PDA

View Full Version : HE-177 engine problems



XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:45 AM
I hope those are NOT fully modelled into the game while it would be realistic it would give most pilots like a 1/10 chance of getting into the air without the engines on fire already i can see it now:


(taking off)

engine 1 overheating, engine 2 overheating.

(just in air)

engine 1 on fire, engine 2 on fire.

thatd would just suck, but i think the plane is worth it.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:45 AM
I hope those are NOT fully modelled into the game while it would be realistic it would give most pilots like a 1/10 chance of getting into the air without the engines on fire already i can see it now:


(taking off)

engine 1 overheating, engine 2 overheating.

(just in air)

engine 1 on fire, engine 2 on fire.

thatd would just suck, but i think the plane is worth it.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:21 AM
Well, they don't model the fact that many early Russian engines tended to seize or blow up without warning so it would seem only fair that the propensity to catch fire shouldn't be modeled, but we all know how that works !

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:24 AM
well as long as we have plenty of fire extinguishers aboard!!

LMAO

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:01 AM
Someone is developing the He-177? I had no idea.

Good addition to the game. But probably the most unreliable plane ever put into service in WWII.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:14 AM
Chimpy,

Obviously, it is way past your bed time.

Oleg will call you or email you if he needs your input.

Thanks again,

Do 217P

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:18 AM
do217s wrote:
- Chimpy,
-
- Obviously, it is way past your bed time.
-
- Oleg will call you or email you if he needs your
- input.
-
- Thanks again,
-
- Do 217P
-
-

Do217P, this is the second time you decided to chime in when I posted something.

Are you the only one qualified to comment in these threads? Are you afraid the plane may be modelled the way it was? Honest discussion about failed German aircraft bother you that much?

I see you have an affinity for fantasy planes: the Bf-109Z and a well running He-177.

If you have something constructive to add, do it. Otherwise, check your pie-hole at the door.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0307:32AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:01 AM
btw chimp halfwit is modelling the h177 and do217E-2 and K models and something else i forgot no cockpits for them but o well.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:03 AM
Any screenshots yet?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:26 AM
Chimp,

You may have forgot your reading glasses...I did not make any comments about the FM for the upcoming He 177A-5.

About the Bf 109Z-2 and the general character of your "constructive" comments about axis aircrafts, you may as well stick to generating glorious threads about US aircrafts....I won't bother.

Truly sorry to disapoint you, I do like pie.

Do 217P

SkyChimp wrote:
- do217s wrote:
-- Chimpy,
--
-- Obviously, it is way past your bed time.
--
-- Oleg will call you or email you if he needs your
-- input.
--
-- Thanks again,
--
-- Do 217P
--
--
-
- Do217P, this is the second time you decided to chime
- in when I posted something.
-
- Are you the only one qualified to comment in these
- threads? Are you afraid the plane may be modelled
- the way it was? Honest discussion about failed
- German aircraft bother you that much?
-
- I see you have an affinity for fantasy planes: the
- Bf-109Z and a well running He-177.
-
- If you have something constructive to add, do it.
- Otherwise, check your pie-hole at the door.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
- <img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.
- jpg">
-
-
- Message Edited on 08/29/03 07:32AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:35 AM
do217s wrote:
- Chimp,
-
- You may have forgot your reading glasses...I did not
- make any comments about the FM for the upcoming He
- 177A-5.

Nor did I; I made a statement of fact regarding the plane's reliability. Perhaps you should heed your own "reading glasses" advice.



- About the Bf 109Z-2 and the general character of
- your "constructive" comments about axis aircrafts,
- you may as well stick to generating glorious threads
- about US aircrafts....I won't bother.

What was incorrect about my statements? You seem to have been quickly peturbed by my statements, both of which were accurate. Are threads glorifying German planes the only ones you appeal to? I suppose that since you've made an appearence on these boards honest discussion about German planes should end?



- Truly sorry to disapoint you, I do like pie.

Obviously.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0309:39AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:53 AM
Well, the main reason for the He 177 four engine problem, was that Hitler and Goering wanted it to act as a huge dive bomber, and the development crew had to couple the engines on each wing to a single propeller, to reduce drag.

Anyway, knowing that this were to bring such trouble, they worked in parallel with a more ordinary four engines-four propellers model, the He 277.

This could be incorporated to Il-2: it was far better and more reliable than the He 177, and lacked its engine pains, being the most probable candidate to be the regular Luftwaffe strategic bomber, if the outcome of war and the wishes of Goering (who wanted a tactic Luftwaffe) wouldn't have prevented this.

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:04 AM
Chimp,

You clearly state (mouthing off would be more appropriate judging by the character of your post) that I was posting in that thread because I "may" be afraid of the way the He 177 may be modeled in FB, which I never commented about in the first place: "Are you afraid the plane may be modelled (typo) the way it was?"

.......so you are blatantly making false assumptions.


Since you hastily brought pie in forefront in your reply, you obviously must have a large place for pie in your life, or lack thereof. Please yourself, have one and go to bed.



Do 217P

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:22 AM
do217s wrote:
- Chimp,
-
- You clearly state (mouthing off would be more
- appropriate judging by the character of your post)
- that I was posting in that thread because I "may" be
- afraid of the way the He 177 may be modeled in FB,
- which I never commented about in the first place:
- "Are you afraid the plane may be modelled (typo) the
- way it was?"
-
- .......so you are blatantly making false
- assumptions.
-
-
- Since you hastily brought pie in forefront in your
- reply, you obviously must have a large place for pie
- in your life, or lack thereof. Please yourself, have
- one and go to bed.



This is ridiculous. Chimp simply said the He-177 had crappy engines(which it did),and you go off on this tirade...It was YOU who started this conflict...

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/03 01:24AM by necrobaron

Message Edited on 08/29/0301:28AM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:27 AM
do217s wrote:
- Chimp,
-
- You clearly state (mouthing off would be more
- appropriate judging by the character of your post)
- that I was posting in that thread because I "may" be
- afraid of the way the He 177 may be modeled in FB,
- which I never commented about in the first place:
- "Are you afraid the plane may be modelled (typo) the
- way it was?"
- .......so you are blatantly making false
- assumptions.
- Since you hastily brought pie in forefront in your
- reply, you obviously must have a large place for pie
- in your life, or lack thereof. Please yourself, have
- one and go to bed.

Mouthing off, my little friend? Reread the post. I made a statement of fact about the He-177 and you as much as came in and told me to shut up. I wasn't discussing the FM of any plane being developed for this game, rather I was offering a comment in the context of the discussion.

Are you "afraid" the He-177 will be modelled accurately? That's certainly the impression I get when you jump into the middle of conversation and tell someone to shut up when they mention one of the liabilities of the plane.

You're going to have difficulties on this board if your tolerences are that low.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:38 AM
necrobaron wrote:

- This is ridiculous. Chimp simply said the He-177 had
- crappy engines(which it did),and you go off on this
- tirade...It was YOU who started this conflict...


It's the second time he's said something to this effect.

In ORR I mentioned the model never flew and that the FM would be speculative. He responded thusly:

=============

"Chimpy,

Thank you for your constructive comments.

We trully all appreciate your input on the flight model for the BF 109Z-2. I am sure Oleg will email you or call you if he needs a hand.

Cheers,

Do 217P"

==============

Strikes me as an angry little jack that either can't intelligently discuss the subject, or simply can't stand that someone would dare to mention a negative about a German plane.

Anyway, I am going to bed now. It's 2:40 a.m. where I am. But rest assured, I am eager to see what what advices he offers between now and the time that I return.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0310:42AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:47 AM
Sky Chimp Wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
Someone is developing the He-177? I had no idea.

Good addition to the game. But probably the most unreliable plane ever put into service in WWII.

Regards,

SkyChimp
__________________________________________________ __________


do217s wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
Chimpy,

Obviously, it is way past your bed time.

Oleg will call you or email you if he needs your input.

Thanks again,

Do 217P
__________________________________________________ __________


Viewing the initial posts side by side, in my opinion, this was started by do217s.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:52 AM
in the left corner we have the champ SKYCHIMP

in the right corner we have the challenger THRAWN888

ok the fight is just about to start, place your bets people place your bets.....huh?

lol i'm writing this at 1:00am so i dont really know what i'm writing



anyway forget all of that but i find myself agreeing with SKYCHIMP, you jumped right off the handle about nothing THRAWN888.



LOOK OUT TYPHOON'S COMIN'TO GET YA'

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:58 AM
Typhoonmk1b wrote:
- in the left corner we have the champ SKYCHIMP
-
- in the right corner we have the challenger THRAWN888
-
- ok the fight is just about to start, place your bets
- people place your bets.....huh?
-
- lol i'm writing this at 1:00am so i dont really know
- what i'm writing
-
-
-
- anyway forget all of that but i find myself agreeing
- with SKYCHIMP, you jumped right off the handle about
- nothing THRAWN888.
-
-
-
-
- LOOK OUT TYPHOON'S COMIN'TO GET YA'
-
-
-
-
-


Not Thrawn, he did nothing. The culprit here is Do217S, er P, er S, er SP.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:04 AM
whatever (j/k)

heh sorry THRAWN888 i meant Do129 or whatever his name is


i just want to go to bed..........if only this evil computer will let me

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:19 AM
Anyways, onto the original topic, if that aircraft's engine overheating problems are not modeled, then it would stand to reason that other heavy bombers with significant engine heat problems would also need to be modeled without those problems.

The B-29 is a good example. That aircraft is a fast, and heavily armed with machineguns and cannon and sports an early computer aided gunnery system, which would make it a very dangerous bomber to attack for even FW-190's. It's real weakness was its engines had a tendancy to overheat and ignight, even during routine noncombat operation. A B-29 on three engines is much less dangerous than one on four.

Yet if the Greif is modeled without its overheating problems, why not the B-29?

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:20 AM
Two words. Me-262's engines. Lol. Oleg likes modeling German failures http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

Thrawn888 wrote:
- I hope those are NOT fully modelled into the game
- while it would be realistic it would give most
- pilots like a 1/10 chance of getting into the air
- without the engines on fire already i can see it
- now:
-
-
- (taking off)
-
- engine 1 overheating, engine 2 overheating.
-
- (just in air)
-
- engine 1 on fire, engine 2 on fire.
-
- thatd would just suck, but i think the plane is
- worth it.
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:26 AM
Ya. The B-29 had bad engine problems. 100% was due to oil leaks. The engine would leak like a sivv. I watched an interview with an engineer that was put in charge of fixing the oil leaks. He did it with a .50 cent peace of metal. Then all B-29's in the fleet was fixed in just a few days!!! Just like the carb problem with early Spits. Some of the most troubling problems have an easy fix if you look hard enough.

Gib

HarryVoyager wrote:
- attack for even FW-190's. It's real weakness was
- its engines had a tendancy to overheat and ignight,
- even during routine noncombat operation. A B-29 on
- three engines is much less dangerous than one on
- four.
-
- Yet if the Greif is modeled without its overheating
- problems, why not the B-29?
-
- Harry Voyager

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 09:15 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Ya. The B-29 had bad engine problems. 100% was due
- to oil leaks. The engine would leak like a sivv. I
- watched an interview with an engineer that was put
- in charge of fixing the oil leaks. He did it with a
- .50 cent peace of metal. Then all B-29's in the
- fleet was fixed in just a few days!!! Just like the
- carb problem with early Spits. Some of the most
- troubling problems have an easy fix if you look hard
- enough.
-
- Gib
-

Um, that was not the engine's only problem. Large sections of the engine were made of magnesium, and the designers had packed the cylinders to tightly together to allow for adequate air flow, without very carefully designed baffling in the cowling.

Additionally, the superchargers it used could get very hot at times, and were mounted directly below the engine in that aircraft.

If anything in the engine caught fire, there was a large risk of lighting the magnesium components. I recall reading one account of a B-29 engine fire, by someone who had never seen one before. The aircraft was flying at around 300mph when the (I think) #2 engine lit. Blue flame was shooting *four feet* out the *front* of the engine cowling. They turned on the extinguishers and put it out, but not before it made a very lasting and memorable impression on the author.

Also, I was of the distinct impression, that while the problems with oil leaks were alleviated by that fix, it did not fully cure them, and that they never fully cured the engine's strong tendancy to dump oil everywhere. I've hear it joked, that you know the R-3350 has a problem when it stops throwing oil. If you take a look at any pictures of A-1 Skyraiders, you should notice a big black streak down the side of the aircraft. That's mostly from all the oil that the engine would fling when it was running.

One thing I've always wanted to know, is what happened to the R-2800 after the war? It seemed to offer all the power that the R-3350 did, without falling apart if you looked at it cross eyed, dumping oil in every direction, or lighting up as a blow torch? I know that eventually all the bugs were worked out of the R-3350, but what did it offer over the P&W while it was still flying apart in all directions and the Prat wasn't?

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 09:47 AM
DuxCorvan wrote:
- Well, the main reason for the He 177 four engine
- problem, was that Hitler and Goering wanted it to
- act as a huge dive bomber,

Also twinned engines were the fashion. (See Avro
Manchester). I think the USA were also looking
at twinned engines as well at the time. The fashion
was relatively short lived, it seems!

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:36 AM
Beside the fact that I don't like bombers (just my personal opinion, guys! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ), so I really don't care much about introducing another of them, He.177 could however be an intresting add on.
In fact, this plane could carry the Henschel Hs.293 A-1 anti-shipping missile.
This bizarre weapon was a 1,000 kg radio-controlled missile that could be piloted by the bomber from the He.177.
It would be funny to control this missile with the joystick once launched (looks like the Redeemer in Unreal Tournement!).

<center>

http://www.goblins.net/immagini/Logo/tdglogo_eng.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:17 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Someone is developing the He-177? I had no idea.
-
- Good addition to the game. But probably the most
- unreliable plane ever put into service in WWII.
-


Excellent sample of Skychimp wasting space on this forum. Do you have data to support you affirmation? for example from the total number of sorties how many were ineffective because of the engine problems? When you get that number call me and I'll tell how it compares to american bombers.

Until then spare us of your personal oppinions (sold as facts), we know very them very well.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:38 PM
Night of Feb 13 '44 - a Steinbock raid

2. & 3./KG100

13 a/c TO

1 a/c blows a tire on TO

8 a/c return to base suffering from over-heating or burning engines

only 4 of the 5 remaining a/c found London and 1 shot down by NFs.

These a/c were A-5s that had been coming off production lines since Feb '43.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0308:42AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Night of Feb 13 '44 - a Steinbock raid
-
- 2. & 3./KG100
-
- 13 a/c TO
-
- 1 a/c blows a tire on TO
-
- 8 a/c return to base suffering from over-heating or
- burning engines
-
- only 4 of the 5 remaining a/c found London and 1
- shot down by NFs.
-
- These a/c were A-5s that had been coming off
- production lines since Feb '43.

...mmmmhh.... I won't be flying on such a thing if I were you...

<center>

http://www.goblins.net/immagini/Logo/tdglogo_eng.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:55 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Cippacometa wrote:
-
-
- ...mmmmhh.... I won't be flying on such a thing if I
- were you...
-
-

F.K.G.2 flying supplies into Stalingrad suffered an average of 1 crash per day - not all would be because of 'pilot error'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif In Feb after a few weeks of operation the survivers of the unit was withdrawn to Fassberg.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:07 PM
btw, which Unit was that often quoted Steinbock raid?
Because in the KG 100 chronicle, the raids of I./KG 100 paint a much different picture. The He 177 suffered the lowest losses of all german night bombers. Not more than four planes of I./KG 100 were lost to night fighters in a lot of missions.
During Conversion and so KG 100 had a lot of accidents, but in operational service the He 177 did not suffer more accidents than other german bombers.
Ok, problem was that the Do 217 used at the same time had a problem with flame dampeners causing engine fires...

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:23 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:
- btw, which Unit was that often quoted Steinbock
- raid?

The post says 2. & 3./KG100. Does you chronical have the number of a/c that made it to London out of the 13 were to TO on that night?


- Because in the KG 100 chronicle, the raids of I./KG
- 100 paint a much different picture. The He 177
- suffered the lowest losses of all german night
- bombers. Not more than four planes of I./KG 100 were
- lost to night fighters in a lot of missions.
- During Conversion and so KG 100 had a lot of
- accidents, but in operational service the He 177 did
- not suffer more accidents than other german bombers.
- Ok, problem was that the Do 217 used at the same
- time had a problem with flame dampeners causing
- engine fires...
-
-

Who is saying anything about losses to NFs/accidents? The subject is the mechanical reliability of the He177.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:08 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Night of Feb 13 '44 - a Steinbock raid
-
- 2. & 3./KG100
-
- 13 a/c TO
-
- 1 a/c blows a tire on TO
-
- 8 a/c return to base suffering from over-heating or
- burning engines
-
- only 4 of the 5 remaining a/c found London and 1
- shot down by NFs.
-
- These a/c were A-5s that had been coming off
- production lines since Feb '43.



How about using your brain Milo? I asked for the total number of sorties against the number of ineffective sorties due to engine problems. Can you read?
Posting stats for a single sortie is useful for trolling purposes only.

How about the Tidal Wave mission: from 177 Liberators on take off, 15 aborted the mission due to mechanical failures or crashed en route, 51 were downed over Romania, 22 landed or crashed before reaching Libya on return. From 89 bombers that did return to the home base only 31 were flyable.
Can you calculate the loss rate for this mission Milo? Was this loss rate representative for USAAF raids?

And you Cippacometa what mission would you choose to fly: Steinbock raid or Tidal Wave raid?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/29/0309:16AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:22 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Excellent sample of Skychimp wasting space on this
- forum. Do you have data to support you affirmation?
- for example from the total number of sorties how
- many were ineffective because of the engine
- problems? When you get that number call me and I'll
- tell how it compares to american bombers.
-
- Until then spare us of your personal oppinions (sold
- as facts), we know very them very well.


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I knew YOU would not stand for any discussion regarding a German planes unreliability. No matter how thoroughly documented it is, you will waste no effort in denying or distorting it.

Go on, Huck, tell us how grand the He-117 really was.



"An RLM order went into effect calling fro the scrapping of ALL He-177s extant due to the high numbers of problems."

"Professor Heinkel had tasked an action committee to look into the reasons behind the engine fires and their recommendations led to an He177 being modified accordingly at the Rechlin test center. The committe had identified 56 potential causes and had proposed a whole series of changes to the airframe."

"The contiuous technical problems which kept cropping up undoubtedly led to more losses than those caused by the enemy, and all hopes that that this bomber which could seriously compete on a level with those of the Allies were brutally dashed."

Source: "The History of German Aviation: Bombers and Reconnaissance Aircraft 1939-Present", Roderich Cescotti, page 204


More...

"With regard to the operational role of the He-177, the first 20 He-177A-1s began carrying out winter trials in the East beginning in late 1942. However the situation around Stalingrad necessitated these being pressed into service flying resupply missions. On the first mission suing seven He-177s the formation leader crashed, and following the loss of four other planes the idea of using the He-177s to fly resupply runs was dropped altogether, a desicion which was in no small part reinforced by the knowledge that the smaller yet much more reliabel He-111 had almost the same capacity as the labor intensive he-1777."


Not convionced?


"By this time there were 13 remaining aircraft, and despite their good showing with regards to defending themselves against enemy fighters, no less than seven machines became total write-offs. Most of these were attributable to engine fires, without any visible signs of of damage due to enemy actions."


Yet more...

"One example of the technical problems plaguing the type can be gleaned from a mission flown during the night of 13 February 1944, which Generalmajor Peltz followed personally. On this winter night 13 machines took to the skies - after one had dropped out shortly beforehand due to tire damage. Immediately after take-off, eight more aircraft were forced to break off the mission because of engines ovverheating; some powerplants were even on fire."

Same source.


I can go on and on Huck. Now, go ahead and tell us all about how grandly reliable this He-177 really was.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:23 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:
- btw, which Unit was that often quoted Steinbock
- raid?
- Because in the KG 100 chronicle, the raids of I./KG
- 100 paint a much different picture. The He 177
- suffered the lowest losses of all german night
- bombers. Not more than four planes of I./KG 100 were
- lost to night fighters in a lot of missions.

Maybe they never got to the target area and anywhere
near any night fighters :-)

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:27 PM
Hay huck. Looking at the numbers, the B-24 had a LOT less engine FAILURE then the He-177. 8 out of 13 is bad. 15 out of 177 is DAMN GOOD. Less then a 1% failure rate compaired to a 75%? And dont try to mask the numbers by adding mecanical failures over the target and aircraft damaged by the enemy. We are talking about engine failures that caused the mission to be scrubbed early on. IE aircraft returning home with engile problems.

Gib


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Night of Feb 13 '44 - a Steinbock raid
--
-- 2. & 3./KG100
--
-- 13 a/c TO
--
-- 1 a/c blows a tire on TO
--
-- 8 a/c return to base suffering from over-heating or
-- burning engines
--
-- only 4 of the 5 remaining a/c found London and 1
-- shot down by NFs.
--
-- These a/c were A-5s that had been coming off
-- production lines since Feb '43.
-
-
-
- How about using your brain Milo? I asked for the
- total number of sorties against the number of
- ineffective sorties due to engine problems. Can you
- read?
- Posting stats for a single sortie is useful for
- trolling purposes only.
-
- How about the Tidal Wave mission: from 177
- Liberators on take off, 15 aborted the mission due
- to mechanical failures or crashed en route, 51 were
- downed over Romania, 22 landed or crashed before
- reaching Libya on return. From 89 bombers that did
- return to the home base only 31 were flyable.
- Can you calculate the loss rate for this mission
- Milo? Was this loss rate representative for USAAF
- raids?
-
- And you Cippacometa what mission would you choose to
- fly: Steinbock raid or Tidal Wave raid?
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 08/29/03 09:16AM by
- Huckebein_FW



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:27 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- How about using your brain Milo? I asked for the
- total number of sorties against the number of
- ineffective sorties due to engine problems. Can you
- read?
- Posting stats for a single sortie is useful for
- trolling purposes only.
-
- How about the Tidal Wave mission: from 177
- Liberators on take off, 15 aborted the mission due
- to mechanical failures or crashed en route, 51 were
- downed over Romania, 22 landed or crashed before
- reaching Libya on return. From 89 bombers that did
- return to the home base only 31 were flyable.
- Can you calculate the loss rate for this mission
- Milo? Was this loss rate representative for USAAF
- raids?
-
- And you Cippacometa what mission would you choose to
- fly: Steinbock raid or Tidal Wave raid?


Ironic, Huck, that you would challenge Milo to "use a brain." Maybe that doesn't apply to you.

This is an example of the distortions you puke all over these boards. This is a discussion about reliability, not combat losses. 15 of 177 turned back for mechanical reasons. 15 of 177. WOW! And yet on a regular basis as many as 50% of He-177s were lost due to reliability issues.

But never mind, leave it to Huck compare losses to mechanical failure of the He-177 to losses to ALL causes for the B-24. I'd expect nothing less for the likes of Huck.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:05 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Hay huck. Looking at the numbers, the B-24 had a
- LOT less engine FAILURE then the He-177. 8 out of
- 13 is bad. 15 out of 177 is DAMN GOOD. Less then a
- 1% failure rate compaired to a 75%? And dont try to
- mask the numbers by adding mecanical failures over
- the target and aircraft damaged by the enemy. We
- are talking about engine failures that caused the
- mission to be scrubbed early on. IE aircraft
- returning home with engile problems.


Gib I posted that raid to show that you cannot generalize with data from a single raid. Tidal Wave had a 50% loss rate. Can you generalize from this single raid the losses of USAAF raid? No. The same goes for He-177. Ask Skychimp and Milo to bring the statistic on the total number of mission. But they won't because they can never do an accurate search for data, or correctly interpret those at hand.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/29/0310:09AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:13 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Ironic, Huck, that you would challenge Milo to "use
- a brain." Maybe that doesn't apply to you.

It doesn't apply to you I'm sure, you don't have one anyway.



- This is an example of the distortions you puke all
- over these boards. This is a discussion about
- reliability, not combat losses. 15 of 177 turned
- back for mechanical reasons. 15 of 177. WOW! And
- yet on a regular basis as many as 50% of He-177s
- were lost due to reliability issues.

No, this is an obvious example of how you distort the facts. You generalize from data comming from a single raid or from problems with the prototypes. This is either sheer stupidity or clear intention to misinform. If you want to prove that He-177 engines were unreliable you have to bring the number of ineffective sorties due to engines problems from the total number of sorties (which we will compare with similar american statistics). This is the ONLY acceptable proof. The rest is mindless trolling.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/29/0310:17AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:14 PM
has anyone Eric Browns book "Wings of the Luftwaffe?
the part what Ernst Heinkel said about the Greif :


he is looking back with a better feeling for the He 111 Zwilling than for the He 177.

for eric brown was the He177 a loser .

