Hi Glider,
>The Achilles heal of the 109 was it landing difficulties and as we know more were lost in accidents than action.
Hm, I don't think conventional wisdom can be right with regard to this. Here is a link to an analysis I prepared:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/me109accidents.html
To sum it up: Despite the obvious advantages of the Fw 190 landing gear and the great reputation of the aircraft, the JG 26 numbers give no indication that the Fw 190 was any less accident-prone on take-off and landings than the Me 109 with its narrow-track landing gear and much-maligned landing characteristics.
>As for complexity I don't believe that. If the UK could produce thousands of Spitfires then I don't see why the Germans couldn't have built Heinkel fighters.
Ernst Heinkel in his autobiography "Stürmisches Leben" makes a point of listing the great productivity advances that have been achieved in the He 100 design. I'm pretty sure that implies the concession that the He 112 was overly complicated. With regard to the elliptical wing, there obviously was a productivity penalty attached to it as Heinkel abandoned the elliptical shape during He 111 development. Germany had serious economical problems prior to WW2, and the price tag of an aircraft was a major factor in any procurement decision.
>That said there was no reason why the Germans couldn't have produced both.
>The RAF did that with the Spitfire and Hurricane, the USA with the P47 and P51 or the P40 and P39, even Germany later on with the 109 and 190, so why not?
The German economy couldn't support it. Luftwaffe procurement always had to cope with a desperate shortage of skilled labour (and actually of engineering capacity, too), and an aircraft requiring as much extra labour as the He 112 obviously did was not acceptable.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)