability compared to the modern aircraft encountered. Its diving speed, which could be reached very quickly was, however, adequate. The possibility to carry six 12 kg bombs was useful as well, being successfully employed in low level attacks. If the fuel tanks and pilot's seat would have been protected by armour, the heavy human losses endured in such kind of missions could have been avoided. The armament fitted, consisting of a practical combination of cannons and heavy machine guns was also sufficent numerically and concerning firepower. The ammunition used, however, proved to be totally inadequate, as the armour {protecting} enemy aircraft wasn't penetrated by the He 112's existing armament. There occured several occasions when tracer bullets fired by their own cannons and guns indicated to the pilot that the whole load had hit the target without causing its destruction."

I think they made the right choice with the Bf 109.
 
Well, just remember this was a machine comparable in time to the Bf109B. The same book you refer to claims that the He112B, was better than the Bf109B. The Bf109E was a further and later development. The Heinkel was never allowed to be developed further, with, say a DB601 engine which could have made it on par or better than the Bf109E. Had the He112 been choosen instead of the Bf109, it would have made the same development and who knows how good or bad it would have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
5K
GrauGeist
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
39K
Dimlee
The "Wannabe" Skyraiders
Replies
15
Views
6K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register