IMO ,if you take the result, the time, the money and resource what the german wasted for this bird, then indeed , the aircraft was a loser





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0



Message Edited on 08/29/0303:16PM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:17 PM
More smoke and mirros. STICK TO THE SUBJECT! He-177 engine problems. %1 of B-24's returned early with engine problems. 75% He-177's returned early with engine problems. Thats bad engines. I dont care about the loss rate due to any other reasons when in a thread about ENGINE PROBLEMS!

Gib

P.S. Stick to the subject.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- Hay huck. Looking at the numbers, the B-24 had a
-- LOT less engine FAILURE then the He-177. 8 out of
-- 13 is bad. 15 out of 177 is DAMN GOOD. Less then a
-- 1% failure rate compaired to a 75%? And dont try to
-- mask the numbers by adding mecanical failures over
-- the target and aircraft damaged by the enemy. We
-- are talking about engine failures that caused the
-- mission to be scrubbed early on. IE aircraft
-- returning home with engile problems.
-
-
- Gib I posted that raid to show that you cannot
- generalize with data from a single raid. Tidal Wave
- had a 50% loss rate. Can you generalize from this
- single raid the losses of USAAF raid? No. The same
- goes for He-177. Ask Skychimp and Milo to bring the
- statistic on the total number of mission. But they
- won't because they can never do an accurate search
- for data, or correctly interpret those at hand.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 08/29/03 10:09AM by
- Huckebein_FW



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:20 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- More smoke and mirros. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
- He-177 engine problems. %1 of B-24's returned early
- with engine problems. 75% He-177's returned early
- with engine problems. Thats bad engines. I dont
- care about the loss rate due to any other reasons
- when in a thread about ENGINE PROBLEMS!


Do you have the statistics? I'd very much like to hear them.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:31 PM
Do217s and Huckebein_FW are you two having a bad
day? why all this agressivness?


<ceter>http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/swedish_aviators/images/whirlwind_1.jpg </center>
Ralph H¤ggberg one of 5 Swedish
pilots flying for the RAF

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:32 PM
You asked for statistics, and Milo gave you 1 mission were 75% of the He-177's returned early with engine problems. Then you counterd with a B-24 raid were less then 1% returned with engine failure. The writing is on the wall, and your fighting a hopeless battle. Smoke and mirrors will only get you so far. Do you really believe the He-177 did not have more engine problems then a typical heavy bomber? If so, thats just sad that you will ignore all facts and history to hold up to your view of how things were.

Also, I have not seen you put up one shread of proof that the He-177 did not have engine problems. Everyone on this thread says it did, and we have posted proof that it did. Were is your proof that it did not? So far, the only "proof" is a post about 1% of B-24's having engine problems. Thats not proof of your therie, but proof of our fact. Get a grip on reality. Everyone knows the engines on the He-177 had a LOT of problems but you.

I have a feeling im waisting my time. Facts run of Hucks back like water off a duck. Only thing that sticks is Luftwaffa propaganda. Maybe because its brown and sticky?

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- More smoke and mirros. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
-- He-177 engine problems. %1 of B-24's returned early
-- with engine problems. 75% He-177's returned early
-- with engine problems. Thats bad engines. I dont
-- care about the loss rate due to any other reasons
-- when in a thread about ENGINE PROBLEMS!
-
-
- Do you have the statistics? I'd very much like to
- hear them.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:41 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- You asked for statistics, and Milo gave you 1
- mission were 75% of the He-177's returned early with
- engine problems. Then you counterd with a B-24 raid
- were less then 1% returned with engine failure. The
- writing is on the wall, and your fighting a hopeless
- battle. Smoke and mirrors will only get you so far.
- Do you really believe the He-177 did not have more
- engine problems then a typical heavy bomber? If so,
- thats just sad that you will ignore all facts and
- history to hold up to your view of how things were.

If an object does not function once you can generalise and say that it never worked? That's what Skychimp and Milo tried to prove until now.



- Also, I have not seen you put up one shread of proof
- that the He-177 did not have engine problems.
- Everyone on this thread says it did, and we have
- posted proof that it did. Were is your proof that
- it did not? So far, the only "proof" is a post
- about 1% of B-24's having engine problems. Thats
- not proof of your therie, but proof of our fact.
- Get a grip on reality. Everyone knows the engines
- on the He-177 had a LOT of problems but you.


I don't have to prove anything. He-177 saw a lot of service, so it clearly worked. On the other hand Skychimp and Milo said that it had engine problem but they still did not bring a valid prove that He-177 did not work well. The only thing they proved was that prototypes had problems with engines and there also also engine problems on Steinbock raid (maybe they all had bad quality fuel on that raid, and overheated easily - this happened on a lot of planes). And that's all they have. You can't generalise from such scarce data.

So I'm still waiting for statistics.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:42 PM
15 out of 177 is more than 1%, that's a 8.5% loss rate.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:44 PM
I doubt if anyone could seriously argue that the ridiculous He-177 was anything other than a disaster.

Huck can argue about its reliability (although the historical record seems pretty damning), but a more convincing demolition of its effectiveness comes from asking the simple question - what was it for?

Could the Luftwaffe use a heavy bomber on the Western Front in the second half of the war to any worthwhile effect? Well, in the face of the vast number of fighters available to the Allies by 1943, the He-177 would have been annihilated if it had been used to attempt regular daylight operations. The Luftwaffe had no effective long-range fighters to act as escorts and could not have crewed them with anything other than novices if it did. Combat losses would have been prohibitive.

It would therefore seem necessary to use the He-177 as a night bomber. But the Luftwaffe lacked any remotely credible guidance system for target finding at night. There was no Luftwaffe H2S. Further, to operate a heavy bomber fleet at night the Luftwaffe would have had to opt for an area bombing offensive of the sort employed by the RAF, but German industry could produce nothing like the numbers of aircraft required to constitute an effective heavy bomber force for night-time area bombing. Also, considering the Allied lead in radar technology it is doubtful if a sustained campaign could have been conducted without Allied countermeasures again rapidly rendering losses prohibitive.

Even worse for the idea of operating a large force of night-bomber He-177s would have been the prodigious quantities of fuel required. By early 1944 there was no possibility of the Luftwaffe sourcing sufficient fuel to operate such a fleet. The aircraft would have sat rusting on their airfields.

One can also ask the question as to what exactly a hypothetical fleet of He-177s operating in the West would attack. Certainly not many of the factories churning out the weapons faced by Germany, since these were safely located in America. Attacks on the UK would have been possible, but German intelligence about the situation on the ground in the UK was almost non-existent. By 1944 German intelligence was so poor that the Allies were able to convince their opponents that a huge army was based in South-East England ready to invade Northern France and that the D-Day landings were mere diversions.

So in the West, the He-177 could be no more than a nuisance raider, as dangerous to its crews as to the Allies.

On the Eastern Front the He-177 suffered some of the same issues, but was further handicapped by the fact that, although it was an instrument designed primarily for strategic warfare, it was to be used against an opponent who had simply removed his means of industrial production safely beyond the range of any possible attack. The Eastern Front involved distances so great that only aircraft of the sort developed by the USA and UK could have effectively prosecuted a strategic campaign.

Technically, the He-177 is an interesting aircraft. But the very things that make it interesting contributed to its failure in military terms. Any mechanical engineer would baulk at the complications involved in twinning powerful engines to a common propeller. Various other novel technologies employed (remotely operated gun positions etc) further contributed to the cost of the project, caused delays in development and production, and increased the difficulty of operation. It is worth bearing in mind when considering complicated weapon systems like the He-177 that German industry was pathologically unwilling to produce spare parts in the numbers needed to keep such systems in operation. The contrast with the vast numbers of simple, rugged and effective B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters available to the USAAF and RAF is sobering.

Overall, the He-177 seems typical of a number of unsuccessful German attempts to develop new aircraft in WWII. Attempts were made to introduce advanced technology in an environment where the urgency of deploying new weapons systems made such risky adventures desperately foolish. No critical assessment seems to have been made of the aircraft's likely operational abilities in relation to its required task before resources were poured into its development. Indeed, there seems to have been little concept of operational analysis within either the Luftwaffe or the German aviation industry as a whole. The resulting aircraft was overly complicated, unreliable, late, expensive and incapable of being produced or operated in useful numbers to fulfil any sort of strategic role.

In the East, the Luftwaffe needed a German Sturmovik to replace the elderly Ju-87. In the West, it is hard to see how any significant heavy bomber offensive could have been mounted in the face of Allied airpower. Possibly a high-speed medium/light bomber - a German Mosquito - could have been useful in tying up Allied air power, but the idea of operating heavy bombers in the West was a fantasy far beyond the reality faced by the Luftwaffe.

The He-177 was not the answer to any problem faced by the Luftwaffe.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- If an object does not function once you can
- generalise and say that it never worked? That's what
- Skychimp and Milo tried to prove until now.

"Never worked?" No one said that. More twisitng on your part. I said the He-177 was unreleiable and perhaps the most unreliable aircraft in WWII aviation history.



- I don't have to prove anything.

You never do, why change now?



- He-177 saw a lot of
- service, so it clearly worked.

Working and working reliably are two different things. It never performed well, although when it flew, it was reported to have had good handling properties.



- On the other hand
- Skychimp and Milo said that it had engine problem
- but they still did not bring a valid prove that
- He-177 did not work well.

It did not woprk well. The effects of its bombing missions were inconsequential. It had a higher loss rate to malfunctions than to enemy action. That is not "working well."



- The only thing they proved
- was that prototypes had problems with engines and
- there also also engine problems on Steinbock raid
- (maybe they all had bad quality fuel on that raid,
- and overheated easily - this happened on a lot of
- planes). And that's all they have. You can't
- generalise from such scarce data.

Protoypes? I'm referring to production aircraft. And the RLM asked that the entire line and all exisiting aircraft be scrapped. That's quite a testimony.



- So I'm still waiting for statistics.

Nothing will satisfy you, as you are an ardent twister and denier of the truth. But everyone else knows.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 05:12 PM
We showed you statistics, or are you ignoring them? You asked for proof, we gave it. We ask for proof, and you dodge the subject and ask for more proof. Now you "dont have to give it"? Well its needed in order to counter our proof. Without a proper counter, the only conclusion is that we are correct, and the engines were very un-reliable. So far 99% of the posters feel that the He-177 has un-reliable engines, your the 1%. Without proof on your part, it will stay at 1%.

As for its effectiveness, it was in limited production, had a lot of engine failures, and the missions it did complete did not change the war in any way what so ever. A bomber were only 25% of its formation even makes it to the target is a useless bomber and a waist of resources.

As for other Luftwaffa engine problems, out of the 1050 Me-262's available in WWII, only about 50 of them were airworthy at any given time due to engine problems. Thats an interesting statistic for you. And I got those numbers from a German fan of the Me-262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also, I consider having to overhaul an engine after 10 hours of flight time a major problem, and so would any field unit.

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- I don't have to prove anything. He-177 saw a lot of
- service, so it clearly worked. On the other hand
- Skychimp and Milo said that it had engine problem
- but they still did not bring a valid prove that
- He-177 did not work well. The only thing they proved
- was that prototypes had problems with engines and
- there also also engine problems on Steinbock raid
- (maybe they all had bad quality fuel on that raid,
- and overheated easily - this happened on a lot of
- planes). And that's all they have. You can't
- generalise from such scarce data.
-
- So I'm still waiting for statistics.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 05:35 PM
Nice post RocketDog. I am fairly ignorant but even I knew of the engine probs with this aircraft. This crew doesn't look happy to have to climb on board, does it? That's all the proof I need.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/He177b.jpg



And look at the way the guy in the foreground is throwing a look of mistrust at the ac....he obviously knows she would try to kill him with fire if given the chance.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/He177-A3.jpg



And this one is running, lined up and ready to go and still the crew doesn't want to get on board. They'd rather hang outside and take their chances with the spinning props.http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/He177-A5b.jpg


This is all the proof anyone should need. It's common knowledge that the He177 had the problems that ppl here are talking about.


It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/scramblehurri.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 05:49 PM
Couldnt find anything about aborted sorties in the KG 100 chronicle. Mostly things like "15 planes sortied, all returned, but two with slight damage, one having to land at another airfield". But since most Steinbock raids actually comprised of two or more missions per night, the technical reliability couldnt have been too bad. You dont fly a plane with a burned out engine for a second time in the same night. But they flew the A3 version, not the A5 during the Steinbock raids. Problem is, the KG 100 chronicle is not very detailed for this period, because the then I./ KG 100 was not really a KG 100 group. I./KG 4 and I./KG 100 had to change designations since KG 4 except I. Group was flying He 111 on the east front, while of KG 100, only the I. Group was on the east front.
But if you look at the loss reports at www.ww2.dk, (http://www.ww2.dk,) it does not seem that I./KG 100's noncombat losses were so extraordinary. Except January 1944, when they lost 9 He 177s to noncombat causes, there are 2-3 losses both in combat and noncombat in the following months, which is less noncombat and combat losses than with He 111.
And in April 1944, the new I./KG 100 became III./KG 1.

In my opinion, the Greif was not a bad plane, only the Luftwaffe had no experience with a plane that complicated and neither the infrastructure nor the airfields necessary for it. At Lechfeld, they had problems even to taxi these big planes without sinking in, and they couldnt get them into the hangars because the tires would blow at the hangar door step...
Also it was simply way too late in the war for such a bomber. Had the Greif been on hand 1941, the whole thing would have looked different. But 1944 it was simply a waste of resources.
Even though KG 1 did not suffer a single combat loss over the east front in 1944, while flying unescorted dailight raids as far east as Moscow.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg



Message Edited on 08/29/0304:59PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 05:55 PM
Huckie,


LW OoB May 31 1944 - He 177A

Stab/KG 1 2/1 (on hand/servicable)
I/KG 1 30/11
II/KG 1 29/0
III/KG 1 30/12

II/KG 100 30/0

part I/KG 40 30(20)/21(11)
II/KG 40 30/26

3./KG 40 10/10

That is 181 'on hand' but ONLY 71 'sevicable' > 39%. A good indication that all was not well with the He177.

On Jan 10 1945, the LW OoB has only II/KG 100 with He 177A, 44 'on hand' with only 32 ready for combat. There was 565 He177A-5s produced in 1944 - what happened to the 521 other a/c?

The OoB for April 9 1945 has >>NO<< He177s listed.


The Germans should have taken notes from Allison, who successfully doubled the V-1710 > the V-3420.


PS. AntEater, thanks for the info./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Had second thoughts about saying A-5./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0312:57PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:16 PM
Nice pictures, Dubbo /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

I think the He-177 development programme is much more like the sort of thing we see with modern peactime military programmes than anything that would have been appropriate in WWII. Modern aircraft development can take the risk of using untried technologies because the development can just be delayed if necessary. For instance, Europe's airforces are only just beginning to take delivery of the Typhoon "Eurofighter", many years behind schedule. But it doesn't really matter because the time was taken to work the technologies up until they were reliable.

The poor old He-177 might eventually have become an effective weapon, but only if there had been a few extra years available for development. Given the situation faced by the Luftwaffe in the middle years of the war the He-177 was a very poor choice of aircraft. This is particularly true when you start to consider what exactly the Luftwaffe could do with a heavy bomber even if they had been delivered one that worked.

A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of unsuccessful projects might include:

He-177
He-219
He-162
Me-163
Me-262
Do-335
Me-210/410
Hs-129
Me-323

...and probably half a dozen others. These aircraft were not unsuccessful because they didn't have potential, and on paper they often had excellent performance characteristics. But they all fail the test of military significance because they could not be produced in adequate numbers with adequate reliability at reasonable cost in time to be of any use. A few of them (e.g., the He-177 and Do-335) don't even seem to have a clearly defined military purpose - which was my point about the He-177 in my earlier post.

Off hand I can only think of one (!) successful aircraft introduced by the Luftwaffe during the war, which of course is the Fw 190.

The Allies in this time managed to introduce a slew of successful new types, such as the P-51, P-47, Typhoon/Tempest, Lancaster, La 5 and 7 series etc.

There is a seductive glamour about some of these Luftwaffe projects, partly based on the performance characteristcs achieved when everything was working. However, a more careful analysis usually shows the real-life aircraft to be fatally compromised. The 10-hour lifetime of the 262's jet engines has already been mentioned.

Ultimately, German aviation engineering in WWII entered a decline from which it did not recover before the end of the war. Projects were pursued that were far too ambitious for the time and technology available, leading to poorly developed aircraft being rushed into service.

Regards,

RocketDog.





Message Edited on 08/29/03 05:17PM by RocketDog

EDIT - grrrr....spelling...

Message Edited on 08/29/0305:20PM by RocketDog

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:30 PM
I would regard the He 219 as a successful purpose build nightfighter. The fact that there was a proven design which brought 70% of the performance at 30% of the cost (the Ju 88) doesnt negate the fact that the Uhu was a masterpiece.

And the He 177 was designed as a heavy bomber, nothing more or less. The idiotic Stuka order delayed it, but at least that high diving speed saved the lives of many crews over England. The He 177 could outdive a Mosquito.

Btw, did you ever look closer at the Greif, did you notice the rear gunner?
This guy had one of the worst jobs in WW2. There was no connection between the rear gunner cabin and the rest of the Crew! He only had his intercom, otherwise he was totally alone at the tail of that big aircraft.
As an offset, if something bad happened, he was mostly able to get out, often as the only survivor. He could just jettison his canopy and get out like a fighter pilot.
Btw, one of those rear gunners even shot down a Black Widow
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:39 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:
- I would regard the He 219 as a successful purpose
- build nightfighter. The fact that there was a proven
- design which brought 70% of the performance at 30%
- of the cost (the Ju 88) doesnt negate the fact that
- the Uhu was a masterpiece.

The 219 is an interesting case, and probably came closest of the aircraft on my list to being a successful weapon system. But I would argue it still ended up failing the test of "military significance" because it proved impossible to deploy it in adequate numbers. Probably it came so very close to success becuse it actually used very little untried technology and was more in the way of a logical evolution of existing machinery. From what I remember, it also fell victim to Byzantine political wrangling between the Luftwaffe, the Nazi party and the aviation companies.

It looks georgeous too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

And yes, I think the He-177 tail gunner must have had a very peculiar psychology...

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:49 PM
Lol. The He-177 gunner had it easy compaired to the gunners behind the engine of the Pe-8. Lol.

Gib

RocketDog wrote:
-
- And yes, I think the He-177 tail gunner must have
- had a very peculiar psychology...
-
- Regards,
-
- RocketDog.
-
-
-
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:53 PM
I dont know, but if I look at the Pe-8s wing profile, it may well be that there was a crawlway in the wing root so these gunners could change position.

Regarding the He 177, the B2 Gunner didnt have it easy either. He remote controlled the B2 turret, but the breaking contacts which prevented the turret from firing when facing the stabilizer or the gunners cupola were often defective. One gunner nearly shot himself in the head with his own turret. The bulled missed a few centimeters.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:59 PM
I think the 177 was a 4-engine plane:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177.html

--------------------------------
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:59 PM
Wow. Sounds interesting. I looked at the technical drawings of the Pe-8 wing and there was no crawl space. Lots of latice work and fuel tanks. I know the Me-323 had a large crawl space in its wings to service the engine's in flight, and the PBY also had a small crawl space.

Also, the B-25 Mitchel had a similar problem with the top turrete shooting the tail. In late models the tail gunner was raised a bit, and also the tail was exposed to the top turrete. How did they fix this? Breaker circut? Naaa. 4 armor wedges stuck to the back of the aircraft just behind the top turrete to deflect bulletes from hitting the tail or tail gunner. LOL! Its always the simple stuff that works the best.

This remind me of Indeana Jones. "Son, they got us."

Gib

theRealAntEater wrote:
- I dont know, but if I look at the Pe-8s wing
- profile, it may well be that there was a crawlway in
- the wing root so these gunners could change
- position.
-
- Regarding the He 177, the B2 Gunner didnt have it
- easy either. He remote controlled the B2 turret, but
- the breaking contacts which prevented the turret
- from firing when facing the stabilizer or the
- gunners cupola were often defective. One gunner
- nearly shot himself in the head with his own turret.
- The bulled missed a few centimeters.
-
- <img
- src="http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.j
- pg">
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:03 PM
Correct. 1 engine maited to another using a common drive shaft. This was the problem. The front engine heated the back one since the back one was only cooled by hot air from the front. Not a good design. I do think the back engine had two ducts on the side of the front engine, but they were not adiquate. Maybe if they used forced air like the FW, or just seperated the engines more. But 4 engines driving two props.

Gib

Jim_ wrote:
- I think the 177 was a 4-engine plane:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he1
- 77.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org
- /LRG/he177.html</a>
-
-
---------------------------------
- Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:06 PM
Jim_ wrote:
- I think the 177 was a 4-engine plane:
-
-

There was the He277B that had 4 DB603 individual motors.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:22 PM
I remember reading about a He-177 which was shot down, the nightfighter hit the fuselage so the tail was cut off. The tail-gunner either did not realise what had happened or was concussed during the fight so he did not bail out. The tail seperated from the rest of the aircraft glided down and made a successful crash landing. The tailgunner was found in his seat bruised and concussed but otherwise OK.

'It is right to be taught, even by an enemy' OVID

Get my skins at-
http://www.il2skins.com/action=list&authoridfilter=one13&ts=1058588602&comefrom=credits

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:43 PM
177 was a 4 engined aircraft, only each prop had 2 engines working it

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/he_177.jpg


The 277 had a conventional 4 engine layout


http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/He277a.jpg

MiloMorai wrote:


- Jim_ wrote:
-- I think the 177 was a 4-engine plane:
--

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/hurriformation.jpg



Message Edited on 08/29/0312:32PM by Dubbo2

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:59 PM
RocketDog wrote: (among other things)

- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
- unsuccessful projects might include:
-
- He-177
- He-219
- He-162
- Me-163
- Me-262
- Do-335
- Me-210/410
- Hs-129
- Me-323


i don't mean to flame you in any way but i would totally disagree on most of these types of aircraft - and i think you are totally wrong.

1. he-177 true - a great example of RLM stupidity

2. he-219 many consider this the best twin-engine design of the war - was considered a remarkable plane in RAF test after the war. Remarkably fast with a heavy load of cannons. However only 300 were ordered - another example of RLM incompitence.

3. he-162 had most its problems fixed with the 3. and 4. prototypes and although its weight was increased 700-800 kg in the A-2 version it still could reach over 900 km h at just under 20.000 feet. it had an ejection seat and was the fastest plane of the war - Galland hated the plane though - so i let him be the judge of it. However some pilots (maby those who got proper planes from the factories) talked highly of it once they started to use it.

4. me-163 can you name any other rocket-propelled fighter..... ever ? cut this plane some slack dude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

5. me-262 an unsuccesful plane !? the only unsuccessful thing about this plane was hitlers order to redesign it as a light bomber - for that reason the germans had no 262's when the americans started the crucial bombing-campaign of jan.44 to D-day. but that has nothing to do with the plane itself.

6. do-335 very potential design - never got a chance to prove itself.

7. me-210/410 there is a lot of misunderstanding about this plane - after the initial problems were fixed this plane was well liked by the axis airforces and was a great fast/light bomber. The 410 was a very good plane indeed.

8. hs-129 saw extensive service although in small numbers and were indeed very effective.

9. me-323 well....... the 321/323 were not especially successful - although they often came in handy - not comparable with the Grief though.

You can't name some of the best plane designs of the war and put them in the same category of faliure as the ridiculous he-177.

skip the dive brakes - use 4 x BMW radials........ the RLM really were IDIOTS !

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:06 PM
I know the 177 may have modelled problems but i realize every plane has flaws and while the 177 may blow big time i will still enjoy flying it engine failures or not it would be a challenge, itd be fun if those missles were modelled in to be used.

Plus the 177 is a heavy bomber therefore its defensive guns mean you will likely get there alive, one reason i liked the pe8. nothing more aggrivating then about to drop ur bombs and get blasted cuz ur 7.9's on 111 just cant cut it.

But i will enjoy the 177 and hey if a 274 and/or 277 are modelled all the better. only thing that will be bad about 177 is its bomb load suffers due to the heavy missles that we cannot use.......

But i wil fly other bombers too hopefully a B-29, but when the 177 is out on a german vs allies/axis battle ill be flying that 177 granted i may be flying it with flaming engines but it will be fun.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:10 PM
johann_thor wrote:
-
- RocketDog wrote: (among other things)
-
-- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
-- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
-- unsuccessful projects might include:
--
-- He-177
-- He-219
-- He-162
-- Me-163
-- Me-262
-- Do-335
-- Me-210/410
-- Hs-129
-- Me-323
-
-
- i don't mean to flame you in any way but i would
- totally disagree on most of these types of aircraft
- - and i think you are totally wrong.

i second that,
i think , it goes to far, to call these planes unsuccessfull.

then you can do it with almost every plane what was ever built


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:32 PM
The dual engines in the nacelle shared a single exhaust mainfold on the two inner cylinder blocks. This got hot enough to ignite the usual accumulation of grease and oil at the bottom of the cowling.

When the engine was throttled back, the injector pump would usually deliver more fuel than needed. And the pump connections leaked.

To save weight, there was no firewall. The powerplant was fitted so close to the mainspar that there wa little room for fuel and oil lines, electric leads, what have you.
That small space was soaked in leaking fuel and oil.

At altitude, the oil would foam, partly because the return pump was too large. So you got little lubrication.

So now you get connecting rods bursting through the crankcase, punching through the oil tanks, which fell on
the red hot exhaust pipe.

Sounds very reliable to me.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 08:58 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- If an object does not function once you can
-- generalise and say that it never worked? That's what
-- Skychimp and Milo tried to prove until now.
-
- "Never worked?" No one said that. More twisitng on
- your part. I said the He-177 was unreleiable and
- perhaps the most unreliable aircraft in WWII
- aviation history.


All you can say is "perhaps". You can't support your view with a single number.

Do the same for He-177:

Total number of sorties flown in ETO by B-17 and B-24: 332,904

Total number of ineffective sorties flown in ETO by B-17 and B-24: 57,983, aprox 17.5%

From which traceable to mechanical failures: 11,839, aprox 3.5%

Keep in mind that this numbers do not include the aircraft lost due to mechanical problems, only those that returned.


Also I'll accept in such statistic even the early models equiped with DB606, though we will have in FB He-177A-5, the main variant, which was equiped with DB610.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 09:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- All you can say is "perhaps". You can't support your
- view with a single number.
-
- Do the same for He-177:
-
- Total number of sorties flown in ETO by B-17 and
- B-24: 332,904
-
- Total number of ineffective sorties flown in ETO by
- B-17 and B-24: 57,983, aprox 17.5%
-
- From which traceable to mechanical failures: 11,839,
- aprox 3.5%
-
- Keep in mind that this numbers do not include the
- aircraft lost due to mechanical problems, only those
- that returned.
-
-
- Also I'll accept in such statistic even the early
- models equiped with DB606, though we will have in FB
- He-177A-5, the main variant, which was equiped with
- DB610.


Like I said, the RLM requested that ALL He-177s be scrapped. 100% of them. How's that for a testimonial?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You just can't take it can you. You're still in a state of denial.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

A riot, you are.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/30/0312:21AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 09:31 PM
RLM also wanted all guided missiles scrapped, even though they were very effective.

I think the RLM order more comes from the realization that the least thing germany needed in late 1944 was a 4 engined heavy bomber.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 09:51 PM
The RLM order came in 1943 and was made as a result of the "high numbers of problems with the aircraft." In mid 1944, operational readiness fo groups equipped with the He-177 hovered around 35%.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 09:58 PM
Skychimp, Milo, Gibbage - it is extremely silly
to use the results of one raid by He177s as something
necessarily representative of the type's performance.
If you do so, then it is fair game for any other type
(US, UK, USSR) to be compared unfavourably on the basis
of a single raid. It's just plain silly. Maybe you
are just trolling.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:03 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- theRealAntEater wrote:
-- I would regard the He 219 as a successful purpose
-- build nightfighter. The fact that there was a proven
-- design which brought 70% of the performance at 30%
-- of the cost (the Ju 88) doesnt negate the fact that
-- the Uhu was a masterpiece.
-
- The 219 is an interesting case, and probably came
- closest of the aircraft on my list to being a
- successful weapon system.

The Hs129 was pretty successful too, I thought.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:05 PM
johann_thor wrote:
-
- RocketDog wrote: (among other things)
-
-- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
-- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
-- unsuccessful projects might include:
--
-- He-177
-- He-219
-- He-162
-- Me-163
-- Me-262
-- Do-335
-- Me-210/410
-- Hs-129
-- Me-323
-
-
- i don't mean to flame you in any way but i would
- totally disagree on most of these types of aircraft
- - and i think you are totally wrong.
-
- 1. he-177 true - a great example of RLM stupidity
-
- 2. he-219 many consider this the best twin-engine
- design of the war - was considered a remarkable
- plane in RAF test after the war. Remarkably fast
- with a heavy load of cannons. However only 300 were
- ordered - another example of RLM incompitence.
-
- 3. he-162 had most its problems fixed with the 3.
- and 4. prototypes and although its weight was
- increased 700-800 kg in the A-2 version it still
- could reach over 900 km h at just under 20.000 feet.
- it had an ejection seat and was the fastest plane of
- the war - Galland hated the plane though - so i let
- him be the judge of it. However some pilots (maby
- those who got proper planes from the factories)
- talked highly of it once they started to use it.
-

The He-162 still had roll-coupled yaw, a very dangerous effect where the aircraft yaws when rolled, that can easily throw the plane into deep, unrecoverable spins. When one considers taht the design purpose of this aircraft was to provide a high performance jet for *poorly trained* pilots, the aircraft is a failure. When one additionaly considers that it was intended as a bomber interceptor, yet could only be armed with 2x20mm cannon (the Mk108 proved to heavy, and had to high a recoil to be controlable on such a light frame), it is also a failure.

In short, it was a tricky to fly, lightly armed, aircraft that was supposed to be able to allow low flight time pilots to incercept heavy bombers.

-
- 4. me-163 can you name any other rocket-propelled
- fighter..... ever ? cut this plane some slack dude
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-

Its fuel violently combusts when it comes into contact with organic material: I.E. You. The landing has a tendancy to rupture the fuel tanks.

The aircraft's range was so short, that it required deployment at the facilities it was supposed to protect. While it was able to reasonably protect those facilities, it was impossible to send them up to intercept a raid at any other facilities. Not that directing flights was the LW's strong suit, but the ability to cover multiple objectives with a single squadron is critical in air defence.

Interestingly enough, that's the biggest reason Stealth technology is so importaint. It doesn't completely prevent dection by enemy forces, rather, it reduces the effective coverage of their defense, requiring that they invest more resources to defend a given area.

The advantage of the aircraft over artilery is that it is an area defense, rather than a point defence. The Komet, however, managed to embody all the drawbacks of aircraft (higher mantinence requirements, higher training requirements, higher personel investments per unit) with few of the advantages.

Pound for pound, the Flak-88 was more effective, more deployable, and more cost effecient, despite the massive ammounts of ammo needed to kill a single bomber. If they had spent the resources used on projects such as the 162, 163, and 262 on developing radar targeting and proximity fuses, they would have been able to cripple the US bomber offensive.

-
- 5. me-262 an unsuccesful plane !? the only
- unsuccessful thing about this plane was hitlers
- order to redesign it as a light bomber - for that
- reason the germans had no 262's when the americans
- started the crucial bombing-campaign of jan.44 to
- D-day. but that has nothing to do with the plane
- itself.
-

The order to convert it to a light bomber caused no genuine delays in the project. What did cause delays was the unavaliability of functional jet engines. The Wermark simply did not have the needed suppies of high temperature materials needed to put a significant number of Me-262's into the air.

The only thing the 262 managed to do was scare the Allies.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:07 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Skychimp, Milo, Gibbage - it is extremely silly
- to use the results of one raid by He177s as
- something
- necessarily representative of the type's
- performance.
- If you do so, then it is fair game for any other
- type
- (US, UK, USSR) to be compared unfavourably on the
- basis
- of a single raid. It's just plain silly. Maybe you
- are just trolling.


Trolling? This IS a discussion about the He-177, or didn't you notice?

And no one is making a judgement based on just one raid, that raid just happens to be very well documented.

The evidence exisits that the He-177 was a bad design, was extremely unreliable, and had a negligible effect when it did work. Look at the rest of the information presented.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:08 PM
johann_thor wrote:
- 4. me-163 can you name any other rocket-propelled
- fighter..... ever ? cut this plane some slack dude
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BI-1, also an early 1950s supermarine design that
did not progress beyond the prototype, intended
as point defence for the UK, and the Natter (Germany,
WW2).

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:10 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Skychimp, Milo, Gibbage - it is extremely silly
- to use the results of one raid by He177s as
- something
- necessarily representative of the type's
- performance.
- If you do so, then it is fair game for any other
- type
- (US, UK, USSR) to be compared unfavourably on the
- basis
- of a single raid. It's just plain silly. Maybe you
- are just trolling.
-
-

If I recall correctly, Milo did provide a very thorough listing of the He-177's combat readiness, and it showed about an average readiness of only 39%, which would imply that that raid *is* typical of He-177 operating levels.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:10 PM
-- 5. me-262 an unsuccesful plane !? the only
-- unsuccessful thing about this plane was hitlers
-- order to redesign it as a light bomber - for that
-- reason the germans had no 262's when the americans
-- started the crucial bombing-campaign of jan.44 to
-- D-day. but that has nothing to do with the plane
-- itself.
--
-
- The order to convert it to a light bomber caused no
- genuine delays in the project. What did cause
- delays was the unavaliability of functional jet
- engines. The Wermark simply did not have the needed
- suppies of high temperature materials needed to put
- a significant number of Me-262's into the air.
-
- The only thing the 262 managed to do was scare the
- Allies.


HarryVoyager and RocketDog thank you for clearly stating your bias.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:13 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- HarryVoyager and RocketDog thank you for clearly
- stating your bias.


High praise indeed, from the KING of bias.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:16 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- AaronGT wrote:
-- Skychimp, Milo, Gibbage - it is extremely silly
-- to use the results of one raid by He177s as
-- something
-- necessarily representative of the type's
-- performance.
-- If you do so, then it is fair game for any other
-- type
-- (US, UK, USSR) to be compared unfavourably on the
-- basis
-- of a single raid. It's just plain silly. Maybe you
-- are just trolling.
--
--
-
- If I recall correctly, Milo did provide a very
- thorough listing of the He-177's combat readiness,
- and it showed about an average readiness of only
- 39%, which would imply that that raid *is* typical
- of He-177 operating levels.


Which means that you are not able to interpret those numbers. That procent is actually very high since LW practically suspended medium bomber activity (and He-177 is a heavy bomber). I'm very much surprised that units servicing He-177 were not disbanded by that time. This is a further proof that there still was a role for this aircraft until the end of war, though LW was practically in disarray.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:20 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- johann_thor wrote:
-- 4. me-163 can you name any other rocket-propelled
-- fighter..... ever ? cut this plane some slack dude
-- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
- BI-1, also an early 1950s supermarine design that
- did not progress beyond the prototype, intended
- as point defence for the UK, and the Natter
- (Germany,
- WW2).
-

There was also a US designed rocket plane, that never progressed beyond prototype stage, but I can't remember what the aircraft was.

If I recall correctly, it was also built as piston engined aircraft, and did not fare so well there either. I think it's only claim to fame was that it was the aircraft that inspired test pilots to start wearing crash helmets.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:21 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Like I said, the RLM requested that ALL He-177s be
- scrapped. 100% of them. How's that for a
- testimonial?

They also asked for the He219 project to be scrapped,
despite the He219 being an effective aircraft. The RLM
made some odd decisions during WW2, so it making a
decision to scrap the He177 does not in and of itself
mean that it is a bad aircraft. You need more supporting
evidence than just an RLM decision.

In addition, there is quite a list of types that
were scrapped, or very nearly abandoned in Allied
circles. The Lancaster very nearly didn't happen,
for example. Conversely, if the Manchester _had_ been
an instant success we probably would have seen an
early end to the Halifax line. The Whirlwind got canned.
The Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest line very nearly ended
at the Typhoon Ib. Even the mighty P47 was not an
assured instant hit.

So less of nationalistically-tinged digs, and more
rigour from all concerned, perhaps?

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:22 PM
- RocketDog wrote: (among other things)
-
-- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
-- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
-- unsuccessful projects might include:
--
-- He-177
-- He-219
-- He-162
-- Me-163
-- Me-262
-- Do-335
-- Me-210/410
-- Hs-129
-- Me-323
-
-
- i don't mean to flame you in any way but i would
- totally disagree on most of these types of aircraft
- - and i think you are totally wrong

Many of these are not the failures you make out or else suffered from a deficiency bought on by inconsistent supplying or industrial availability.

The He219 was an aircraft with a VERY complex structure. Rather than build many of these, the RLM (which was looking for ways to cut costs, not disturb production lines and reduce man-hours per aircraft) decided to embark on a limited production run of this wonderful nightfighter while supplementing it with the cheaper, easier-to-build Ju88G and Bf110G. This mission of non-disturbance also prevented other worthy types from entering widespread service (eg. Fw187, He280, Ju252).

The Me210/410 was deemed a success by friend and foe alike although they were obsolete by late 1944. The Me210 only had a bad rep because of the instability of the early production units.

The Hs129 and Me323 both suffered from the lack of suitable engines. Being underpowered, they both could have benefitted from, say, the BMW801 which was ear-marked from the Fw190 for most of the war.

The He162, Me163, Me262 and Do335 all suffered from being developed right at the end of the war with insufficient resources which led to there being defects in their designs.

My list of Luftwaffe failures would read:

Ar240/440
Bf109H
Do317
Fw190B, C
Fw191
He177
Hs130
Ju288


Cheers,

Fafnir_6

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:23 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- And no one is making a judgement based on just one
- raid, that raid just happens to be very well
- documented.

Yes, but it is meaningless if it isn't representative.

- The evidence exisits that the He-177 was a bad
- design, was extremely unreliable,

I agree with you there. No contest.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:25 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- Which means that you are not able to interpret those
- numbers.
-

Ah so it's all in the interpretation I see. I'll have to use that tactic sometime; great for discarding anything that might conflict with my world view.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:26 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huckie,

- LW OoB May 31 1944 - He 177A
-
- Stab/KG 1 2/1 (on hand/servicable)
- I/KG 1 30/11
- II/KG 1 29/0
- III/KG 1 30/12
-
- II/KG 100 30/0
-
- part I/KG 40 30(20)/21(11)
- II/KG 40 30/26
-
- 3./KG 40 10/10
-
- That is 181 'on hand' but ONLY 71 'sevicable' > 39%.
- A good indication that all was not well with the
- He177.

Milo, you can look at any list you like. On nearly any 1st line Luftwaffe unit in summer 44, or later, you'll find a "SERVICABLE" of less than 50%. So your "low" 39% of the He177 is just simply the level of average servible on LW a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif More or less.



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:30 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- If I recall correctly, Milo did provide a very
- thorough listing of the He-177's combat readiness,
- and it showed about an average readiness of only
- 39%, which would imply that that raid *is* typical
- of He-177 operating levels.


There seemed to be some dispute over those figures,
though, and I prefer not to trust a single source,
even though I think Milo is very knowledgable on
the subject area, and is generally a decent chap.

What was the average readiness of other units, though,
specifically LW? The LW generally had quite a low
servicability ratio due to a lack of spares production,
plus any comparatively new or uncommon type is likely
to have higher rates of unservicability even if there
are no great problems with the type as a whole. I suppose
a controversial example to throw in here would be
the poor level servicability of the first few P80s,
although it is not really a fair comparasion as a jet
engine was a very uncommon techology (although you
would presume that the P80s were supported by the
best technicians).

So basically, is a 39% readiness rate very much lower
than the typical rate in the LW for a relatively
uncommon type of aircraft? Does anyone have any
figures for readiness rates for other 'failure'
aircraft from the list - e.g. Me410 or He219 (multi
engined prop aircraft, so a reasonable comparasion?)


I see Kimura answered this as I was typing it, although
do we have any actual figures to back that up, Kimura?


Message Edited on 08/29/0309:33PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:31 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- So less of nationalistically-tinged digs, and more
- rigour from all concerned, perhaps?
-

I agree with you there. Unfortunatly, it can be very difficult to have a meaningful debate when there are certain people on these forums who seem to enjoy starting flame wars and generally stirring up trouble. Life would be much more enjoyable without them here, I think.

Harry Voayger

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:31 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- All you can say is "perhaps". You can't support your
-- view with a single number.
--
-- Do the same for He-177:
--
-- Total number of sorties flown in ETO by B-17 and
-- B-24: 332,904
--
-- Total number of ineffective sorties flown in ETO by
-- B-17 and B-24: 57,983, aprox 17.5%
--
-- From which traceable to mechanical failures: 11,839,
-- aprox 3.5%
--
-- Keep in mind that this numbers do not include the
-- aircraft lost due to mechanical problems, only those
-- that returned.
--
--
-- Also I'll accept in such statistic even the early
-- models equiped with DB606, though we will have in FB
-- He-177A-5, the main variant, which was equiped with
-- DB610.
-
-
- Like I said, the RLM requested that ALL He-177s be
- scrapped. 100% of them. How's that for a
- testimonial?



You obviously are not capable of providing any numbers on He-177. But I understand your jealousy since He-177 was a better bomber than both B-17 and B-24. What a bitter pill.

Never was such an order to scrap all the He-177 (in 1943??). In 1944 He-177 was still in production and in 1945 was still active. Come with serious sources not the garbage that you usually post here.

Once again if you want to prove that He-177 was unreliable you have to bring the overall service stats.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:47 PM
-- 1. he-177 true - a great example of RLM stupidity
--
-- 2. he-219 many consider this the best twin-engine
-- design of the war - was considered a remarkable
-- plane in RAF test after the war. Remarkably fast
-- with a heavy load of cannons. However only 300 were
-- ordered - another example of RLM incompitence.
--
-- 3. he-162 had most its problems fixed with the 3.
-- and 4. prototypes and although its weight was
-- increased 700-800 kg in the A-2 version it still
-- could reach over 900 km h at just under 20.000 feet.
-- it had an ejection seat and was the fastest plane of
-- the war - Galland hated the plane though - so i let
-- him be the judge of it. However some pilots (maby
-- those who got proper planes from the factories)
-- talked highly of it once they started to use it.
--
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The He-162 still had roll-coupled yaw, a very
- dangerous effect where the aircraft yaws when
- rolled, that can easily throw the plane into deep,
- unrecoverable spins. When one considers taht the
- design purpose of this aircraft was to provide a
- high performance jet for *poorly trained* pilots,
- the aircraft is a failure. When one additionaly
- considers that it was intended as a bomber
- interceptor, yet could only be armed with 2x20mm
- cannon (the Mk108 proved to heavy, and had to high a
- recoil to be controlable on such a light frame), it
- is also a failure.
-
- In short, it was a tricky to fly, lightly armed,
- aircraft that was supposed to be able to allow low
- flight time pilots to incercept heavy bombers.

i agree about the Volksjager concept - great plane though ! the A-3 version had a stronger fuselage to carry the mk108s but those that saw combat were A-2s with 20mm - agree on that point too as inexperienced pilots would benefit from the mk108 but 2 x 20mm kinda ruines the volksjager concept.

-- 4. me-163 can you name any other rocket-propelled
-- fighter..... ever ? cut this plane some slack dude
-- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
--
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Its fuel violently combusts when it comes into
- contact with organic material: I.E. You. The
- landing has a tendancy to rupture the fuel tanks.
-
- The aircraft's range was so short, that it required
- deployment at the facilities it was supposed to
- protect. While it was able to reasonably protect
- those facilities, it was impossible to send them up
- to intercept a raid at any other facilities. Not
- that directing flights was the LW's strong suit, but
- the ability to cover multiple objectives with a
- single squadron is critical in air defence.
-
- Interestingly enough, that's the biggest reason
- Stealth technology is so importaint. It doesn't
- completely prevent dection by enemy forces, rather,
- it reduces the effective coverage of their defense,
- requiring that they invest more resources to defend
- a given area.
-
- The advantage of the aircraft over artilery is that
- it is an area defense, rather than a point defence.
- The Komet, however, managed to embody all the
- drawbacks of aircraft (higher mantinence
- requirements, higher training requirements, higher
- personel investments per unit) with few of the
- advantages.
-
- Pound for pound, the Flak-88 was more effective,
- more deployable, and more cost effecient, despite
- the massive ammounts of ammo needed to kill a single
- bomber. If they had spent the resources used on
- projects such as the 162, 163, and 262 on developing
- radar targeting and proximity fuses, they would have
- been able to cripple the US bomber offensive.

good points made - the throttled version of this plane wich never made it into operational use as far as i know was intended to increase range - along with external rockets to assist in climb and save internal fuel - futile attempt perhaps but nevertheless this fighter did get kills and damage on the bomberstream and was quite an innovative design. and wasn't german FLAK radar controlled ?? i have an american book with a pic of a B17 going down after a direct hit from FLAK at 19.000 feet through clouds - book talks about the terrible threat of the "radar-aimed" heavy FLAK guns being able to score direct hits in totally blind conditions - enlighten me if i am wrong but i think i also read this in some other sources ......... hmmmmm
--
-- 5. me-262 an unsuccesful plane !? the only
-- unsuccessful thing about this plane was hitlers
-- order to redesign it as a light bomber - for that
-- reason the germans had no 262's when the americans
-- started the crucial bombing-campaign of jan.44 to
-- D-day. but that has nothing to do with the plane
-- itself.
--
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The order to convert it to a light bomber caused no
- genuine delays in the project. What did cause
- delays was the unavaliability of functional jet
- engines. The Wermark simply did not have the needed
- suppies of high temperature materials needed to put
- a significant number of Me-262's into the air.
-
- The only thing the 262 managed to do was scare the
- Allies.
-
- Harry Voyager

well to make a short story long it was not only the conversion of the 262 into a JABO plane but also that the A4 project was 1. priority when it came to high temprature metals. the reluctancy to put new designs into production also played a big part and the 262 project should have gotten top priority for obvious reasons. even planes that were totally ready for mass production like the he-219 did not get priority with the RLM nitwits and production of outdated planes was stepped up.

the RLM seems to have never been in touch with reality. let alone the idiot in the eagles nest

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:58 PM
Even though the He-177 had its problems, if the plane was modeled correctly and had the same characteristics, I would learn that plane well, then show you Gents (and Ladies) how to fly them without loseing an engine or massive overheating problems, becasue, I am that good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:01 PM
Now, I want to make clear my position about He-177. I also regard it as a failure because it didn't fit in LW doctrine of war. It was a good aircraft but with no real role. It could carry up to 6000kg for short ranges but so could 2 Ju-88, and with better chances of survival. It also had a max range of 5500km (with bomb load) but LW never had a strategic bombing campaign. It also had reliability problems with the engines, but how bad they were is questionable, since nobody proved them with overall service stats. In other words it was an interesting aircraft but others already in service could do the job.

That seem to be the case with many of Heinkel designs, they were always off the LW requirement, even if they did design really interesting and sometimes very good planes. And the irony is that only an obsolete Heinkel design saw mass production and extensive service: He-111.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/29/0307:06PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:11 PM
Here are some picture from cockpit. Don't tell me you don't want to fly this planehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pictures taken from here:
http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ite/he177.htm

http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/img/620/he177/01-010.jpg


http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/img/620/he177/09-040.jpg


http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/img/620/he177/09-029.jpg


http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/img/620/he177/09-023.jpg


http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/img/620/he177/09-003.jpg


http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/img/620/he177/01-018.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:16 PM
I wanna go press all of those buttons now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:40 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:I understand your jealousy
- since He-177 was a better bomber than both B-17 and
- B-24. What a bitter pill.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LOL! Where did this guy COME from? Huck,you just threw any credibilty you had out the window.You claiming the He-177 is superior to the B-17 or B-24 clearly shows it is YOU who is biased. COULD the He-177 have been better? Possibly,but the point is,it wasn't.... Personally, I would love to see the Grief in FB,but your questioning the He-177's well-known UNreliabilty is too much.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You funny,funny little man...LOL! Say something else,please? I need more laughs...

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0307:47PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 12:19 AM
As allways, I'm late to a thread.
What the heck.
Say what you will,this thread does prove what
a facinating subject the HE177 is.
Thanks to you Huck for the link.
Thanks to you for the images also,
and others for theirs.
..Oh and don't knock the He 219,
It's my fav.
~S~

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 12:26 AM
It's too bad the He-177 never reached it's full potential. I think if more work had been put into it,it'd would've been a great bomber. However,more work WASN'T done so it's somewhat mediocre. The 4-engine,2 propellor concept really fascinates me.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:44 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You obviously are not capable of providing any
- numbers on He-177. But I understand your jealousy
- since He-177 was a better bomber than both B-17 and
- B-24. What a bitter pill.

Oh, obviously. All that destruction meated out by the He-177, it's the stuff legends are made from.



- Never was such an order to scrap all the He-177 (in
- 1943??). In 1944 He-177 was still in production and
- in 1945 was still active. Come with serious sources
- not the garbage that you usually post here.

This is the statement of someone who has not researched the topic. Of course the plane was still in production and continued to serve beyond 1943. That's because Heinkel and the Luftwaffe ignored the order.

As far as my sources, I listed mine. BUT YOU said you did not have to prove anything. Typical.



- Once again if you want to prove that He-177 was
- unreliable you have to bring the overall service
- stats.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Your the last hold out aren't you?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:47 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Here are some picture from cockpit. Don't tell me
- you don't want to fly this plane/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I want to fly it, too. But in the context of this flight sim, never in real life. In real life, you never knew if an Allied fighter would kill you, or fire from your own engines. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:53 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Now, I want to make clear my position about He-177.
- I also regard it as a failure because it didn't fit
- in LW doctrine of war. It was a good aircraft but
- with no real role.

It was a horrible aircraft. And you have not offered any evidence to the contrary. Everyone here seems to agree, as do the credible sources listed, that the He-177 was a failure in design and function.



- It could carry up to 6000kg for

8,400 kg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



- short ranges but so could 2 Ju-88, and with better
- chances of survival. It also had a max range of
- 5500km (with bomb load)

Agreed. Actually, my sources show 5,600 km with 12,820 liters of fuel.



- but LW never had a strategic
- bombing campaign. It also had reliability problems
- with the engines, but how bad they were is
- questionable, since nobody proved them with overall
- service stats.


There is no question that the engines were very unreliable. Only YOU argue otherwise, with NO evidence.



- In other words it was an interesting
- aircraft but others already in service could do the
- job.

I actually agree with this.



- That seem to be the case with many of Heinkel
- designs, they were always off the LW requirement,
- even if they did design really interesting and
- sometimes very good planes. And the irony is that
- only an obsolete Heinkel design saw mass production
- and extensive service: He-111.

The He-111 even took over the roll of the He-177 during the attempted aerial relief at Stalingrad. The He-177s reliability prevented it from even performing this task.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/30/0304:59AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:05 AM
Not so KIMURA. The numbers came from a site I posted awhile ago that show single engine servicable a/c were ~twice the % of that of the He177.

You can do your own number crunching

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

but in the Korland Pocket for example

Stab/JG 54 Bf 109G 20/16 Fw 190A 1/1
I/JG 54 Fw 190A 35/32
II/JG 54 41/40

That is 90%


KIMURA wrote:
-
- Milo, you can look at any list you like. On nearly
- any 1st line Luftwaffe unit in summer 44, or later,
- you'll find a "SERVICABLE" of less than 50%. So your
- "low" 39% of the He177 is just simply the level of
- average servible on LW a/c

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/29/0309:21PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 05:10 AM
MX-324/334 flying wing rocket by Northrup. Flying in April 44. It flew under tow behind a P-38 and also by a Aerojet rocket motor, but never by prop. Later it was dropped. Northrup turned it into the Xp-79B by strapping two Westinghouse 19-B jet engines on it. I dont know when it flew. Im guessing somewere around 1945?

Question. When was the Me-163 flying?

Gib

HarryVoyager wrote:
-
-
- There was also a US designed rocket plane, that
- never progressed beyond prototype stage, but I can't
- remember what the aircraft was.
-
- If I recall correctly, it was also built as piston
- engined aircraft, and did not fare so well there
- either. I think it's only claim to fame was that it
- was the aircraft that inspired test pilots to start
- wearing crash helmets.
-
- Harry Voyager
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 05:20 AM
Bahahahahahahaha. .... Hahahahahahahahaha. Man. Im soar after hearing that. Lol. Good one.

We have provided proof, you have not yet. And you say you dont need too, but thats an excuse for someone who has no proof. Its funny how you demand it of us, but your "above" providing proof.

I would like to see your proof that the B-17 (designed in 1938?) and the B-24 (designed in 1939) and the Luftwaffa still could not beat those early pre-war designs even in 1945. THATS a bitter pill. Enjoy.

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- You obviously are not capable of providing any
- numbers on He-177. But I understand your jealousy
- since He-177 was a better bomber than both B-17 and
- B-24. What a bitter pill.
-
- Never was such an order to scrap all the He-177 (in
- 1943??). In 1944 He-177 was still in production and
- in 1945 was still active. Come with serious sources
- not the garbage that you usually post here.
-
- Once again if you want to prove that He-177 was
- unreliable you have to bring the overall service
- stats.
-
-
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:55 AM
Now, at the end, I'd like to thank you all those who contributed on this thread and make it the most ridiculous ever on this forum. That's quite an achievement here, lower than the usual low. Everybody believes that from a single event one can draw conclusion for the whole service life of a plane. Great conclusion.

And I would also like to thank you personally Skychimp for making it clear that despite the personal conflicts between Heinkel and influential figures in RLM, that eventualy led to no new mass produced Heinkel aircrafts after He-111, LW still wanted to operate He-177 against RLM will, though it had replacements for it. A big thanks.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:58 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Bahahahahahahaha. .... Hahahahahahahahaha. Man.
- Im soar after hearing that. Lol. Good one.
-
- We have provided proof, you have not yet. And you
- say you dont need too, but thats an excuse for
- someone who has no proof. Its funny how you demand
- it of us, but your "above" providing proof.
-
- I would like to see your proof that the B-17
- (designed in 1938?) and the B-24 (designed in 1939)
- and the Luftwaffa still could not beat those early
- pre-war designs even in 1945. THATS a bitter pill.
- Enjoy.
-
- Gib

To be fair, it wasn't exactly a Luftwaffe priority to develope long-range strategic bombers. If the LW had conceived it's primary role to be the strategic bombing of enemy industry (as the USAAF did), then we might have seen a very different course of development for German aircraft. He-177 was saddled with too many multi-role requirements (I'd like to see a B-24 pull off a diving attack) and too few resources to really develope it's potential. It was a basically sound design, but they put a bad engine system in it, and, judging by the time it took to correct this, the aircraft was not really a priority (nor should it have been considering the LW's emphasis on tactical support). It was yet another victim of Germany's diffusion of resources into schizophrenic research and development.

At least it can be said that not too much of Germany's production potential was diverted towards the He-177. Is it really so much better to put huge amounts of your resources into creating great aircraft to fulfill misconceived roles?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:06 AM
I agree that DB606 had overheating problems (and DB610 to some extent) but how these affected the overall serviceability of the plane nobody brought such statistic. LW seemed very much willing to use the plane despite the overheats (and RLM bias against Heinkel).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:13 AM
Well, He-177s engines did NOT catch fire on 90% of take-offs, so I don't know where you get the probability of 1/10 for take-off survivability.

Think about it.

The He-177 was a complete piece of crap. Why put it in the game if aren't going to at least attempt to model that?

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:14 AM
I've read that the skill of the pilot played a role in He-177 accidents. Inexperienced pilots tended to push the throttle too much making a unpredictable aircraft even MORE so....

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:20 AM
Suckerpunch11 wrote:
- Well, He-177s engines did NOT catch fire on 90% of
- take-offs, so I don't know where you get the
- probability of 1/10 for take-off survivability.
-
- Think about it.
-
- The He-177 was a complete piece of crap. Why put it
- in the game if aren't going to at least attempt to
- model that?


You say that it did or did not catch fire on 90% of the take-offs??. Can I ask who the source for this idiocy?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:21 AM
http://www.drunkbastard.net/photos/arguing.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:26 AM
Some people could take offense to that pic,jj8325....

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:28 AM
yea i just couldnt resist

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:37 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 10:54 AM
johann_thor wrote:
-
- RocketDog wrote: (among other things)
-
-- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
-- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
-- unsuccessful projects might include:
--
-- He-177
-- He-219
-- He-162
-- Me-163
-- Me-262
-- Do-335
-- Me-210/410
-- Hs-129
-- Me-323
-
-
- i don't mean to flame you in any way but i would
- totally disagree on most of these types of aircraft
- - and i think you are totally wrong.
-
- 1. he-177 true - a great example of RLM stupidity
-
- 2. he-219 many consider this the best twin-engine
- design of the war - was considered a remarkable
- plane in RAF test after the war. Remarkably fast
- with a heavy load of cannons. However only 300 were
- ordered - another example of RLM incompitence.
-
- 3. he-162 had most its problems fixed with the 3.
- and 4. prototypes and although its weight was
- increased 700-800 kg in the A-2 version it still
- could reach over 900 km h at just under 20.000 feet.
- it had an ejection seat and was the fastest plane of
- the war - Galland hated the plane though - so i let
- him be the judge of it. However some pilots (maby
- those who got proper planes from the factories)
- talked highly of it once they started to use it.
-
- 4. me-163 can you name any other rocket-propelled
- fighter..... ever ? cut this plane some slack dude
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I know what you mean but let me try and explain myself a bit more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

All these aircraft were very bold and interesting designs and often used untried technologies. They are exciting aircraft. But the Luftwaffe was fighting a war and the success of a weapons programme in war is not measured by the novelty of what is produced. It's measured by its effectiveness in contributing to the war effort.

The Me-163 is a beautiful example. It used all sorts of innovative new ideas - rocket power, a flying-wing design, diminutive size, no landing gear etc... all of which make it a fascinating aircraft to read about and I very much look forward to flying it in FB.

But was the Me-163 a success or a failure? Well, a reasoned analysis can only conclude it was an abject failure because it was militarily useless. It had a very short range, no effective weapons for engaging bombers at high intercept speeds (1), appalling safety problems and was not able to be delivered in useful numbers. So the only effect the Me-163 had on the air war was to absorb German engineering and scientific effort and waste it.

All of the aircraft on my list have the same sort of problems to one degree or another. In most cases the weaknesses are obvious, but even the He-219 failed as a weapon system because it took too long to develop and could not be built in large enough numbers to make a significant contribution to the air war. The intensity of the RAF's night-bomber offensive meant that the Luftwaffe desperately needed a cheap, fast night fighter that could be deployed quickly and in large numbers. The He-219 could only meet one of those goals.

What is surprising when viewed in retrospect is that many of these flaws should have been patently obvious at the time. It's hard now to believe a committee of qualified people actually sat down and decided the Me-163 (or the He-177 for that matter) was a worthwhile project. This discrepancy between military reality and the peculiar solutions offered by the German aviation industry haunts the Luftwaffe's weapons programmes throughout WWII.

From what I have read it was a consequence of not drawing adequate critical scientific and engineering expertise into the Luftwaffe's procurement process. The result was that the German aviation industry tried to supply the Luftwaffe with what it wanted, not what it needed.

So to reiterate - to be a success for the Luftwaffe, an aircraft project had to be able to deliver a reliable and capable product on time, in large numbers, and with an ability to support the aircraft in field conditions. Time and time again German aviation engineering failed this test.

Having a small number of unreliable but exotic machines in the field was a sign of failure, not success.

In contrast, the Allied aviation industry focussed on delivering the weapons that would be able to win the war, and delivering them in large numbers and in a short enough time to be useful. This meant eschewing high-risk projects like rocket engines and instead focussing on realistic projects like high-altitude piston-engined bomber escorts etc.

It is fascinating to read about Ford's mile-long B-24 plant in the US in comparison to the development/production methods attempted in Germany for the He-177. Was the B-24 the very best bomber that could possibly be built with the most leading-edge technology available? Clearly not. Was it militarily successful? Well, it was outstandingly successful because it was a solidly-designed product delivered in vast numbers and operated effectively in pursuit of well though out strategic goals.

The annihilation of the Luftwaffe in 1944 shows which strategy was right.

Regards,

RocketDog.

(1) I know there were atttempts to develop new, automated weapons for aircraft like the Me-163, but again, all these programmes produced were unreliable prototypes too late to be of any use.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 11:43 AM
I thought most of the overheating problems where fixed in later he177's ?.

What about the raid on Velije Luki (how's that written ?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )


Maybe the He 177 was a piece of crap, but at least it was a very beautyful piece of crap /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images/flagge.gif


http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 12:30 PM
jj8325 wrote:
- <img
- src="http://www.drunkbastard.net/photos/arguing.jp
- g">
-
-
-
-
LOL LOL LOL

the best post in this thread! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<ceter>http://www.dalnet.se/~surfcity/swedish_aviators/images/whirlwind_1.jpg </center>
Ralph H¤ggberg one of 5 Swedish
pilots flying for the RAF

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:09 PM
RocketDog wrote:

-
- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
- unsuccessful projects might include:
-
- He-177
- He-219
- He-162
- Me-163
- Me-262
- Do-335
- Me-210/410
- Hs-129
- Me-323
-
- ...and probably half a dozen others. These aircraft
- were not unsuccessful because they didn't have
- potential, and on paper they often had excellent
- performance characteristics. But they all fail the
- test of military significance because they could not
- be produced in adequate numbers with adequate
- reliability at reasonable cost in time to be of any
- use. A few of them (e.g., the He-177 and Do-335)
- don't even seem to have a clearly defined military
- purpose - which was my point about the He-177 in my
- earlier post.

Hehe you can collect such planes in every Country...
what about:

Bell XP-59 Aircomet

Ryan FR-1Fireball
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/pictures/Fireball.GIF

nice isn´t it?

Convair XP-81
....

And why do you call the Me262 unsuccsessfull? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Cause Hitler was an Idiot and want it as Bomber?
imagine them in 43 against 8th...
Do 335 no military purpose? It was designed at a bomber destroyer nothing more, nothing less- seems clear to me.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 04:46 PM
Rocket Dog's analysis of the He-177 is perceptive. Not only was the He-177 the wrong plane for the Luftwaffe from 1943 onwards, but also it was also one on the edge off what they could introduce into service and operate effectively. Here is a lengthy quote from the summary of 'Heinkel 177, 277 274' by Manfred Griehel and Joachim Dressel, ISBN 1 85310 364 0, who put it much better than I can:

"A pre-condition of the first use of the He 177 in anger was, naturally, that the crews would follow the operating instructions to the letter. Experience had shown that long-range flights with continuous power-loading were generally accomplished without any problems, but that any overloading of the powerplants could lead to damaged engines or engine fires. But that was not all.

Insufficient time was given over to preparing Luftwaffe bomber units for conversion onto the He 177; a problem that affected organisation and infrastructure on the ground, including personnel and technical support, as much as it did the training of aircrews. There were also instances when He 177s were delivered to units without having first received sufficient flight-testing. There was also a lack of suitable hangar space and parking facilities for large aircraft on operational bases thought to be outside the range of enemy bombers. In addition, there was a lack of good, well-trained workshop personnel and technicians able to maintain and service the new bomber.

In some cases, the complete re-equipment of individual bomber Gruppen within the prescribed time period failed due to low training levels and the lack of instruction for aircrews assigned to the He 177. Apart from that, for a long time there was a dire shortage of maintenance and servicing tools and equipment, not to mention replacement powerplants.

In May 1944 Major Schubert of the Luftwaffengeneralstab and Reichsmarschall Goring's Adjutancy was finally appointed to establish the principal reasons for the delays experienced in re- equipping Luftwaffe bomber units with the He 177. Nothing needs to be added to his report:

Most of the aircrew of units selected for re- equipment with the He 177 were operationally 'tired-out' and relatively few were from front-line units. The necessary personnel consisted primarily of Young, often inexperienced aircrews, and for reasons of capacity their conversion training at operational training and replacement Gruppen could only be completed in relatively few cases. Most of the young pilots had only nine to 12 months of practical flying experience prior to being transferred to such a complicated aircraft as the He 177.

Apart from that, the new operational crews had been trained on the Ju 88, and most had hardly any training in the art of night-flying. The necessary conversion training meant the compulsory withdrawal of operational He 177s for use as trainers, which in turn led to an overload of work for the technical personnel due to the numerous instances of damage suffered by these aircraft as a result of the training activities.

Matters were made all the more difficult by the fact that some of the ground personnel had not been pre-instructed on the He 177. In addition, the vast majority of the technical personnel arrived at their He 177-equipped bomber Gruppen several months after the units had first received their re- equipment orders. By spring 1944, some units were still short of about 50 per cent of engine fitters. Some of the other personnel first set eyes on the He 177 upon arrival at their assigned unit's airfield, their instruction and training on the Heinkel bomber having to start there and then.

The supply of aircraft servicing tools and appliances also did not keep up with deliveries of He 177s. Thus, for instance, the wing attachment cranes needed to facilitate powerplant changes arrived several months after the delivery of the aircraft themselves, and even then they were too few in number. For IV/KG 1 there was no specialised engine-changing equipment at all, and for this reason the unit had to suspend all training activities in mid-April 1944.

The 'engine circulation' (service units - repair depots - service units) also did not flow as it should have done at first, because of a lack of transportation. Neither the supply of new engines nor the return of DB 606/610s in need of repair functioned properly, least of all the supply of exchange powerplants to individual airfields. It wasn't until April 1944 that these shortcomings were effectively overcome, but they were never fully eradicated.

According to Major Schubert, the time expenditure required for the maintenance and servicing of the He 177 was incomparable with that of any other operational aircraft in service with the Luftwaffe. The jacking-up operation to change the main undercarriage tyres alone (which had to done at least twice as frequently as on other aircraft types) lasted some 2fi hours using the prescribed mechanical spindle blocks. Yet by early summer 1944 far too few of these 12-ton spindle blocks recommended by the manufacturer were available to He 177-equipped units.

The layout of the powerplants too did not exactly help attempts to carry out the necessary servicing work. Because of the inaccessibility of the coupled engines their dismounting took considerably longer than similar work on, for example, the Ju 88 or He 111. Due to the low training level of the technicians, a 25-hour control check on the He 177 usually took two, sometimes even three days.

Criticism was also made of the airfields selected to receive the He 177. Apart from Aalborg in Denmark, all of the others were already completely overcrowded, and lacked the potential for dispersal, camouflage and suitable protection of their aircraft against bomb splinters and shrapnel. For this reason low-level attacks by Allied aircraft caused great losses amongst the He 177s parked out in the open from 1944 onwards, especially as the airfields were now constantly within the range of both fighters and bombers. To make matters worse, this vulnerability to attack had a knock-on effect on He 177 training activities, which sometimes had to be reduced by up to per cent because enemy aircraft were on their way and air raid warnings came into force.

No consideration had been given to the fact that the technically complex He 177 required sufficient hangar space for maintenance and repair purposes, especially during the winter months. The delays caused by this shortcoming alone may well have been responsible for the postponement of He 177 operations by some six months to a year.

After the initial operations by I/FKG 50, the He 177 force never exceeded three incompletely- equipped Kampfgeschwader: KG 1, KG 40 and KG 100. This, and the type's inevitably late operational debut, as well as the increasing numerical superiority of Allied air power, prevented any large-scale He 177 operations in the West from 1943 onwards. The losses suffered in attacks on Atlantic convoys as well during the defensive operations against Allied landings, increased steadily and were soon so high that the Luftwaffe command had to suspend all further He 177 attacks.

The increasingly critical fuel shortage and the unavoidable decision of the defence authorities to allocate the highest priority to fighter production undoubtedly also led to the termination of He 177 production. Later, bombers such as the He 274 were granted at most a little extra time for completion.

The claim that simply because of the numerous engine fires the He 177 had become a 'Reichsfeuerzeug' (State Lighter) cannot really be upheld, for not all of the technical defects and difficulties described here were caused exclusively by the coupled Daimler-Benz powerplants, although in many cases there was a strong connection. As so often happens, a multitude of minor causes can have a big cumulative effect that not infrequently results in the sad loss of an aircraft and its aircrew.

In truth, the blinkered technocrats of the RLM, without any feeling for, or real understanding of, the protracted effort involved in the development of a modern bomber, carried as much responsibility as some First World War fighter pilots who had gained rank and prominence after 1933, but were completely overwhelmed by modern technology on numerous occasions.

Last but not least, the main portion of blame should probably be ascribed to the advocates of an unrealistic doctrine of air warfare, and who were astutely appraised and judged quite early on by the famous Heinkel designer Siegfried Günter:

'They really are somewhat crazy with their dive- bombing. It has already become like a mania!' "

None of the above affects the fact that it is a most interesting and unusual aircraft. I remember making a model of it when I was around 12 and it has always fascinated me since. I for one certainly want to see it as a flyable one in FB.


-------------------------------------

In the struggle for labour resources the (German) air ministry was at a considerable disadvantage politically, since labour recruitment and allocation was controlled by agencies directly linked to the army, and unsympathetic to Luftwaffe demands. During 1942 the number of workers allocated rose hardly at all despite the large numbers drafted in from Europe. Over the whole period the army continued to recruit skilled workers even in the protected factories. In all the aircraft factories an average of between 45 and 50 per cent of the workforce was composed of foreign labour by the end of the war.

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-45

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 05:07 PM
Any attempt to include the He177 in this game without modelling its engine problems would be ridiculous. Too bad, as the "Flying Lighter" could have been an excellent bomber if re-emgined al la the Lancaster, The earlier point about the Heinkel company is interesting. For as famous as Heinkel was, it is amazing the He111 was their only serious production model of the whole war...I suppose you might want to include the He115 floatplane torpedo bomber also. I wouldn't even consider the He162 as no sane government would have ever orderd production of this thing.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:10 PM
Abbuzze wrote:

- Hehe you can collect such planes in every Country...
- what about:

LOL - what an odd-looking aircraft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

<snip>

- And why do you call the Me262 unsuccsessfull?
- Cause Hitler was an Idiot and
- want it as Bomber?
- imagine them in 43 against 8th...

Ah, but that's the point. Modern histories reckon that Hitler's famous intervention only delayed the Me-262 by a few weeks at most. The real issue is that the Luftwaffe did indeed need the Me-262 in 1943, but the project was so overly ambitious that they only received even marginally combat-worthy machines in early 1945, by which time it was too late. The first attempt to use the Me-262 operationally in late 1944 was a fiasco with aircraft engine life proving disasterously short and tactics being under-developed.

In fact, the Me-262 had a series of weaknesses:

1. A very short engine life
2. A limited supply of engines
3. It could only operate from concrete runways, the location of which was known to the Allies
4. Lack of adequate weapons (long-range stand-off weapons)

We tend not to see these weaknesses in FB (except for No 4, and as yet we don't have any B-17s to fight). We thus get a rather skewed impression of the aircraft's combat effectiveness. What we don't get to experience with the Me-262 in FB are the other Me-262s stuck on the field because of engine problems, or the cloud of P-51s circling our base waiting for us to return, or the advanced piston-engined fighter we didn't get because R&D effort was absorbed by the jet we're flying.

- Do 335 no military purpose? It was designed at a
- bomber destroyer nothing more, nothing less- seems
- clear to me

Yes, and again had it been available in 1943 it might have been effective. But by 1945 it's hard to see what the Luftwaffe could have done with the Do 335, even if it had been available in a deployable form.

As with so many of the Luftwaffe's weapons projects, the Me-262 and Do-335 were produced almost as if the Luftwaffe were fighting a different war from the one unfolding before their eyes.

The Luftwaffe faced opponents in both East and West who could produce huge numbers of aircraft. What the Luftwaffe needed to counter this threat was large numbers of capable aircraft to replace its aging He 111s, Bf 109s etc. And it needed them urgently. By 1943 Allied aircraft were already as good as those operated by the Luftwaffe. The writing was on the wall. But instead of developing capable, cheap, reliable aircraft that could be deployed quickly and in large numbers, the Luftwaffe pursued poorly thought out, high-risk projects like the Me-262 and was overwhelmed before any of its advanced projects could be brought to a successful deployment in worthwhile numbers.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- theRealAntEater wrote:
-- btw, which Unit was that often quoted Steinbock
-- raid?
-
- The post says 2. & 3./KG100. Does you chronical have
- the number of a/c that made it to London out of the
- 13 were to TO on that night?
-

So this _single incident_ would prove anything ? Looking on USAAF bomber stats, _on avarage_ 10-15% of all bombers/fighters fell out of mission, to various mechanical failures. This was pretty much the way things happened, nothing special being in it.

You also say the 2. and 3. Staffel of KG 100 had He 177 A-5s.
This is completely wrong, as they had He 177A-3s and He 111H-11s.

-
- Who is saying anything about losses to
- NFs/accidents? The subject is the mechanical
- reliability of the He177.

The mechanical relaibility of the He 177 wasn`t any more restricting than other bombers. The prototypes had some early spectatular failures, largely because they were flown with experimental engines, which led to a bad reputation with the crew. The A-5 version finally cured this with it`s redesigned engine nacceles and wing, and more importantly, a new reduction gear for the DB 610s.

Loss records of the He 177 units do not indicate any unusually high loss rate to non-enemy action, ie. I./KG 100 in which 2. and 3. Staffels were, lost 20 He-177A-3s to non-enemy action, and 24 to enemy action between January 1st - May 31st 1944. For comparision, during the same period, II/KG 100 lost 7 Do 217 to non-enemy action, and 12 to enemy action.

Other than that, the He 177 had pleasent flight characteristics, had a range of over 5000km, and max. speed of 565 kph (in fact He 177s over Britain used the tactic of going into a shallow dive and could shake off Spitfires with that manouver), could carry 7200kg of bombs, and had a good defensive armament of manual/remote controlled 2x20mm cannons, 3-6 x 13mm HMGs, and 3 x 7.92mm MGs with generous provision of ammo. In other words, a comparable defensive fire to the current Pe-8, with greater speed and bombload.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:26 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- More smoke and mirros. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
- He-177 engine problems.

%1 of B-24's returned early
- with engine problems.


15 out of 177 is not 1% , Einstein. More like 8.47%. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- 75% He-177's returned early
- with engine problems.

That`s BS. A single flight on a single day had engine problems.

FYI, B-29s had engine problems of higher magnite. On their first, simple transfer mission about 10% of them arrived to their destination - all others fell out during flight! And this stat is for a large formation of bombers, not just a handful.



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:35 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- As for other Luftwaffa engine problems, out of the
- 1050 Me-262's available in WWII, only about 50 of
- them were airworthy at any given time due to engine
- problems.
- Thats an interesting statistic for you.
- And I got those numbers from a German fan of the
- Me-262 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

More BS from Gibbage. Of course, he had to change subject.

Alfred Price has servicibilty rates for Me 262 units in his book. In April 1945 (pretty bad date for the LW regards of supply), out of the 160 Me 262s present with the units, something like 130 were ready for action, ie. servicable.

For interesting to note of course, that the P-80s proved to be so unreliable early in their carreer, that they were grounded again and again until 1946.

I have never heard the Me 262 was ever grounded because of "unreliablilty".



- Also, I consider having to overhaul an
- engine after 10 hours of flight time a major
- problem, and so would any field unit.

From someone who notoriously ignorant about anything that flies, LOL!

The early Jumo 004s had an overhaul time of 25 hours. Later, with improvements like the introduction of hollow jet blades, which were more heat-resistant, overhaul time was raised to 50 hours.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:50 PM
Well Issy I corrected the A-5 to A-3 in a later post./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Care to explain why the 'on hand/sevicable' for the He177 in early Jan '45 was only 39% while single engine fighters were were up to twice that or more?

With almost 3 times the loss rate to non-enemy action compared to the Do217 for the time period you mentioned, says there was something definately wrong with the He177.

Seems the defensive fire from the He177 was not that good either, with twice the losses to the enemy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Where did I say the a/c was not a good flier or could carry a large bombload?


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:56 PM
I can't believe we're sitting here arguing about the He-177. It was a crappy plane with LOTS of potential. It just wasn't fully realised. In the words of Charlie Brown:"Good Grief!"

(bad pun,I know.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:04 PM
LOL, Issy Gib was already corrected on the 1%.

How long was the B-29 flight? From the USA to India is how far? How many a/c?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And you accuse Gib of changing topic subject./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/30/0302:06PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:06 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Care to explain why the 'on hand/sevicable' for the
- He177 in early Jan '45 was only 39% while single
- engine fighters were were up to twice that or more?



Considering that bomber units were largely grounded by late 1944 to conserve fuel for the fighters, it`s hardly amusing, as well as it`s obvious to those who has the same book that you included planes that were only issued, but not yet arrived to the units, to make servicibility rates look worser, which is your usual, notorious goal when it comes to German units. It`s hardly surprising if we are familiar with the die-hard anti-German zealotry of your posts.


-
- With almost 3 times the loss rate to non-enemy
- action compared to the Do217 for the time period you
- mentioned, says there was something definately wrong
- with the He177.

Three times of loss rate, Briddy? Where ?

Oh, I forgot, you don`t know what loss rate is !!!

To me, it seems that the ration of combat and non combat losses were comparable with Do 217 and He 177 units, something like in an order of 40:60, which is rather typical to all combat aircraft.


-
- Seems the defensive fire from the He177 was not that
- good either, with twice the losses to the enemy.

But it certainly was better than Lancesters, Halifaxs, B-17s, B-24s. etc.

By Milo logic which goes as:

[Milo emulator on]

2x times as many He 177s were lost to enemy action under an unknown number of missions.

However, in the meantime, the RAF-BC lost around 1000 bombers over Berlin. The USAAF lost a comparable number of bombers at the same time.

This compares very badly with some 20 Heinkels lost at the same time!

Of course conditions, number of sorties are perfectly irrelevant matters in Milo`s little world.

So, based on Milogic(tm), we can conclude:

Best defensive was on the Do 217, the He 177 was 2 times as bad. British night bombers were 500 times worser than the Heinkel, and 1000 times worser than the Dornier!

[Milo emulator off]

One just wonders in what crazy ways some can think...



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:26 PM
"During the week of April 15-22, no less than five B-29s crashed near Karachi (a stop on the route to Calcutta), all from overheated engines. The entire B-29 fleet had to be grounded en route until the cause was found. The cause was traced to the fact that the R-3350 engine had not been designed to operate at ground temperatures higher than 115 degrees Fahrenheit, which were typically exceeded in Karachi. Wright engineers found that the exhaust valves on the rear row of cylinders were melting under the heat and pressure, and they designed new engine baffles to direct cooling air onto the affected areas. They also improved the flow of oil to the rear cylinders by installing crossover oil tubes from the intake to the exhaust port of the five top cylinders on both the front and rear rows. Modifications had also to be made to the cowl flaps. After these modifications, B-29 flights to India were resumed."

...

"The first B-29 bombing raid took place on June 5, 1944. Led by General Saunders himself, 98 B-29s took off from bases in eastern India to attack the Makasan railroad yards at Bangkok, Thailand. This involved a 2261-mile round trip, the longest bombing mission yet attempted during the war. The engines of the B-29 were still causing problems, and fourteen B-29s were forced to abort because of engine failures. The target was obscured by bad weather, necessitating bombing by radar. The formations became confused and dropped their bombs at altitudes between 17-27,000 feet rather than the planned 22-25,000 feet. Only eighteen bombs landed in the target area. Five B-29s crashed upon landing after the mission and 42 were forced to divert to other airfields because of a shortage of fuel. The B-29 campaign was off to a bad start, although none of the bombers were actually lost to enemy action. "

...

"By mid-June, enough supplies had been stockpiled at Chinese forward bases to permit the launching of a single sortie against targets in Japan. It was a nighttime raid to be carried out on the night of June 14/15, 1944 against the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata on Kyushu. This plant was considered to be the most important single objective within Japan's steel industry, and had long held top priority for the first strike. Intelligence estimated Imperial's annual production at 2.25 million metric tons of rolled steel -- 24% of Japan's total. The secondary target was Laoyao harbor, an outlet for much coking coal, manganese and phosphates. Because of the long distance (3,200 miles), Washington had ordered a night mission with planes bombing individually. Bombing was to be done from two levels, 8,000 to 10,000 feet and 14,000 to 18,000 feet. Two pathfinder aircraft from each group were to light off the target. Takeoff was scheduled for 1630 local time, June 15, 1944, permitting the aircraft to arrive over the target during darkness.

Staging at the forward bases in China began on June 13, 1944 and was completed shortly before H-hour on June 15. The B-29s had left India fully loaded with bombs, requiring only refueling at the forward bases in China. Each plane carried two tons of 500-pound general purpose bombs, considered powerful enough to disrupt the fragile coke ovens by either a direct hit or by blast. Of the 92 aircraft leaving India, only 79 had actually reached China, with one plane crashing en route. The staging bases were:

Hsinching for the 40th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy)
Kwanghan for the 444th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy)
Chiung-Lai for the 462d Bombardment Group (Very Heavy)
Pengshan for the 468th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy)
Takeoffs from the forward bases in China began early in the evening (1616) and two groups approximated the schedule of two-minute intervals between takeoffs. The other two groups were slow in getting their aircraft airborne.

Of the 75 B-29s dispatched, one crashed and four were forced to return to base due to mechanical problems. At 2338 (China time) the first B-29 over the target gave the signal "Betty," indicating "bombs away with less than 5/10 cloud." Of the 68 aircraft that had left China, only 47 attacked the intented target. One B-29 crashed in China (cause unknown), 6 jettisoned their bombs because of mechanical difficulties, 2 bombed the secondary target and 5 bombed targets of opportunity.

Unfortunately, the Japanese had been warned of the approaching raid and the city of Yawata was blacked out and haze and/or smoke helped to obscure the target. Only 15 aircraft bombed visually while 32 bombed by radar. Only one bomb actually hit anywhere near the intended target. This was a bomb which had hit a power house some 3700 feet from the coke ovens. Some damage had been done to the Kokura Arsenal, to miscellaneous industrial buildings, and to business-industrial areas. The steel industry was essentially untouched. One B-29 was lost to enemy fire and six were lost in various accidents. "



The latter mission is awfully interesting.

92 plane leaves India
79 reaches China
75 dispatched for mission
68 leaves China
47 actually manage to attack the target
1 manage to hit some power house 3700 feet away from the target



Reminds me of some Agatha Christie novel about 10 little Indians. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:29 PM
"General Wolfe was ordered to keep up the attacks even in spite of a shortage of fuel and bombs at the Chengtu bases. He told his superiors that it was impossible to stage any more raids on Japan at the present time. Washington had to blame someone for the lack of progress, and General Wolfe was the most likely candidate. On July 4, the General was recalled to Washington, promoted and reassigned. He was replaced on a temporary basis by Brig. Gen. LaVerne G. Saunders until a permanent commander could be found. "

...


"On July 7, while under temporary command of General Saunders, eighteen B-29s attacked targets at Sasebo, Nagasaki, Omura and Yawata with ineffective results. On July 9, 72 B-29s hit a steel-making complex at Anshan in Manchuria. Of the 72 aircraft launched against Anshan, one crashed on takeoff and eleven suffered mechanical failures en route to Manchuria and had to abort. Four aircraft were lost and results were poor. On the night August 10/11, 56 B-29s staged through British air bases in Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka) attacked the Plajdoe oil storage facilities at Palembang on Sumatra in present-day Indonesia. This involved a 4030-mile, 19 hour mission from Ceylon to Sumatra, the longest American air raid of the war. Other B-29s laid mines in the Moesi River. At the same time, a third batch of B-29s attacked targets in Nagasaki. These raids all showed a lack of operational control and inadequate combat techniques, drifting from target to target without a central plan and were largely ineffective.

Many of the accidents which plagued the B-29s operating out of China and India were caused by engine fires, which were still a problem in spite of massive efforts to correct them. The cylinder head temperature gauges were red-lined at 270 degrees Celsius. The combination of very high ambient ground temperatures (100 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit) and the inadequate cooling system of the engines would often result in head temperatures exceeding 310 during and immediately after takeoff. The high temperatures often resulted in the evaporation of valve stem lubrication, which could cause the valve to break off. The broken valve would then blow the cylinder off, which inevitably resulted in a fire.

Crews soon learned that the key to keeping the engine head temperature within tolerable limits was to have as much airspeed as possible when they became airborne on takeoff. During takeoff, they used the entire runway and reached a speed of 140-145 mph to become airborne in a fairly nose-low attitude. After takeoff, they would stay fairly low for a rather long time, with no effort to climb. This was done to attain the climbing speed of 200 mph as rapidly as possible. As the airspeed built up, the flight engineer would start to squeeze the large cowl flaps closed, since the key to controlling the head temperatures was airspeed, and as the speed got higher, cowling flaps in the extended position produced more drag than cooling. "

...

"It took a while for these changes to have an effect. Another raid against Anshan in Manchuria on September 26 was inclusive. An attack on October 25 on the Omura aircraft factory on Kyushu showed better results, particularly in the decision to use a two-to-one mixture of high-explosive and incendiary bombs. A raid was carried out on November 11 against the Chinese city of Nanking, which had been occupied by the Japanese since 1937. Supply problems and aircraft accidents were still preventing a fully effective concentration of force and effort. In addition, Japanese defensive efforts were becoming more effective. On November 21, six B-29s were destroyed by Japanese aircraft during a raid on Omura. A similar loss rate occurred on December 7 over the Manchurian Aircraft Company plant at Mukden. B-29 losses to accidents, enemy interception, and to Japanese air attacks on the Chengtu forward bases soon came to be prohibitive, and by the end of 1944 had reached 147. "

...

"By late 1944, it was becoming apparent that B-29 operations against Japan staged out of bases in Chengtu were far too expensive in men and materials and would have to be stopped. In December of 1944, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made the decision that Operation Matterhorn would be phased out, and the 58th Bombardment Wing's B-29s would be moved to newly-captured bases in the Marianas in the central Pacific.

The last raid out of China was flown on January 15, 1945, which was an attack on targets in Formosa. The 58th Bombardment Wing then withdrew to its bases in India and was redeployed to the Marianas in February.

During Operation Matterhorn, 49 separate missions had been flown involving 3058 individual aircraft sorties. Only 11,477 tons of bombs had been dropped. In spite of the massive effort involved in Operation Matterhorn, only insignificant damage had been done to targets in Japan.

In retrospect, Operation Matterhorn had been a failure. The supply problems proved to be insoluble, and the Chengtu bases in China were too far west, requiring long overflights of Japanese-occupied territory in China before the Japanese home islands could be reached. Even then, only the southernmost Japanese island of Kyushu was in range of the B-29s. Nevertheless, the Matterhorn operation provided valuable experience for the B-29 operations that were to be mounted from the far more convenient bases in the Marianas. "

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:30 PM
A single heavy bomber has no chance against fighters, no matter if it is a He 177 or a B-24.
Thats when most He 177 combat losses occured. Either with KG 40 against Carrier planes or Mosquitos or by US fighters in daylight during check flights. Especially since these check flights were mostly done unarmed and with only pilot, flight engineer and crew chief aboard. So not much chance of shooting back...
During Operation Steinbock, I./KG 100 lost more planes on check flights than on combat missions!
As I said, the He 177 had the lowest loss rate of all german nightbombers, and that is loss per sortie, not loss per plane. Even Ju 188s or the Me 410s of KG 51 had heavier losses during Operation Steinbock.
And KG 1 did not have a single combat loss during its operations on the east front in Summer 1944.
Most losses for KG 40 also occured during the invasion. And attacks on the invasion fleet were suicide missions, no matter what aircraft you flew. Pretty much every unit that tried to attack the invasion in daylight was wiped out.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


Message Edited on 08/30/0306:32PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:33 PM
Let me refresh you with your own words Issy.

"Loss records of the He 177 units do not indicate any unusually high loss rate to non-enemy action, ie. I./KG 100 in which 2. and 3. Staffels were, lost 20 He-177A-3s to non-enemy action, and 24 to enemy action between January 1st - May 31st 1944. For comparision, during the same period, II/KG 100 lost 7 Do 217 to non-enemy action, and 12 to enemy action."

20 He177 > 7 Do217 = 3:1 - losses to non-enemy action
24 He177 > 12 Do217 = 2:1 - losses due to enemy action

Your comparison words Issy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Instead of providing halfa$$ed data, fill in the data you did not include./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


The lack of fuel has nothing to do with wether the a/c was capable of flight(sevicable). Not a book Issy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Look in the reply I gave KIMURA for the link.

He 177 production ended in Oct '44, did it not?


What did you tell Gib about introducing the Me262? You should follow your own advice Issy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Start a new thread re. Allied bomber losses.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:45 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Let me refresh you with your own words Issy.
-
- "Loss records of the He 177 units do not indicate
- any unusually high loss rate to non-enemy action,
- ie. I./KG 100 in which 2. and 3. Staffels were, lost
- 20 He-177A-3s to non-enemy action, and 24 to enemy
- action between January 1st - May 31st 1944. For
- comparision, during the same period, II/KG 100 lost
- 7 Do 217 to non-enemy action, and 12 to enemy
- action."
-
- 20 He177 > 7 Do217 = 3:1 - losses to non-enemy
- action
- 24 He177 > 12 Do217 = 2:1 - losses due to enemy
- action
-
- Your comparison words Issy.


Too bad that you still don`t get it, Briddy.

I will try to educate you.

Loss rate : a/c lost per sortie, to cause

For, this mean non-absolute numbers


In this case, 24/20 He-177s lost vs. 12/7 Do 271s. Or 45.5% vs. 36.8% of the total losses (excluding the usual write-off due to overhauls) lost to non-enemy action.

Rather comparable loss ratios.


-
- The lack of fuel has nothing to do with wether the
- a/c was capable of flight(sevicable).
-

It has, by German definiations of "servicable".


-
- What did you tell Gib about introducing the Me262?
- You should follow your own advice Issy.
- Start a new thread re.
- Allied bomber losses.


Again you fail to get the point. Greif opertion circumstances were merely put into a context by giving details of operations for a similiar heavy bomber, that was very new and advanced in service.

Understanding how a typical operation with a B-29 looked like helps us to better understance the magnitude of problems German heavy bombers had. As we could see, introducing a new heavy bomber is not without troubles.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:59 PM
- Considering that bomber units were largely grounded
- by late 1944 to conserve fuel for the fighters,

That's funny Isegrim, you always claim the Luftwaffe had no shortage of fuel for the fighters.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:01 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Considering that bomber units were largely grounded
-- by late 1944 to conserve fuel for the fighters,
-
- That's funny Isegrim, you always claim the Luftwaffe
- had no shortage of fuel for the fighters.
-

That`s funny Hop, you are infamous for misqouting others.

Tell us about those Indian Spit XIV ghost squadrons, of which nobody but you heard of, ROFMALOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:16 PM
Your the one that needs the educating Barbi.

You posted no sortie numbers, only loss numbers./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif So however you try to manipulate the numbers the He is worse than the Do in your example.

A ~24% loss more for the He is not comparable.

As for sevicible, that is only your definition.

With the engine troubles the He had, one could expect worse numbers than for the -29 in Asia.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:25 PM
- That`s funny Hop, you are infamous for misqouting
- others.

This coming from Isegrim, who simply adds lines to people's posts if they don't say what he wants them to say.

- Tell us about those Indian Spit XIV ghost squadrons,
- of which nobody but you heard of, ROFMALOL!

"Ginger" Lacey must have been imagining his time in India. After all, his account can't compare with the "truth" from Isegrim.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:35 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- That`s funny Hop, you are infamous for misqouting
-- others.
-
- This coming from Isegrim, who simply adds lines to
- people's posts if they don't say what he wants them
- to say.


Says "Honest" Hop, referring to his unlucky incident where he was exposed most unpleasently, direct qoutes from him showed that he will tell exactly the opposite a few weeks later, of which he even swore before. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

He feels so unpleasant of the humilation that he even makes up colourful stories about "lines being added". After all, he would deny his own mother if that would serve his purposes.


-
-- Tell us about those Indian Spit XIV ghost squadrons,
-- of which nobody but you heard of, ROFMALOL!
-
- "Ginger" Lacey must have been imagining his time in
- India. After all, his account can't compare with the
- "truth" from Isegrim.

After all, what can compare with Honest Hop`s wet dreams, certainly not the detailed history of all wartime Spit XIV squadrons, which go in detail of where, and when were they stationed; certainly not in India during the european war (or is Brussels in India..? ).


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 08/30/0309:42PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:41 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- So however you try to
- manipulate the numbers the He is worse than the Do
- in your example.

Yada-yada-yada.


-
- A ~24% loss more for the He is not comparable.


An introduction to Milo Maths:

45.5% - 36.8% = 24 % /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- As for sevicible, that is only your definition.
-

Yada-yada-yada.


- With the engine troubles the He had, one could
- expect worse numbers than for the -29 in Asia.

All German is bad. Sure, sure.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 09:17 PM
- Says "Honest" Hop, referring to his unlucky incident
- where he was exposed most unpleasently,

You mean the incident where I said in June I had never claimed the Spit could go 389mph at sea level, then in August I changed my mind and said it could, and you inserted the line from my June post in a quote of my August post? The only one exposed was you, Isegrim. Anyone who has to resort to misquoting someone deliberately has obviously lost the argument, as well as all credibility and self respect.

- direct
- qoutes from him showed that he will tell exactly the
- opposite a few weeks later, of which he even swore
- before.

Yes, in June I said I didn't believe the Spit could do 389mph on the deck, and that I had never claimed it could.

In August I changed my mind, after seeing more information, and said I believed the Spit could do 389 mph on the deck. There is no dishonesty or contradiction in those 2 positions.

You claim to be a lawyer and yet can't see the difference between claiming not to have done something before the event, and claiming not to have done it after the event?

Now, what do you call someone who makes up other people's quotes? I call him a liar.

Here's what you posted:

- On your part, the twist your own words to make them
- fit what you would like to prove. You claim that the
- Spitfire XIV in the test is an operational one; a
- few weeks ago you went hysterical when "being
- accused" of ever telling the same thing. You twist
- and turn your own words when it serves you. But it`s
- a shortsighted tactic, as your words now turn
- against you, and show how much in-credible you are:

- "Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
-
- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."
-
- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
-
- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration."

Note the time and date you claim I posted it: Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM

Here's the post I actually made on that date:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Nowhere does the line

- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."

appear in my post. As anyone can see, MY post hasn't been edited.

However, after I had caught Isegrim out with his lie, and challenged him on it in this post:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvgdj
he went back and deleted his post where he had first claimed it. (it's the previous post in the thread, and he deleted it about 2 hours after I'd caught him out).

Isegrim, making up some quote or data from WW2 is fairly safe, which is why you do it all the time, but making up a quote from somebody your talking to is stupid, because they will catch you out. And deleting your post after somebody else has already quoted it is pathetic, to say the least.

- He feels so unpleasant of the humilation that he
- even makes up colourful stories about "lines being
- added". After all, he would deny his own mother if
- that would serve his purposes.

It's all their in black and white, Isegrim. Your "quote", my original post, your deletion of your "quote". As everyone can see, my posts haven't been edited, you have deleted yours.

- After all, what can compare with Honest Hop`s wet
- dreams, certainly not the detailed history of all
- wartime Spit XIV squadrons, which go in detail of
- where, and when were they stationed; certainly not
- in India during the european war

What has India got to do with the European war? India is more concerned with the war against Japan, who carried on fighting after the Germans had been defeated.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 09:19 PM
Sorry, I can't edit my post. For "August" above, read July.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 10:35 PM
Isegrim, interesting stuff about the B29, but
your maths is absolutely terrible.

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- An introduction to Milo Maths:
-
- 45.5% - 36.8% = 24 %

Well, it is better than Isegrim maths!

Basic maths lesson:

lets say that imaginary aircraft type 1 flies
50 sorties, and 10 are lost. The loss rate
is 20%.

Now lets say that imaginary aircraft type 2
flies 50 sorties, and 20 are lost. The loss
rate is 40%.

What we CANNOT do is say that the loss rate
of type 20 is 40-20=20% greater than that of type 1.
In fact is is 100% greater.

If the loss rate of type 2 was only 20% greater,
then it would mean that 10 + 20% (or 12) aircraft
were lost, or a total loss rate of 24% over 50
sorties.

The rate we see is 10 + 100% (20) aircraft.

I hope that helps.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 10:43 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- 4. Lack of adequate weapons (long-range stand-off
- weapons)

There is only one such weapon used during WW2 that
I am aware of, the Wgr 21. Certainly fixed gun armament
carried by German aircraft and other nations was
was barely effective against bombers over about
300 yards (either with too little chance of hitting
beyond that range due to either poor trajectory or
low rate of fire, or having insufficient total
energy beyond that range, or a combination of all
three factors).

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 10:53 PM
The usual way Hop makes his lies, to fit his current needs.

It can be read in two posts, regarding the same aircraft test. In this, 28th June 2003 post Hop denials he had ever said this test was representative of an operational plane, even though he had many times posted it`s URL on another forum that`s no longer accessible, and enables Hop to deny it unpunished.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zspuj&tpage=5&direction=0


Author: hop2002
Rank: Over 200 Postings
Date: 06/28/03 12:49AM

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "

"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."

"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."

---------------------------------------------------------

In his post just a few weeks later, when he gone mad because his beloved Spit XIV fells below performance, make him to use all of his zealotry and dishonesty. Note that now he tells the EXACT opposite of what denied so vehemently just before:


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM

-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.

" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."

------------------------------------------------------------

So much about Hop`s "honesty". He doesn`t even heard of such thing. Read his post today - you can expect him to "change his" mind and deny all he wrote tomorrow.



After his true face was shown, he started inventing excuses of how he twisted the facts.

He said he never said that. Oops, bad lie, there are the URLs, everyone can check it out.

Then he switched the arguement, and went into telling that it`s "perfectly normal and honest" to suddenly change your mind, and tell the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you swored to just two weeks ago. No comment on that. It`s perfectly natural - for him.

He claimed lines were added. Too bad that it wasn`t hard to post the URL of his own words... the posts are there. Under _his_ name.

Nobody should expect an infamous and dishonest liar to admit that he twists and turns according to his needs. That`s why now he claims I have deleted posts which would prove his point. Which is pretty funny, because:

His post where he "exposed" me "adding lines is dated

07/03 10:08 PM

whereas my two posts he referred to, were edited at

07/21/03 9:23 PM
and
07/21/03 9:51 PM


In other words , a whole 3/4 and 1/4 hours BEFORE poor Hop 2002 started turning white into black, and tried to sell the story of his post were "made up", to get attention away about how he says the opposite a week before if it serves him..

I wonder, how could I "go back after he caught me" if I edited the posts _before_ he his claimed I "added lines"?

That`s indeed hardly possible.



Now he tries to make this look like as he was "exposing".

However, the reason of why my two posts were deleted can be found in Milo Morai`s post right after my two deleted ones :

"You sound like a broken record Issy, especially in your last post, _____which is doubled____ . /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif "


Note that my two posts were made at 8:19 and 8:21, and were double posts, as there are constant problems with ubi forum`s edit feature. The only way is to delete, then repost the edited post.

Therefore, the first (double) one was deleted at 9:23 (3/4 hours before Hop claimed he "caught me"), when I recognized it was a double.

I noticed some errors, and decided to edit them out. However, Ubi`s edit didn`t work, so I deleted it at 9:51, and reposted it with modifications also at 9:51.


17 minutes LATER, a 10:18 PM, Hop claimed that I made up the qoutes from him (not true).


Now he want`s to make it look like as it was in reverse order, his 10:18PM post was first, and AFTER THAT then I went back, and deleted my posts at 9:23PM and 9:51PM.

All times are Central Euro time.

The simple question is: which one was before, 9:23PM and 9:51PM (my edits and posting) or 10:18Pm (where Hop claims I "added lines" and those are not his sentences.)

The answer is simple.


Now compare with his version:



- However, after I had caught Isegrim out with his
- lie, and challenged him on it in this post:
-
- <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.
- asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvgdj"
- target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/messa
- ge_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvgdj</a>

at 10:18PM...

-
- he went back and deleted his post where he had
- first claimed it.

at 9:23PM and 9:51PM...

- (it's the previous post in the
- thread, and he deleted it about 2 hours after I'd
- caught him out).

Is 9:23 and 9:51PM about two hours after 10:18PM ?

I don`t think so.


-
-
- Isegrim, making up some quote or data from WW2 is
- fairly safe, which is why you do it all the time,


ROFMALOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It`s really me who makes up ghost squadrons. It`s really me who says "no" in July, and "yes" in August about the same thing.. it`s really me who tries to sell testhacks as operational planes... and it`s really me who NEVER, EVER can post sources and refernces to his pathetic lies, right Honest Hop ?

Truely pathetic, your


- but making up a quote from somebody your talking to
- is stupid, because they will catch you out.

Yet you repeatedly catched on it but keep trying. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- And
- deleting your post after somebody else has already
- quoted it is pathetic, to say the least.

9:51PM is after 10:18PM? In which madman`s degenerated world ?


-
-- He feels so unpleasant of the humilation that he
-- even makes up colourful stories about "lines being
-- added". After all, he would deny his own mother if
-- that would serve his purposes.
-
- It's all their in black and white, Isegrim. Your
- "quote", my original post, your deletion of your
- "quote". As everyone can see, my posts haven't been
- edited, you have deleted yours.

Yes it`s all there Honest Hop. Everyone can see who the liar is.



-
- What has India got to do with the European war?
- India is more concerned with the war against Japan,
- who carried on fighting after the Germans had been
- defeated.
-

Oh, forgotful? Let me brush your memory: you are unable to get on with the fact that K-4s just as outnumbered MkXIV on the battlefields as they outperformed them. In January 1945 there were 314s K-4s in service with frontline units but only 60-70 Mk XIVs (5 Squadrons of the 2nd TAF in the Low Countries). Unable to face reality, you started making up MkXIV squadrons, which are supposed to be in India, the MTO, Africa, Italy and in various other exotic places in January 1945.

When you were challenged to list the numbers of those Squadrons in India, you proved to be completely incapable of that, mumbling about some stories about unknown MkXIVs from an unknown unit taking off from unknown carriers for India etc, the whole idea behind the silly story being to prove that there were (dozens of) other frontline units than those 5 Squads of 2nd TAF...

Sadly, there weren`t. I have the list of all wartime MkXIV squadrons. None of them is stationed anywhere else than in NW Europe at least until VE day.

Therefore, we have about 60 MkXIVs in frontline Squadrons vs. 314 K-4s (according to LW records), either you like it or not.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 12:25 AM
It is a well know fact that Barbi's math skills are not the best.

45.5/36.6 x 100 = 124.66

The He177 suffered ~24% more casualties than the Do217, with respect to the Do217s losses./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Nothing wrong with my math but your brain is still malfunctioning Barbi.

You still not given total sorties flown by each a/c. Hard to get a loss ratio without those numbers./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


You still did not give the distance the B-29s had to fly get to India. How far did the He177 have to fly from factory to front line bases?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 12:38 AM
So Barbi craps on a single He177 mission but then gives stats for a single B-29 mission./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-

-
- The latter mission is awfully interesting.
-
- 92 plane leaves India
- 79 reaches China
- 75 dispatched for mission
- 68 leaves China
- 47 actually manage to attack the target
- 1 manage to hit some power house 3700 feet away from
- the target
-

13 He177 assigned to the mission
5 reach the target > 38.5%


92 B-29s
47 attack > 51%

using the Chinese base

68 TO
47 attack > 69.1%

And this is for an a/c (B-29) rushed through production while the He177A-3 was already in service. What ever you say Barbi./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


ps. there must be some truth that LW aces were liars with regards to their claims since you and Huckie did post in the thread.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/30/0307:43PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 01:07 AM
Sorry, I'll have to cut the reply short, as Isegrim seems to think his usuall tactics of throwing out a load of rubbish will obscure the truth.

This is Isegrim's post that started the argument:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=4&direction=0

His last post of the page, just before Neil's and Milo's:



"Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "

"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."

"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."

"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."

"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0 ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0</a>

Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM

-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.

" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "

"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."

"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."

"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."



And my actual post on the 16th of July:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhyp&tpage=2&direction=0

Nowhere is the line:

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

in my post.

So, Isegrim, forget all the smokescreen, why did you make up either my post, or the date I made it on?

Either way it's dishonest, isn't it?


- Then he switched the arguement, and went into
- telling that it`s "perfectly normal and honest" to
- suddenly change your mind, and tell the EXACT
- OPPOSITE of what you swored to just two weeks ago.
- No comment on that. It`s perfectly natural - for
- him.


So, you are still claiming the 109K4 could reach 5000m in 3 mins? Don't be absurd.

- Therefore, we have about 60 MkXIVs in frontline
- Squadrons vs. 314 K-4s (according to LW records),
- either you like it or not.

The figures I have show 9 squadrons eqipped with the Spit XIV, or even better Spit 21, in Europe during the war, at the same time, 11 in total. 20 planes per squadron was established strength.

Of course, the Spit XIV began it's active service in Jan 44, the best part of a year before the K4.

Now, care to explain why you made up parts of my post on the 16th July, ie the critical parts?

Or is your competance as a "lawyer" so great that you think lying about the date of an event is OK?

You set out to mislead people, and you got caught. At least hold your hands up and accept what you did, Isegrim.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 01:55 AM
I/KG50 HE-177s were pressed into service in the traansport role at during the Stalingrad battle. Only seven aircraft were serviceable. It was found it could carry little more than the far more reliable, and much smaller, He-111. And was virtually useless for evacuation of the wounded.

Reverting to bombing, they flew only 13 missions, and lost seven to engine fires. None of the loses were caused by enemy action. The planes were He-177 A3/R1s.

Withdrawn to Brandenburg-Briest, they retrained for the anti-shipping role with the Hs 239 missile. On Oct 25, 1943 unit was re named II/KG40, and transfered to Bordeaux-Merignac.

11/23/43 twenty Hs 239 equippied bombers (He-177A-5) attacked a 66 ship convoy in poor visibility. Only 16 missiles were launched, a number of them at a single straggeler. Three bombers went down.

11/28/43 14 more went out. Four of them went down, three more written off in crash landings. 50% lost in one mission.
After both missions II/KG40 had just 7 planes left.


As another example, on the night of Feb 13, General Peltz watched the launch of 14 aircraft of 2 and 3 Staffel of KG 100. It was cold, so the cold start procedure was used.
One had a burst tire, so did not launch.

Of the 13 that did, 8 promptly came back with overheated or burning engines. 1, the Gruppenkommandeur, turned back over Norwich. 4 reached London, 1 was shot down.

An ambitious design. Alot of ingenuity, but nullified by the aircraft industrie's inability to expend sufficent effort to fix it.

Success or failure as a warplane?

You decide

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 02:44 AM
I remember that argument Hop. One of Issy's funnier moments.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:19 AM
Our failures were not rushed into production and put into front life service http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

Abbuzze wrote:
--
-- A quick look at German aviation in WWII shows this
-- type of failure occuring repeatedly. A list of
-- unsuccessful projects might include:
--
-- He-177
-- He-219
-- He-162
-- Me-163
-- Me-262
-- Do-335
-- Me-210/410
-- Hs-129
-- Me-323
--
--
- Hehe you can collect such planes in every Country...
- what about:
-
- Bell XP-59 Aircomet
-
- Ryan FR-1Fireball
-
- nice isn´t it?
-
- Convair XP-81
- ....
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:37 AM
The smoke and mirros master teaches Huck how its done.

You still cant compair 15 B-24's returning out of 177 to 8 out of 13!!! 9% is still better then 8/13 no matter how you disguise the facts.

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- As for other Luftwaffa engine problems, out of the
-- 1050 Me-262's available in WWII, only about 50 of
-- them were airworthy at any given time due to engine
-- problems.
-- Thats an interesting statistic for you.
-- And I got those numbers from a German fan of the
-- Me-262
-
- More BS from Gibbage. Of course, he had to change
- subject.

I did not change the subject at all. We are talking about the He-177 engine problems. He-177 used GERMAN engines. The Me-262 had GERMAN engines. No subject change at all.

-
- For interesting to note of course, that the P-80s
- proved to be so unreliable early in their carreer,
- that they were grounded again and again until 1946.
-

Nice subject change. The grounding was not caused by bad engines, but a bad fuel cap. The same fuel cap that killed Richard Bong. The serviceability of a P-80's engines were in the hundreds of hours. Were there are MANY referances (pilots and engineers) that said due to man metals, the Me-262 had to have its engines overhauled every 10-12 hours. This kept a bulk of the Me-262's out of the air even though a good mecanic team can to the service in 12-24 hours.

- I have never heard the Me 262 was ever grounded
- because of "unreliablilty".
-

I have never heard of a P-80 grounded because of unreliability. Just a bad gas cap.

BTW. Nice subject change. You compain about me talking about a German engine on a German aircraft as a subject change, then you go off on a seperate subject? Lol.

Just so you know Issy.

JUMO The Junkers Jumo 004 is often remembered as a temperamental and failure-prone powerplant. Despite its advanced design, engine life was only between 10 and 25 hours, with the mean being at the lower end of this range. These failures were anticipated to some extent and the Me 262 was designed to permit extremely rapid engine changes.

Contrary to popular belief, the 004A was a fairly sound performer when premium steels were used, and early versions were known to achieve a 200-250 hour service life. However, the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war forced Junkers to produce the 004B model with only 1/3 of the high grade steel that had been used in the 004A. It was to be a disastrous concession for the Me 262

In a 5 2nd searched, I proved me correct, and you wrong in two instances. One, the 10 hours serive times, and two, the later production service times is even better then you said. Shows how much you know..

Source, http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_3.htm

A web page dedicated to the 262. I would think you would have known that. I thought you know everything? I guess not.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 08:08 AM
Why are we arguing about the He-177's engine reliability? FB does not model this. It is irrelevant.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 08:45 AM
- Source, <a
- href="http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/
- technical_3.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.stormbirds.com/project/te
- chnical/technical_3.htm</a>
-
- A web page dedicated to the 262. I would think you
- would have known that. I thought you know
- everything? I guess not.
-
- Gib
-

Thanks for this adress Gibbage... best info in this thread /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

regards

SheerLuck Holmes

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 08:58 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
.
-
- I did not change the subject at all. We are talking
- about the He-177 engine problems. He-177 used
- GERMAN engines. The Me-262 had GERMAN engines. No
- subject change at all.

that´s a argument /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
the Kübelwagen has a German engine too. lets talk about the turnrate , the climb, how fast was that thing and how often the engine failed. any datas available ?



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 10:06 AM
Does someone remember the Blohm und Voss Bv 141? It was a weird asimetrical single engined recon plane, with the cockpit inserted in one of its wings... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

It was a good plane and it performed far better than the Fw 189, but it was rather of a failure just because its look was too weird for the crews to trust.

Nobody liked this ugly bird, even if it deserved it. Some of the "failure" planes in WW2 were more due to mistrust than to real facts.

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 10:13 AM
I agree. I think the B&V 141 was a technically wonderful bird. But its just hard to trust something like that. From what I heard, it was more stable and easier to handle then the FW-189, and that says a lot!! Great design. Better engines also. Since we are talking about engine problems.

Gib

DuxCorvan wrote:
-
- Nobody liked this ugly bird, even if it deserved it.
- Some of the "failure" planes in WW2 were more due to
- mistrust than to real facts.
-
-- Dux Corvan -
-
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:17 AM
hop2002 wrote:
- Sorry, I'll have to cut the reply short, as Isegrim
- seems to think his usuall tactics of throwing out a
- load of rubbish will obscure the truth.
-

LOL, Honest Hop, the defender of truth ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
- So, Isegrim, forget all the smokescreen, why did you
- make up either my post, or the date I made it on?
-
- Either way it's dishonest, isn't it?
-

Smokescreen ? LOL, smokerscreen is used to conceal retreat, like yours right now.

Facts:

1, You told the exact opposite on the same subject in about 2 weeks later than before. It shows that you don`t care about the truth at all, you only twist it to serve your purposes.

2, To conceal that, you developed a fairy tale about me editing my posts after you replied to them. Times of the posts proved that this was a lie of yours.



-- Then he switched the arguement, and went into
-- telling that it`s "perfectly normal and honest" to
-- suddenly change your mind, and tell the EXACT
-- OPPOSITE of what you swored to just two weeks ago.
-- No comment on that. It`s perfectly natural - for
-- him.
-
- So, you are still claiming the 109K4 could reach
- 5000m in 3 mins? Don't be absurd.
-

So, are still claiming that the 109F with more power was as slow as the 109E? Talinking about absurdity...

Notice: Sources that Hop likes to qoute for 109F speeds also say that the K-4 could climb to 5000m in 3 minutes. Interesting how he selects bad data, and ignores good data for certain planes. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-
-- Therefore, we have about 60 MkXIVs in frontline
-- Squadrons vs. 314 K-4s (according to LW records),
-- either you like it or not.
-
- The figures I have show 9 squadrons eqipped with the
- Spit XIV, or even better Spit 21, in Europe during
- the war, at the same time, 11 in total.

LOL!

Oh. 9 Squadrons with SpitXIV. How cute. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Care to list them? Just squadron numbers. Oh, let me guess, you can`t, as usual you can`t post, qoute, or refer to your sources. "Even better Spit21"? You mean it`s even doubtful that it catch the war in Europe, not to mention it was a development disaster.



- 20 planes
- per squadron was established strength.

Which is of course far from the actual number of planes 'on hand' in service. RAF records show only 2-4 planes per squadron servicalbe out of 20 for Typhoon squadrons. It was the same with Spitfire squadrons. With 5 active XIV squadrons, and keeping in mind in what a bad shape Typhoon squadrons were, 60 XIVs seem to be overly optimistic, more likely it was about 20-30.


-
- Of course, the Spit XIV began it's active service in
- Jan 44, the best part of a year before the K4.
-

Yep, and they did not participate in no active combat with them until May 1944. No losses until May...

They didn`t flew over Germany until the Automn. It`s all there in the records.Not to mention how slow their introduction was, the British managed to equip a new Squadron (20 planes max.) with them only in just about every 2 month. In brief, all that happened until october that a handful MKXIVs kept circling over Britain, occasionally chasing down a V-1, then, suddenly, in October 1944, they were overwhelmed by the superior performance of the K-4, arriving in massive numbers every month (alone in October, 174 K-4s were received by the first line units, 2.5-3 times as many than MkXIVs in service).



-
- Now, care to explain why you made up parts of my
- post on the 16th July, ie the critical parts?
-

Made up? LOL, all the text is yours.

-
- Or is your competance as a "lawyer" so great that
- you think lying about the date of an event is OK?
-

Lying? Where, when ?

- You set out to mislead people, and you got caught.
- At least hold your hands up and accept what you did,
- Isegrim.

Parroting won`t help you, Hop. Your own words turn agaisnt you, and show that you have lied regarding those tests on at least one occasion.




http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:38 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- I did not change the subject at all. We are talking
- about the He-177 engine problems. He-177 used
- GERMAN engines. The Me-262 had GERMAN engines. No
- subject change at all.

LOL.

The Me 109 also had a GERMAN engine. It had to be overhauled every 200 hours.

PS: it was the same type as in the He 177s, in the latter they were coupled.



- Nice subject change. The grounding was not caused
- by bad engines, but a bad fuel cap.

Yep, the FIRST grounding was because the fuel cap, later they were grounded because of the engine, again later because the plane kiled abot 60 pilots in a short period...



- The same fuel
- cap that killed Richard Bong. The serviceability of
- a P-80's engines were in the hundreds of hours.
- Were there are MANY referances (pilots and
- engineers) that said due to man metals, the Me-262
- had to have its engines overhauled every 10-12
- hours. This kept a bulk of the Me-262's out of the
- air even though a good mecanic team can to the
- service in 12-24 hours.

Total BS. As usual, you haven`t got even the slightest clue on the subject.


-
-- I have never heard the Me 262 was ever grounded
-- because of "unreliablilty".
--
- I have never heard of a P-80 grounded because of
- unreliability. Just a bad gas cap.

You have never heard of that the jumo 004A was only a development series, or that the He 177 had inline engines, not radials either.



-
- In a 5 2nd searched, I proved me correct, and you
- wrong in two instances.

ROFMALOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- One, the 10 hours serive
- times,

Sorry, early Jumo 004B engines had 25 hours of engine life, later, with hollow turbine blades introduced increased that to 50 hours. Of course, in service, this varied. After all, frontline service is very different than testpad tests.

That`s why P-47s had engine replacement in every 80 hours on avarage (See "Spitfires, Thunderbolt, and warm beer").


- and two, the later production service times
- is even better then you said. Shows how much you
- know..


Your ability to make an idiout yourself is unsurprassed, Gib. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You are even incapable of understanding your own sources, or have even basic knowladge on the subject you are bubbling about. The "later production" service times, ie. Jumo 004A with 250 hours, were NEVER fitted to serially produced 262s, they were only PROTOTYPE powerplants for the Jumo 004 series, and only 80 were built (comparded to the 7916 Jumo 004Bs produced...)



-
- A web page dedicated to the 262. I would think you
- would have known that. I thought you know
- everything? I guess not.
-

Sure I don`t know everything, however my research regarding the Me 262 is not limited to 5 sec searches, but reading serious books on the Me 262, and not websites with qoustionable information.

That`s why I don`t came up with such ridiculus BS as Jumo 004As used in 262s, or that the DB 610 had their two engines mounted one after the other, and was cooled by warm air..... LOL,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Just so that you know, too they were mounted side by side in "W" shape, and were LIQUID COOLED, not radials.

I am always amused how lenghty theories you can develop about why they had overheating problems, when you aren`t even familair with their BASIC construction, layout, or such simple facts as wheter they were inlines or radials...



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:42 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- Which is of course far from the actual number of
- planes 'on hand' in service. RAF records show only
- 2-4 planes per squadron servicalbe out of 20 for
- Typhoon squadrons.
-

And when was this Barbi? What Squadrons?

Your badgering Hop for Spit numbers, so now you produce them for the Typhoon.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:47 AM
Isegrim,

Do you believe the He-177 and Me-262 were successful aircraft and represented a wise investment by the Luftwaffe?

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:48 AM
Servicibility of Me 262 units.

9th April, 1945.

On hand / Servicable

JG 7
---------
Stab : 5 / 4
I. Gruppe : 41 / 21
II.Gruppe : 30 / 23

KG(J) 51
---------
I. Gruppe : 37 / 21

JV 44 : 30 / 15

10./NJG 11: 9 / 7

NAGr 6 : 7 / 3

KG 51.
----------
I. Gruppe : 15 / 11
II. Gruppe: 6 / 2

In total:

180 Me 262s 'on hand'
107 Me 262s 'servicable' or 59.4 %


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:51 AM
RocketDog wrote:
- Isegrim,
-
- Do you believe the He-177 and Me-262 were successful
- aircraft and represented a wise investment by the
- Luftwaffe?
-
- Regards,
-
- RocketDog.


The He 177s IMHO wasn`t needed, and was not a success, though this has little to do with the aircraft itself, rather than the fact that it appeared only in large numbers when the German air force was out of fuel, and it hindered or made bomber operations impossible. On the Eastern front, and over the Atlantic/North see, the He 177s had many success.

Wheter the Me 262 was successful, or wise to be invented, is a dull question IMHO.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:58 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
--
-- Which is of course far from the actual number of
-- planes 'on hand' in service. RAF records show only
-- 2-4 planes per squadron servicalbe out of 20 for
-- Typhoon squadrons.
--
-
- And when was this Barbi? What Squadrons?
-
- Your badgering Hop for Spit numbers, so now you
- produce them for the Typhoon.


"Barbi"? You are looking for a ban ? Just say so. It can be arranged.

Otherwise, I was refferring to no. 137., 168, 182, 181., 247., 438., 439., 440 Typhoon squadrons of 2nd TAF on 24th Dec 1944, whereas they only had 46 sericable planes out of their "Established strenght" of 160 aircraft, or just about 28% of Hop`s numbers.


Clearly, RAF fighter squadrons in the region were nowhere near of their establsihed strenght. It`s fair to assume that the 5 Spit XIV squadrons there were in similiar shape, ie. only 28 of their 100 "established" planes being airworthy.

Luftwaffe records for about a month later show 314s Bf 109 K-4s in service, and an avarage servicibility rate of apprx. 75% for Bf 109 units.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 12:29 PM
You call me Biddy, I call you Barbi.

You can't have a civil discussion without your usual derogatory comments, I call you Barbi.


Barbi = Barbarrosa Isegrim = Vo101 Isegrim


Note, Barbi was what Issy was called >>by all<< at the old 'Onwar' forums.


-----
You cannot assume that because Typhoon squadrons were down in numbers that Spit squadrons were also. Dumb conclussion!

Nice manipulation of numbers for the K-4. What was the a/c establishment of a JG Gruppe/Staffel? How many JG had K-4s?


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/31/0307:38AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 01:13 PM
Manipulation of numbers by Issy.

A Gruppe consists of a Stab and 3 Staffel with 12 a/c(can be 4 and 16 though but that would make the numbers worse/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). So that is at least 52 a/c.

I./JG77 52 estb., 43 on-hand, 24 combat ready
II./JG77 52 estb., 32 on-hand, 20 combat ready
III./JG77 52 estb., 10 on-hand, 7 combat ready

24/52 = 46.2%
20/52 = 38.5%
7/52 = 13.5%

Average of the 3 Gruppe, 32.7% combat ready.

Next time Issy you give stats for RAF units better use the same standards for LW units.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- Luftwaffe records for about a month later show 314s
- Bf 109 K-4s in service, and an avarage servicibility
- rate of apprx. 75% for Bf 109 units.
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 02:00 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote: some brilliant stuff


nice post nakajima - really good info - let this be an example to others - again, brilliant post.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 02:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Wheter the Me 262 was successful, or wise to be
- invented, is a dull question IMHO.

I think it's a very interesting question. The whole Me-262 saga is a paradigm case for the failure of the Luftwaffe. Once you understand why the Me-262 was a failure it becomes possible to understand why the Luftwaffe so comprehensively lost control of the air over Europe. Only my opinion, of course.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 02:29 PM
RocketDog wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Wheter the Me 262 was successful, or wise to be
-- invented, is a dull question IMHO.
-
- I think it's a very interesting question. The whole
- Me-262 saga is a paradigm case for the failure of
- the Luftwaffe. Once you understand why the Me-262
- was a failure it becomes possible to understand why
- the Luftwaffe so comprehensively lost control of the
- air over Europe. Only my opinion, of course.


And you understood that ME-262 was a failure? So the best fighter in the world from its introduction to the end of war was a failure.
Just a remainder Rockeddog ME-262 outperforms anything in any fighter role: as a fighter, interceptor, bomber destroyer and fast bomber. Lethal in any of the roles. No comparison with anything that Allies had at hand (for almost 2 year time, beginning with Nov 1944).

What "undisputable" arguments do you have to make such laughable affirmations. Are you trying to compete with Milo?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:15 PM
Huckie, did you have the same math teacher as Issy? Since when is Nov '44 to the end of April/beginning of May '45 "almost 2 years"? More like 1/2 year./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- And you understood that ME-262 was a failure? So the
- best fighter in the world from its introduction to
- the end of war was a failure.
- Just a remainder Rockeddog ME-262 outperforms
- anything in any fighter role: as a fighter,
- interceptor, bomber destroyer and fast bomber.
- Lethal in any of the roles. No comparison with
- anything that Allies had at hand (for almost 2 year
- time, beginning with Nov 1944).
-
-

The 262 was a failure in that it did not do anything to regain air superiority over or even parity with the Allies for the LW. The Allies had the 262 threat neutralized.A/c that the LW had were busy protecting the 262s instead of attacking the Allied a/c roaming freely over Germany.

The 262s performance meant diddly squat!

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/31/0310:22AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:18 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And you understood that ME-262 was a failure? So the
- best fighter in the world from its introduction to
- the end of war was a failure.
- Just a remainder Rockeddog ME-262 outperforms
- anything in any fighter role: as a fighter,
- interceptor, bomber destroyer and fast bomber.
- Lethal in any of the roles. No comparison with
- anything that Allies had at hand (for almost 2 year
- time, beginning with Nov 1944).

You have to put aside the details like performance figures and consider the Me-262 as a total weapons system which was developed in response to a particular miltary need.

The Me-262 was needed to intercept high-altitude bombers over Europe in the face of high levels of Allied fighter cover. The jet power appeared to offer a solution to the issue of avoiding the fighter cover by offering very high speeds. However, the technology was immature and the aircraft could only be delivered and operated in small numbers and arrived far too late to be of any great military significance.

It's an interesting aircraft with a quite startling performance for its time. But interest and performance are not in themselves of any direct military value. To be an effective weapons system the Me-262 needed more than that. It would have needed to be cheaper, have more robust engines, lower service-time loads, have possessed stand-off weapons, preferably been able to operate from grass strips and (critically) been available at least one year earlier.

So I think it is perfectly reasonable to assess the Me-262 programme as a failure. And note the stress on ME-262 programme, not just the Me-262. In short, it simply couldn't do what it was needed to do.

From what I have read, the same problems with attempts to prematurely force poorly-developed weapons systems into service also undermined the effort invested in aircraft like the Me-163, He-162, He-177, He-219 etc. One of the great failures of German aviation engineering in the war was to dilute R&D effort in pursuit of these high-risk projects that had little chance of quickly yielding deliverable aircraft at the expense of more obvious and simpler alternatives that could have been delivered in time to be of use. The diversion of rocketry expertise to the militarily pointless V2 at the expense of developing the less dramatic but infinitely more useful Wasserfal ground-to-air missile is another good example.

All this is not my analysis, of course, but is drawn from a number of academic histories.

Regards,

RocketDog.

PS - it would be helpful if you could avoid using confrontational language like "laughable". I don't generally reply to intemperate posts.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:27 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And you understood that ME-262 was a failure? So the
- best fighter in the world from its introduction to
- the end of war was a failure.
- Just a remainder Rockeddog ME-262 outperforms
- anything in any fighter role: as a fighter,
- interceptor, bomber destroyer and fast bomber.
- Lethal in any of the roles. No comparison with
- anything that Allies had at hand (for almost 2 year
- time, beginning with Nov 1944).
-
- What "undisputable" arguments do you have to make
- such laughable affirmations. Are you trying to
- compete with Milo?
-

I think Rocket Dog means a failure in the sense that it did not stop the Allied strategic bombing offensive, nor their use of tactical air power.

The Allied strategic bombing campaign suffered two bloody noses at the hands of the Germans. In the summer of 1943 it became clear that the USAAF's daylight bombing beyond the range of escorting fighters was going to be unacceptably expensive. The winter of 1943/44 saw the RAF night bombing offensive also come close to failure, the fortuitous need to divert bombers to support the Overlord preparations having the same effect of re-directing effort to closer targets. (In both cases the Allies took appropriate and successful action - long range escort fighters by day, and escort and intruders by night coupled with a swing in the radar/ECM war decisively in the Allies favour).

Both of these setbacks were inflicted by the Luftwaffe using conventional, piston-engined fighters - mostly Bf-109s, Fw-190s by day and Me-110s and Ju-88s by night. The introduction of the Me-262 in 1944 did not result in a similar setback for the Allies, indeed their control of the air increased rather than decreased in 1944-45. So, from the point of view of the Me 262 as a weapons system, one designed to wrest control of the air from the Allies, it failed.

This goes to the core of the argument made in Rocket Dog's first post. The purpose of an air force is not to have the best bomber, the most advanced bomber destroyer or the first operational jet fighter - these are just means to an end. The purpose of an air force is to win wars. The Me-262 did not stop the huge fleets of Allied bombers roaming at will over Germany, and the defeats inflicted on Allied strategy mentioned above were carried out using conventional aircraft.

None of this takes away the brilliance of aspects of the Me-262s design of course, but as players of flight simulators and aircraft enthusiasts we tend to forget that even the most advanced aircraft should also be judged not just on the designs and technology it incorporates but on what difference it made to the war.


-------------------------------------

In the struggle for labour resources the (German) air ministry was at a considerable disadvantage politically, since labour recruitment and allocation was controlled by agencies directly linked to the army, and unsympathetic to Luftwaffe demands. During 1942 the number of workers allocated rose hardly at all despite the large numbers drafted in from Europe. Over the whole period the army continued to recruit skilled workers even in the protected factories. In all the aircraft factories an average of between 45 and 50 per cent of the workforce was composed of foreign labour by the end of the war.

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-45

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:38 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huckie, did you have the same math teacher as Issy?
- Since when is Nov '44 to the end of April/beginning
- of May '45 "almost 2 years"? More like 1/2 year.

You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe from which 3 crashed? From 13 YP-80 5 crashed. They were evaluated for a year beginning with Sept 44.

P80 was evaluated by 412thFG from early '45 and completing the job by July '46. From Nov '44 to July '46 it's almost two years. Exercise your shaky math.
During this time the plane was sent to squadrons and ocasionally flown with an impressive number of accidents, though most of the time it was grounded.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/31/0311:07AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe from which 3
- crashed?

And where does this come from, Huck? Or is this more "twisting" from the Chubby Checker of the UBI boards.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 03:55 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- "Barbi"? You are looking for a ban ? Just say so. It
- can be arranged.


How about getting banned for "The only good Indianer is a dead Indianer?"

Or is a signature that says the "The only good German is a dean German" acceptable to you?


BTW, where do you come upo with "Indianer." It's "Indian."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 04:03 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Manipulation of numbers by Issy.
-
- A Gruppe consists of a Stab and 3 Staffel with 12
- a/c(can be 4 and 16 though but that would make the
- numbers worse/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). So that is at least 52 a/c.
-
- I./JG77 52 estb., 43 on-hand, 24 combat ready
- II./JG77 52 estb., 32 on-hand, 20 combat ready
- III./JG77 52 estb., 10 on-hand, 7 combat ready
-
- 24/52 = 46.2%
- 20/52 = 38.5%
- 7/52 = 13.5%
-
- Average of the 3 Gruppe, 32.7% combat ready.
-


No source, no date, no credibility, no idea what servicbility rate is, and as usual, carefully selected single unit.



Me 109 figures with the 1st Line LW units, on 9th April 1945. Reserve units are not included.


Me 109s :

On hand: 1187
Servicable: 901
Servicibility rate: 75.9 %

FW 190s:

On hand: 774
Servicable: 55
Servicibility rate: 71.7 %

From Alred Price : Last year of the Luftwaffe.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 04:15 PM
... returning to the topic: the nickname given to He-177 by its crew was "The Flaming Coffin"...

<center>

http://www.goblins.it/immagini/Logo/tdglogo.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 04:45 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

BTW, where do you come upo with "Indianer." It's "Indian."


"Indianer" is the German radio code for enemy fighters./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:01 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe from which 3
-- crashed?
-
- And where does this come from, Huck? Or is this
- more "twisting" from the Chubby Checker of the UBI
- boards.


No, it's just your twisted neurons, failing to do their job.

44-83026 and 27 crashed in England, and either 44-83028 or 29 crashed after returning from Italy.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:05 PM
And what Issy should the establishment strength of the JGs be? Now how many a/c 'on-hand' and how many 'combat ready'(sevicable)?

Taken from the same person as you got your numbers for./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

You want more:

Bf 109

II/JG 51 7/5
II/JG 52 43/29
I/JG 53 27/27

So with an authorized strength of 52 a/c per Gruppe, there is 13.5%, 55.7%, 51.9% ready for combat respectively.


I/JG 52 40/37 > 71.2% ready for combat
III/JG 52 32/30 > 57.7% ready for combat

This are the percentages out of the authorized strength.

Why, because you want to compare the servicable strength of Typhoon squadrons with authorized strength.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:17 PM
Some interesting facts about the He-177 engines (from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe: Combat Aircraft of Hitler's Luftwaffe 1939-1945, edited by David Donald):

When one studies the detailed reports on some of the many hundreds of serious He 177 engine fires one marvels that the usually impressive Germanic design efficiency could have been so often forgotten. Many features of the DB 606 installation might almost have been deliberately arranged to give trouble. The oil scavenge pumps were oversized, and at heights over 6000 m (19,685 ft) the oil tended to aerate and foam, leading to breakdown in lubrication and to seizures, con-rods breaking through the crankcase, and fires. Almost always the oil dripped on to the white-hot exhaust manifold serving the two inner banks of cylinders, and radiant heat from this frequently ignited oil and fuel that collected in the bottom of the cowling. Many other fires resulted from fuel leaks from the high-pressure injection pumps and rigid piping, and the whole engine was installed so tight up to the main spar that there was no room for a firewall. The piping, electric cables and other services were jammed in so tightly that, especially when soaked in leaking fuel and oil, the fire risk was awesome. There were even problems caused by the handling (opposite rotation) of the big 4.52-m (14-ft 8-in) four-bladed propellers. Seen from behind, the left propeller rotated anti-clockwise and the right propeller clockwise, and the engines with inserted idler wheels to reverse output rotation often suffered from torsional vibration causing crankshaft failure. At least seven A-0 aircraft were badly damaged in take-off accidents caused by uncontrollable swing to left or right, despite enlargement of fin and rudder, and it became standard practice on take-off to keep the tailwheel on the ground as long as possible. - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe: Combat Aircraft of Hitler's Luftwaffe 1939-1945, copyright 1994 Aerospace Publishing Ltd.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois

Message Edited on 08/31/0309:18AM by computer_67

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 05:31 PM
Seems to see some to optimistic "available" calculation/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If I as a Commander of Sqn. suffer the loss of 5 fighters during the week and have to continue to fight the week after, with 7 "at hand" and 6 "serviable" - my unit has a ready status of 50%, not 85% as some would like to have./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif







"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 06:29 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote:
--
-
- I think Rocket Dog means a failure in the sense that
- it did not stop the Allied strategic bombing
- offensive, nor their use of tactical air power.
-
- The Allied strategic bombing campaign suffered two
- bloody noses at the hands of the Germans. In the
- summer of 1943 it became clear that the USAAF's
- daylight bombing beyond the range of escorting
- fighters was going to be unacceptably expensive. The
- winter of 1943/44 saw the RAF night bombing
- offensive also come close to failure, the fortuitous
- need to divert bombers to support the Overlord
- preparations having the same effect of re-directing
- effort to closer targets. (In both cases the Allies
- took appropriate and successful action - long range
- escort fighters by day, and escort and intruders by
- night coupled with a swing in the radar/ECM war
- decisively in the Allies favour).
-
- Both of these setbacks were inflicted by the
- Luftwaffe using conventional, piston-engined
- fighters - mostly Bf-109s, Fw-190s by day and
- Me-110s and Ju-88s by night. The introduction of the
- Me-262 in 1944 did not result in a similar setback
- for the Allies, indeed their control of the air
- increased rather than decreased in 1944-45. So, from
- the point of view of the Me 262 as a weapons system,
- one designed to wrest control of the air from the
- Allies, it failed.
-
- This goes to the core of the argument made in Rocket
- Dog's first post. The purpose of an air force is not
- to have the best bomber, the most advanced bomber
- destroyer or the first operational jet fighter -
- these are just means to an end. The purpose of an
- air force is to win wars. The Me-262 did not stop
- the huge fleets of Allied bombers roaming at will
- over Germany, and the defeats inflicted on Allied
- strategy mentioned above were carried out using
- conventional aircraft.
-
- None of this takes away the brilliance of aspects of
- the Me-262s design of course, but as players of
- flight simulators and aircraft enthusiasts we tend
- to forget that even the most advanced aircraft
- should also be judged not just on the designs and
- technology it incorporates but on what difference it
- made to the war.


Mr_Nakajima thank you very much for that quote about He-177. It was very revealing.

On Me-262 I strongly disagree though. There was no weapon that could stop the Allied advance with the resource that Germany had at that time. And very importantly the war was lost on the ground not in the air, the strategic air compaign was just costly in civilian life and had next to zero military significance, since at the height of the campaign Germany's industrial output rose. The only bright spot was the campaign against Germany oil resources, but those in Romania would have been overrun by the soviets in few months time anyway.

Basically from the autumn of '44 LW was constricted to use less than 50.000 tons of fuel monthly on all fronts, whereas USAAF in ETO alone used almost always more than 200.000 tons monthly. This clearly shows enormous discrepancy in resources, Allies had at least ten times more fuel available than Germany. The war in the air was lost anyway. In these conditions the achievements of Me-262 are even more remarkable. JG7 scored around 450 kills in 5 months time, most of them 4 engine bombers, making it arguably the most succesful Zerstorer unit in LW. A more month of service and a new suspension of USAAF bomber compaign would have been very much probable. That does not mean that Me-262 could have war the war single-handedly/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Me-262 program was the best of LW could put up at in such hard conditions. And technically and performance wise Me-262 was the most advanced aircraft at that time and performed beautifully.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 07:24 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- A
- more month of service and a new suspension of USAAF
- bomber compaign would have been very much probable.
- That does not mean that Me-262 could have war the
- war single-handedly


A suspension of the USAAF campaign is wishful dreaming. There was ~115 Me262s available out of ~165 on-hand in early April. They would have to go up against up to 2000 heavy bombers with at least that many escorts. The RAF had started daylight raiding and their numbers would be added to the USAAF numbers. Add on the medium bombers,....

262 bases were so well covered that the Autobahn was being used. The delivery of fuel was in a 'nose-dive'. no fuel > no fly.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 07:30 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
--- You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe from which 3
--- crashed?
--
-- And where does this come from, Huck? Or is this
-- more "twisting" from the Chubby Checker of the UBI
-- boards.
-
-
- No, it's just your twisted neurons, failing to do
- their job.
-
- 44-83026 and 27 crashed in England, and either
- 44-83028 or 29 crashed after returning from Italy.


Yeah, that adds up to three. All of which crashed in Europe.

"Let's do the twist..."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 07:35 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-
- BTW, where do you come upo with "Indianer." It's
- "Indian."
-
-
- "Indianer" is the German radio code for enemy
- fighters./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-


"Indian" was the code name for American fighter pilots.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:36 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
--
-- A
-- more month of service and a new suspension of USAAF
-- bomber compaign would have been very much probable.
-- That does not mean that Me-262 could have war the
-- war single-handedly
-
-
- A suspension of the USAAF campaign is wishful
- dreaming. There was ~115 Me262s available out of
- ~165 on-hand in early April. They would have to go
- up against up to 2000 heavy bombers with at least
- that many escorts. The RAF had started daylight
- raiding and their numbers would be added to the
- USAAF numbers. Add on the medium bombers,....
-
- 262 bases were so well covered that the Autobahn was
- being used. The delivery of fuel was in a
- 'nose-dive'. no fuel > no fly.


I agree with this. 50,000 tons of fuel supply monthly is based solely on production, not on how much fuel the units actually received. Many sources quote a 10% quantity of fuel received by LW units at the end of '44 compared with March '44, which means only 20,000 tons.

But you have to remember that Me-262 fuel was not counted in most of those statistics. Only 10% of the oil synthesised from coal was useful for producing aviation fuel, the rest was used for some lubricants, diesel fuel or it was simply residue in the process. But kerosene is one of those fuels obtained from the 90% residue part (it is very close to diesel fuel in structure). The reason why Me-262 units didn't get more fuel even if it was so cheap (and non-strategic) was that the infrastructure was not ready, and it was impossible to make new production capacities at that point.

But technically, if the units received the fuel, 100 Me-262 flown simultaneously were capable to put a temporary halt on bombing campaign.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:47 PM
computer_67 wrote:
- Some interesting facts about the He-177 engines
- (from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe: Combat Aircraft of
- Hitler's Luftwaffe 1939-1945, edited by David
- Donald):
-
- When one studies the detailed reports on some of the
- many hundreds of serious He 177 engine fires one
- marvels that the usually impressive Germanic design
- efficiency could have been so often forgotten. Many
- features of the DB 606 installation might almost
- have been deliberately arranged to give trouble. The
- oil scavenge pumps were oversized, and at heights
- over 6000 m (19,685 ft) the oil tended to aerate and
- foam, leading to breakdown in lubrication and to
- seizures, con-rods breaking through the crankcase,
- and fires. Almost always the oil dripped on to the
- white-hot exhaust manifold serving the two inner
- banks of cylinders, and radiant heat from this
- frequently ignited oil and fuel that collected in
- the bottom of the cowling. Many other fires resulted
- from fuel leaks from the high-pressure injection
- pumps and rigid piping, and the whole engine was
- installed so tight up to the main spar that there
- was no room for a firewall. The piping, electric
- cables and other services were jammed in so tightly
- that, especially when soaked in leaking fuel and
- oil, the fire risk was awesome. There were even
- problems caused by the handling (opposite rotation)
- of the big 4.52-m (14-ft 8-in) four-bladed
- propellers. Seen from behind, the left propeller
- rotated anti-clockwise and the right propeller
- clockwise, and the engines with inserted idler
- wheels to reverse output rotation often suffered
- from torsional vibration causing crankshaft failure.
- At least seven A-0 aircraft were badly damaged in
- take-off accidents caused by uncontrollable swing to
- left or right, despite enlargement of fin and
- rudder, and it became standard practice on take-off
- to keep the tailwheel on the ground as long as
- possible. - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe: Combat
- Aircraft of Hitler's Luftwaffe 1939-1945, copyright
- 1994 Aerospace Publishing Ltd.


Presenting the defects corrected in the preserie aircraft is not interesting in judging the operational capabilities of an aircraft. Read Mr_Nakajima's post and see that the difficulties with He-177, even if many were traceable to the engines, were caused by improper use and maintenance not by inherrent defects of those engines. You have to remember that DB606 and later DB610 were the most powerful engines in the world and consequently needed good maintenance. But operational record presented by Isegrim show very well that the number of ineffective sorties due to mechanical malfuntions were in normal limits for a heavy bomber.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:49 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- SkyChimp wrote:
---
--- Huckebein_FW wrote:
---
---- You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe from which 3
---- crashed?
---
--- And where does this come from, Huck? Or is this
--- more "twisting" from the Chubby Checker of the UBI
--- boards.
--
--
-- No, it's just your twisted neurons, failing to do
-- their job.
--
-- 44-83026 and 27 crashed in England, and either
-- 44-83028 or 29 crashed after returning from Italy.
-
-
- Yeah, that adds up to three. All of which crashed
- in Europe.



Did I say all of them crashed in Europe? Learn to read Skychimp.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 01:18 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Did I say all of them crashed in Europe? Learn to
- read Skychimp.


44-83026 crashed in England.

44-83027 crashed on November 14, 1945 of engine failure, AFTER is had been fitted with a Rolls Royce B-41 turbojet.

44-83028 crashed on August 2, 1945, in the US.

44-83029 ended up as a pilotless target drone.

In other words, one crashed while in operational service. One crashed while being used as a testbed for a new engine. One crashed in the US after a successful periord of operational service. The other crashed after being shot down.

"Lets do the twist..."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 08:38 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- But technically, if the units received the fuel, 100
- Me-262 flown simultaneously were capable to put a
- temporary halt on bombing campaign.

Even had the fuel been available that presupposes that:

1. The Luftwaffe could find the pilots and technicians to actually operate 100 Me-262s with any level of effectiveness.

2. The Allied airforces would not take effective countermeasures - such as intercepting 262s on take off and landing.

I don't think either assumption is justified. But of course, once we are allowed to change history to speculate then we can get any outcome we desire.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 09:38 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-

-
-
- "Indian" was the code name for American fighter
- pilots.

NO. Seems a misinterpretation by someone or by U, I don't know.

"Indianer" was code word for fighter in foghter role, better said for every a/c that could endanger own fighters and engage them in dogfights. Origin came from childhood plays like playing "Indian&Cowboy", also was Indianer not country related./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buffs codename was M¶belwagen (moving truck) although no buff ever dropped furniture over Germany./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


And SkyChimp how was the desination for Germans in WWII./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif



Message Edited on 09/01/0309:58AM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:07 AM
Krout? Well that was the "code word" for any Nazi enemy for the US. I dont know what the Brits used. Originated from a cabbage dish called Sour Krout from Germany.

Gib

KIMURA wrote:
-
- And SkyChimp how was the desination for Germans in
- WWII./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
-
-

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:14 AM
I knew that./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif British called the German Huns, although the Huns origin has nothing to do with Germany./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:45 AM
What about Kiser? I heard that referanced in some WWII movies.


KIMURA wrote:
- I knew that British called the
- German Huns, although the Huns origin has nothing to
- do with Germany

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:54 AM
Kiser? Never herad of that./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:19 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- SkyChimp wrote:
---
--- Huckebein_FW wrote:
---
---- You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe from which 3
---- crashed?
---
--- And where does this come from, Huck? Or is this
--- more "twisting" from the Chubby Checker of the UBI
--- boards.
--
--
-- No, it's just your twisted neurons, failing to do
-- their job.
--
-- 44-83026 and 27 crashed in England, and either
-- 44-83028 or 29 crashed after returning from Italy.
-
-
- Yeah, that adds up to three. All of which crashed
- in Europe.

So you agree with Huckebein_FW when he said
"You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe, from which
3 crashed"???

In which case why are you trying to disagree with him
on a point you just agreed with him.

The sheer bloody mindedness of people on this thread
in their desire for ad hominem attacks really bemuses
me at times.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:22 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- width=16 height=16 border=0> British called the
- German Huns, although the Huns origin has nothing to
- do with Germany.<

Outside Noel Coward songs ("Let's not be beastly to
the Hun") the use of Hun was more prevalent in WW1.
In WW2 Jerry (after the supposed likeness of the German
service helmet to a chamber pot) was more common AFAIK.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:56 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
-
-
- Outside Noel Coward songs ("Let's not be beastly to
- the Hun") the use of Hun was more prevalent in WW1.
- In WW2 Jerry (after the supposed likeness of the
- German
- service helmet to a chamber pot) was more common
- AFAIK.
-
-

Aaron, first thing I thought of when I read this was, a German is a sh!thead.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:42 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Aaron, first thing I thought of when I read this
- was, a German is a sh!thead.

Don't fall victim to such racist thoughts.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:50 PM
Np with doing that Aaron, even though Issy thinks so./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


AaronGT wrote:

-
- Don't fall victim to such racist thoughts.
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/grinnell-therewent10-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 02:14 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- You have to put aside the details like performance
- figures and consider the Me-262 as a total weapons
- system which was developed in response to a
- particular miltary need.
-
- The Me-262 was needed to intercept high-altitude
- bombers over Europe in the face of high levels of
- Allied fighter cover. The jet power appeared to
- offer a solution to the issue of avoiding the
- fighter cover by offering very high speeds. However,
- the technology was immature and the aircraft could
- only be delivered and operated in small numbers and
- arrived far too late to be of any great military
- significance.

They arrived too late, it's true, but the technology was very much mature by the time it reached operational status in Nov '44. They were also supplied in sufficient numbers much larger than LW could provide fuel for. Most of Me-262 were left unserviceable, since they were not able to fly them, in order to cut inutile maintenance cost. That was the case with all LW aircraft by that time.


-
- It's an interesting aircraft with a quite startling
- performance for its time. But interest and
- performance are not in themselves of any direct
- military value. To be an effective weapons system
- the Me-262 needed more than that. It would have
- needed to be cheaper, have more robust engines,
- lower service-time loads, have possessed stand-off
- weapons, preferably been able to operate from grass
- strips and (critically) been available at least one
- year earlier.

Me-262 was specifically designed to be build cheap and with as many as possible non-strategic materials. That was detrimental to it's weight but structurally the airframe remained very tough. Me-262 did not suffer from mid air disintegration accidents like most early jets did.

Engines were more robust than all the jets available at that time. This is the reason why Me-262 was delayed repeatedly. They achieved an average of 25 hours of engine life which is comparable with what obtained the british on serviceable aircraft at that time. The weakness of german jet engines was not the short engine life but the small thrust to weight of those engines. This was the real effect of lacking good alloys. Of course most authors compare the engine life of Jumo 004 with engines entering service 5 years later - the usual ignorant bias.

Also 25 hours engine life meant 25 missions per engine which is perfectly comparable with piston engines at that time. This is a very important point unfortunately always missing from analyses. And the cost of these engines was half of their piston counterparts. So practically it meant less operating costs!

As for armament, 4x30mm are the heaviest cannon configuration ever mounted on fighter. There were no soft kills or shared kills with such armament.

Me-262 used grass strips in ferry missions, you have to look for better sources.


-
- So I think it is perfectly reasonable to assess the
- Me-262 programme as a failure. And note the stress
- on ME-262 programme, not just the Me-262. In short,
- it simply couldn't do what it was needed to do.

Me-262 program cannot be viewed as a failure in any analysis. LW by the time of it's introduction was already a defeated force, Me-262 or any other weapon system could not solve the impossible situation LW faced. I gave a more detailed to Mr_Nakajima about this:

"On Me-262 I strongly disagree though. There was no weapon that could stop the Allied advance with the resource that Germany had at that time. And very importantly the war was lost on the ground not in the air, the strategic air compaign was just costly in civilian life and had next to zero military significance, since at the height of the campaign Germany's industrial output rose. The only bright spot was the campaign against Germany oil resources, but those in Romania would have been overrun by the soviets in few months time anyway.

Basically from the autumn of '44 LW was constricted to use less than 50.000 tons of fuel monthly on all fronts, whereas USAAF in ETO alone used almost always more than 200.000 tons monthly. This clearly shows enormous discrepancy in resources, Allies had at least ten times more fuel available than Germany. The war in the air was lost anyway. In these conditions the achievements of Me-262 are even more remarkable. JG7 scored around 450 kills in 5 months time, most of them 4 engine bombers, making it arguably the most succesful Zerstorer unit in LW. A more month of service and a new suspension of USAAF bomber compaign would have been very much probable. That does not mean that Me-262 could have war the war single-handedly

Me-262 program was the best of LW could put up at in such hard conditions. And technically and performance wise Me-262 was the most advanced aircraft at that time and performed beautifully. "


-
- From what I have read, the same problems with
- attempts to prematurely force poorly-developed
- weapons systems into service also undermined the
- effort invested in aircraft like the Me-163, He-162,
- He-177, He-219 etc. One of the great failures of
- German aviation engineering in the war was to dilute
- R&D effort in pursuit of these high-risk projects
- that had little chance of quickly yielding
- deliverable aircraft at the expense of more obvious
- and simpler alternatives that could have been
- delivered in time to be of use. The diversion of
- rocketry expertise to the militarily pointless V2 at
- the expense of developing the less dramatic but
- infinitely more useful Wasserfal ground-to-air
- missile is another good example.

If you want to discuss other planes like He-219 or He-162 open a separate thread. You can't dismiss them in such a superficial manner.



-
- All this is not my analysis, of course, but is drawn
- from a number of academic histories.

It's very easy to find sources that dismiss every single weapon used by Germany in ww2. All filled with countless errors and personal bias.



- PS - it would be helpful if you could avoid using
- confrontational language like "laughable". I don't
- generally reply to intemperate posts.

Don't expect that by posting your prejudice here you'll get all the sympathy in the world.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:15 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-- All this is not my analysis, of course, but is drawn
-- from a number of academic histories.
-
- It's very easy to find sources that dismiss every
- single weapon used by Germany in ww2. All filled
- with countless errors and personal bias.

The most recent books I have read analysing the air war are:

R.J.Overy, The Air War, 1939-45 (1980)
R.J.Overy, Why the Allies Won (1996)
A. Price, The Last Year of the Luftwaffe: May 1944 to May 1945 (2001)

...plus a few others I don't have to hand. Overy holds a chair in Modern European History in the Department of History at King's College, London so I take what he says seriously. He appears to have a good reputation as an academic historian and specialies in military aviation. I doubt very much if personal bias is an issue. The Department of History at KCL was graded as 5* in the last UK university Research Assessment Exercise, the highest possible rating for the quality of academic research.

Incidentally, the German weapons of WWII are not just dismissed in written histories. They were dismissed by history itself. German weapons simply weren't good enough to enable German victory - or even to allow them to force a stalemate. No matter how impressed we may be by aircraft like the Me-262, the brute fact is that it was unable to drive the Allied bombers from the skies over Germany.

-- PS - it would be helpful if you could avoid using
-- confrontational language like "laughable". I don't
-- generally reply to intemperate posts.
-
- Don't expect that by posting your prejudice here
- you'll get all the sympathy in the world.

As far as I am aware, I have absolutely no prejudice about the Luftwaffe at all. I find the history of military avaition during WWII an interesting subject and seek to understand the deeper reasons that shaped the outcome of the conflict. In particular, I am interested in the more intangible factors beyond simple performance figures that governed the military effectiveness of various weapons, aircraft and airforces.

My interest is to discover the truth, rather than to champion any particular nation, aircraft or airforce.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:26 PM
KIMURA wrote:Kiser? Never herad of that.<

Hmmm,me either. As you probably know,Kaiser was the title of German royalty(Kaiser Wilhelm,for example),and is German for "Caesar",but I've never heard it being used to refer to Germans in general. Besides krauts and Huns,many people referred to German as Jerries. Supposedly,the term originated with the British who thought German helmets looked like chamber pots(called Jerry-pots or Jerries by the Brits).

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:34 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- So you agree with Huckebein_FW when he said
- "You mean those 4 planes sent to Europe, from which
- 3 crashed"???
-
- In which case why are you trying to disagree with
- him
- on a point you just agreed with him.
-
- The sheer bloody mindedness of people on this thread
- in their desire for ad hominem attacks really
- bemuses
- me at times.


Certainly the intent was to imply that of the 4 P-80s sent to Europe for operational trials, 3 crashed in Europe, which is wrong. It was plainly an effort to mislead.

His statement was as accurate as saying "all but 8 Me-262 in combat in Europe were destroyed." 8 exist today, so that must be a true statement, huh?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:36 PM
KIMURA wrote:

- NO. Seems a misinterpretation by someone or by U, I
- don't know.
-
- "Indianer" was code word for fighter in foghter
- role, better said for every a/c that could endanger
- own fighters and engage them in dogfights. Origin
- came from childhood plays like playing
- "Indian&Cowboy", also was Indianer not country
- related./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Buffs codename was M¶belwagen (moving truck)
- although no buff ever dropped furniture over
- Germany./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
- And SkyChimp how was the desination for Germans in
- WWII

Ok, Kimura, so "A Dead Kraut is a Good Kraut" would be ok with you?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:45 PM
- 1, You told the exact opposite on the same subject
- in about 2 weeks later than before. It shows that
- you don`t care about the truth at all, you only
- twist it to serve your purposes.

You told the exact opposite on the subject of the 109K4 climbing to 5000m in 3 mins in about 2 weeks later than before. It shows that you don`t care about the truth at all, you only twist it to serve your purposes.
[/bad grammar]

Isegrim, it's called changing your mind. It's what everybody who has an interest in WW2 aircraft's genuine performance does, as new evidence is uncovered. It's what you did when I pointed out to you that the 3 mins to 5000m was really 6 mins at lower power.

- 2, To conceal that, you developed a fairy tale about
- me editing my posts after you replied to them. Times
- of the posts proved that this was a lie of yours.

From my timezone, I posted at 8:08, you edited at approx 9:50. Why delete both posts if they were duplicates?

- They didn`t flew over Germany until the Automn.

And the Dora and 109K4 flew over Britain how many times?

-- Now, care to explain why you made up parts of my
-- post on the 16th July, ie the critical parts?
--
-
- Made up? LOL, all the text is yours.
-
--
-- Or is your competance as a "lawyer" so great that
-- you think lying about the date of an event is OK?
--
-
- Lying? Where, when ?

Here Isegrim:

- "Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
-
- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."
-
- "Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
-
- "It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration."
-
- "It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that
- wasn't exactly uncommon either."

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvgdp



You are quoting me as posting on the 16th July 2003, 4:02 pm central european time:

"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."

My post made on the 16th July 2003, 4:02 pm central european time:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvhmd


Nowhere on that date do I use the sentence you've attributed to me. Therefore, you're lying.

- Parroting won`t help you, Hop. Your own words turn
- agaisnt you, and show that you have lied regarding
- those tests on at least one occasion.

They don't Isegrim, that's why you had to forge the date on your "quote". In June, I said I didn't believe they were normal performance figures. In july, I changed my mind, and said so. You took a post from June, before I had changed my mind, and forged the date on it to July, after I had channged my mind. And what's worse, you think everyone else is so stupid they won't be able to understand it.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:47 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- if personal bias is an issue. The Department of
- History at KCL was graded as 5* in the last UK
- university Research Assessment Exercise, the highest
- possible rating for the quality of academic
- research.

Being pedantic, you can actually get 6* if you
get awarded 5* twice in a row, but as the RAE is
relatively new, KCL may not have been assessed
twice as yet, perhaps?

- Incidentally, the German weapons of WWII are not
- just dismissed in written histories. They were
- dismissed by history itself. German weapons simply
- weren't good enough to enable German victory

I think it would be more accurate to say that they
were not sufficiently better than those of the opposition
for their deployment in limited numbers and with poor
strategic planning for them to turn the tide of the war.
Even a weapon that was individually good would need to
be deployed in large numbers, given how far the tide had
turned by autumn 1944, for example, or if only deployed
in moderate quantities, be two orders of magnitude better.

Basically nothing short of a weapon that ensured
that the bombing campaign was aborted, and provided
tactical air advantage for ground troops and could
deliver weapons in support of those troops was anything
other than inadequate. T

To force a halt in the bombing campaign would probably
have required at least a 5% loss rate by day AND night
to be effective - which means 50 bombers downed in a day
raid, 50 in a night raid, more or less. It would have been
a tall order. I wonder if further improved radar guided
AAA would have managed this with the same amount of effort?
AAA can't manage close support for troops, though, in
the same way.

RocketDog certainly doesn't seem prejudiced (and hopefully
neither am I).

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 05:50 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Certainly the intent was to imply that of the 4
- P-80s sent to Europe for operational trials, 3
- crashed in Europe, which is wrong. It was plainly
- an effort to mislead.

Poking around it looked like 2 rather than 3 crashed
in Europe (in the UK).

Still... calm down people.





Message Edited on 09/01/0304:55PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 06:20 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- Being pedantic, you can actually get 6* if you
- get awarded 5* twice in a row, but as the RAE is
- relatively new, KCL may not have been assessed
- twice as yet, perhaps?

LOL - I think the 6* result is still being introduced, but I'll have to check the HEFCE website to see how far the process has got.


-- Incidentally, the German weapons of WWII are not
-- just dismissed in written histories. They were
-- dismissed by history itself. German weapons simply
-- weren't good enough to enable German victory
-
- I think it would be more accurate to say that they
- were not sufficiently better than those of the
- opposition
- for their deployment in limited numbers and with
- poor
- strategic planning for them to turn the tide of the
- war.
- Even a weapon that was individually good would need
- to
- be deployed in large numbers, given how far the tide
- had
- turned by autumn 1944, for example, or if only
- deployed
- in moderate quantities, be two orders of magnitude
- better.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with that. If the Luftwaffe made a critical mistake in selecting ambitious projects like the Me-262 etc, it was in choosing aircraft that could not be introduced in the time available. Those few which did actually manage to make it to deployment appeared only in small numbers and with serious technical problems still unresolved. The Luftwaffe greatly understimated the time taken to develop aircraft using new technologies and procured aircraft as if the war was going to last until 1950.

This is the point of my comments to Huck, producing a few superlative aircraft and being unable to drive the bombers from the sky is not a success, whereas producing large numbers of less-glamourous ones and making bombing prohibitively dangerous would have been.

Of course, much of the blame for this lies with Udet and Goring, who even at the time could be seen as not being equal to the task of managing the Luftwaffe's procurement policy. By the time Milch and Speer were able to focus on mass production of a few selected types it was too late. The persistent failure to properly exploit the science and engineering resources available in Germany must also have been a great hinderance.

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had followed the Allied model, and recognised that the war was going to be decided on a time scale too short to allow successful introduction of the new technologies of rockets and jets. In other words, if they had decided not to try and leap-frog the final generation of piston-engined aircraft with the resultant dilution of R&D effort. If that had happened, then maybe the Luftwaffe might have been able to produce formidable aircraft like the Ta-152 or effective ground-to-air missiles by very early 1944, in time to stop the Allied escort fighters and bombers from taking control of the skies over Europe. If this had been combined with an early recognition of the importance of mass production, then things might have become very grim for the Allied airforces.

Pure speculation, of course /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 07:19 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- The most recent books I have read analysing the air
- war are:
-
- R.J.Overy, The Air War, 1939-45 (1980)
- R.J.Overy, Why the Allies Won (1996)
- etc.

Overy's 'War and Economy in the Third Reich', published by the Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-820599-6 is also very good and still available (got my copy from Amazon), but with chapter titles like 'German Multi-Nationals and the Nazi State in Occupied Europe' and 'Cars, Roads and Economic Recovery in Germany 1932-1938' you have to be interested in the bigger picture to appreciate it properly. Recommended for those who are.


-------------------------------------

In the struggle for labour resources the (German) air ministry was at a considerable disadvantage politically, since labour recruitment and allocation was controlled by agencies directly linked to the army, and unsympathetic to Luftwaffe demands. During 1942 the number of workers allocated rose hardly at all despite the large numbers drafted in from Europe. Over the whole period the army continued to recruit skilled workers even in the protected factories. In all the aircraft factories an average of between 45 and 50 per cent of the workforce was composed of foreign labour by the end of the war.

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-45

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 08:49 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- "Barbi"? You are looking for a ban ? Just say so. It
-- can be arranged.
-
-
- How about getting banned for "The only good Indianer
- is a dead Indianer?"
-
- Or is a signature that says the "The only good
- German is a dean German" acceptable to you?
-

Well why don`t you try to put that in your sig ? I am sure the mods will appreciate it.


-
- BTW, where do you come upo with "Indianer." It's
- "Indian."
-

Yes, the original american proverb, usually associtated with General George Washington or General Sheridan, that calls up for mass murder the natives of the American continent (as it happened historically as we all know) talks about the Indians. However, on part I feel really sorry for those poor people, of whom about 80 millions fell in this distgusting genocide.

However my sig tells about 'Indianer's. 'Indianer' was a Luftwaffe slang for US escort fighters. So the sig simply means that only the only good escort fighter is the dead escort fighter. As can be seen on the illustration above. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 08:56 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--- All this is not my analysis, of course, but is drawn
--- from a number of academic histories.
--
-- It's very easy to find sources that dismiss every
-- single weapon used by Germany in ww2. All filled
-- with countless errors and personal bias.
-
- The most recent books I have read analysing the air
- war are:
-
- R.J.Overy, The Air War, 1939-45 (1980)
- R.J.Overy, Why the Allies Won (1996)
- A. Price, The Last Year of the Luftwaffe: May 1944
- to May 1945 (2001)
-
- ...plus a few others I don't have to hand. Overy
- holds a chair in Modern European History in the
- Department of History at King's College, London so I
- take what he says seriously. He appears to have a
- good reputation as an academic historian and
- specialies in military aviation. I doubt very much
- if personal bias is an issue. The Department of
- History at KCL was graded as 5* in the last UK
- university Research Assessment Exercise, the highest
- possible rating for the quality of academic
- research.


If those conclusions, written below, come from those books, then I'm sorry to say it but they are awfully poor researched, because none of these are true:

"To be an effective weapons system the Me-262 needed more than that. It would have needed to be cheaper, have more robust engines, lower service-time loads, have possessed stand-off weapons, preferably been able to operate from grass strips (...)"



-
- Incidentally, the German weapons of WWII are not
- just dismissed in written histories. They were
- dismissed by history itself. German weapons simply
- weren't good enough to enable German victory - or
- even to allow them to force a stalemate. No matter
- how impressed we may be by aircraft like the Me-262,
- the brute fact is that it was unable to drive the
- Allied bombers from the skies over Germany.


The "democracies" needed to ally with a similarly brutal dictatorship and sell half of Europe in communist slavery to ensure their victory. That can hardly be counted as a success of their weapons or military doctrine, it was just a triumph of their own disgusting hypocrisy.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 09:10 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- 1, You told the exact opposite on the same subject
-- in about 2 weeks later than before. It shows that
-- you don`t care about the truth at all, you only
-- twist it to serve your purposes.
-
- You told the exact opposite on the subject of the
- 109K4 climbing to 5000m in 3 mins in about 2 weeks
- later than before. It shows that you don`t care
- about the truth at all, you only twist it to serve
- your purposes.
- [/bad grammar]


Funny thing that even I am more able to get the correct meaning of basic English sentences than you, the native speaker. Care to qoute where did I stated that the K-4 could climb to 5km in 3mins? Altough it`s surely not out the real of possibilty, I merely said that the source YOU were using, this performance is stated, and you are unwilling to accept this because it`s GOOD for the 109, yet from the same source you are willing to accept that the 109F with it`s cleaner lines and more than 100 HP, was as slow as the 109E.



-
- Isegrim, it's called changing your mind. It's what
- everybody who has an interest in WW2 aircraft's
- genuine performance does, as new evidence is
- uncovered. It's what you did when I pointed out to
- you that the 3 mins to 5000m was really 6 mins at
- lower power.
-

So you have changed your mind because of "new evidence"? Interesting, you didn`t come up with this explanation for your swift changes of mindset, only well after you were confronted with your own words in which you have denied that you accept those figures as normal.

Therefore, I only have to ask you a simple thing with which you are allowed to prove your honest behaviour in the subject:

What "new evidence" convinced you that the stripped Spitfire XIV running well over it`s operationally accepted boost rate in early Summer 1944 was representative of normal planes in Sqaudron use, despite those who particapated in the test (ie. Eric Brown) also make it clear that the plane was merely a test plane in a "crash programme" to find something that could catch V-1s, running at high boost "for strictly short bursts" ?


-
-- They didn`t flew over Germany until the Automn.
-
- And the Dora and 109K4 flew over Britain how many
- times?
-

Good question. Though I bet He 111s and Ju 88s, Me 109Gs were much more common.



---
--- Or is your competance as a "lawyer" so great that
--- you think lying about the date of an event is OK?
---

As a lawyer, I know exactly that I didn`t lie about the date.



- They don't Isegrim, that's why you had to forge the
- date on your "quote". In June, I said I didn't
- believe they were normal performance figures. In
- july, I changed my mind, and said so. You took a
- post from June, before I had changed my mind, and
- forged the date on it to July, after I had channged
- my mind. And what's worse, you think everyone else
- is so stupid they won't be able to understand it.
-

Actually the stupid thing is on your part, ie. going back again and again to an event that in any case and despite any ridiculus attempt on your part, will only show the real nature of your intellectual dishonesty.

But I don`t have anything to do that. After all, it saves me a lot of typing.


BTW, I see there`s a deep silence on your part about your claimed "11 wartime Spit XIV & 21 Squadrons". So what are the Squadrons numbers ? Especially those in India. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 09:28 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- I wouldn't necessarily argue with that. If the
- Luftwaffe made a critical mistake in selecting
- ambitious projects like the Me-262 etc, it was in
- choosing aircraft that could not be introduced in
- the time available. Those few which did actually
- manage to make it to deployment appeared only in
- small numbers and with serious technical problems
- still unresolved. The Luftwaffe greatly
- understimated the time taken to develop aircraft
- using new technologies and procured aircraft as if
- the war was going to last until 1950.
-
- This is the point of my comments to Huck, producing
- a few superlative aircraft and being unable to drive
- the bombers from the sky is not a success, whereas
- producing large numbers of less-glamourous ones and
- making bombing prohibitively dangerous would have
- been.
-
- Of course, much of the blame for this lies with Udet
- and Goring, who even at the time could be seen as
- not being equal to the task of managing the
- Luftwaffe's procurement policy. By the time Milch
- and Speer were able to focus on mass production of a
- few selected types it was too late. The persistent
- failure to properly exploit the science and
- engineering resources available in Germany must also
- have been a great hinderance.
-
- It's interesting to speculate what would have
- happened if the Luftwaffe had followed the Allied
- model, and recognised that the war was going to be
- decided on a time scale too short to allow
- successful introduction of the new technologies of
- rockets and jets. In other words, if they had
- decided not to try and leap-frog the final
- generation of piston-engined aircraft with the
- resultant dilution of R&D effort. If that had
- happened, then maybe the Luftwaffe might have been
- able to produce formidable aircraft like the Ta-152
- or effective ground-to-air missiles by very early
- 1944, in time to stop the Allied escort fighters and
- bombers from taking control of the skies over
- Europe. If this had been combined with an early
- recognition of the importance of mass production,
- then things might have become very grim for the
- Allied airforces.



Once again this post proves how blindly biased you are.
First of all air war was hardly the main concern of Germany in '44. Germany production increased despite the 10 times increase !!!! in number of USAAF bomber sorties between summer of '43 compared with summer of '44. That clearly shows that the much touted strategic air compaign was a failure. Germany lost the war to russian tanks.

Second, by the time of Me-262 the main mission of LW was to counter the bombing campaign in limits put by the fuel cantities available. Even if it didn't stop the campaign, there was no other piston fighter that could do the job as well as Me-262 did. You can't compare Ta-152 with Me-262, Me-262 is better in every single way, as it was better than any other piston fighter. Also Me-262 was in no competition at that time with other fighter programs: in '44 Bf-109, Fw190A&D reached record production levels. There were plenty of fighters in Germany at that time. Many many more than the fuel supplies for them. Do you suggest that there were not enough fighters?? Should they have produced even more just to overcrowd the airfields with easy targets for straffing? They did not leap-frog any step in the development of piston fighters, K4 and D9 were the cutting edge of piston fighter design.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/01/0304:45PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:05 PM
- Care to qoute where did I stated
- that the K-4 could climb to 5km in 3mins?

First on OnWar, after I pointed you to the post on the AH forums where Pyro had posted a climb chart for the K4. When I pointed out to you it was actually 6 mins to 5000m at lower power, you posted half a page of smileys and started a post over at Butch's board. I'm sure Skychimp and Milo will remember the original posts at OnWar, and Hohun from the Aces High board helped work out the details of the K4 climb at Butch's board, so I'm sure he would remember as well.

- So you have changed your mind because of "new
- evidence"? Interesting, you didn`t come up with this
- explanation for your swift changes of mindset, only
- well after you were confronted with your own words
- in which you have denied that you accept those
- figures as normal.

I'm supposed to tell you everytime I change my mind about something, and why? Okay, today I was going to go to the supermarket, but changed my mind because it took me longer to paint my hallway than I thought. More updates tomorrow.

- What "new evidence" convinced you that the stripped
- Spitfire XIV running well over it`s operationally
- accepted boost rate in early Summer 1944 was
- representative of normal planes in Sqaudron use,

The letter from the ministry of aircraft production, and a thorough reread of the tests.

- despite those who particapated in the test (ie. Eric
- Brown) also make it clear that the plane was merely
- a test plane in a "crash programme" to find
- something that could catch V-1s, running at high
- boost "for strictly short bursts" ?

What makes you think Eric Brown participated in the tests?

"Strictly short bursts" is 5 mins, which is exactly the same time for WEP on almost all Spits.

Note, Eric Brown claims 150 octane was developed only for V1 chasing, for strictly short bursts, but we know for a fact that almost all Spit IXs, and all the RAF and VIIIth AF Mustangs ran on it as well, regardless of wether they were chasing V1s or not.

- As a lawyer, I know exactly that I didn`t lie about
- the date.

Isegrim, it's there in your post:

- "Author: hop2002
- Rank: Lonely Postman
- Date: 07/16/03 04:02PM
-
- "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures."

That's not part of my post on that date, as anyone can see. You posted it and lied about the date.

- Actually the stupid thing is on your part, ie. going
- back again and again to an event that in any case
- and despite any ridiculus attempt on your part, will
- only show the real nature of your intellectual
- dishonesty.

No, it shows I changed my mind, saying in June it wasn't representitive, and saying in July I had changed my mind and I thought it was representitive.

I changed my mind, you took my statement from June and forged the date on it.

- BTW, I see there`s a deep silence on your part about
- your claimed "11 wartime Spit XIV & 21 Squadrons".
- So what are the Squadrons numbers ?

1, 2, 41, 91, 130, 268, 322, 350, 402, 414, 430, 610

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:15 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Well why don`t you try to put that in your sig ? I
- am sure the mods will appreciate it.

Let's see how they respond to your offensive signature.



- Yes, the original american proverb, usually
- associtated with General George Washington or
- General Sheridan, that calls up for mass murder the
- natives of the American continent (as it happened
- historically as we all know) talks about the
- Indians. However, on part I feel really sorry for
- those poor people, of whom about 80 millions fell in
- this distgusting genocide.

You know jack about American history. Is that what the communists taught you? I see 47 years of Soviet subjugation did nothing for Hungary's education system.

George Washington OR Gerenal Sheridan. (Shakes head) Jesus, Issy, that was stupid even for you.



- However my sig tells about 'Indianer's. 'Indianer'
- was a Luftwaffe slang for US escort fighters. So the
- sig simply means that only the only good escort
- fighter is the dead escort fighter. As can be seen
- on the illustration above.

Your sig is tantamount to saying "A good American is a dead American." And moreover, that's what you mean to imply.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 09/02/0301:32AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:24 PM
What was the topic again? I lost track.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:32 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
-
- Ok, Kimura, so "A Dead Kraut is a Good Kraut" would
- be ok with you?
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp


Is that an argument or a response of my explanation SkyChimp for what? Lil short IMHO.

BTW I'm not German, so such stupid phrases don't iching me at all, they're just plain stupid, nothing else./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif






"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:33 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- What was the topic again? I lost track.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LOL I was thinking the same thing! Talk about a hijacked thread....

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:34 PM
KIMURA wrote:

- Is that an argument or a response of my explanation
- SkyChimp for what? Lil short IMHO.
-
- BTW I'm not German, so such stupid phrases don't
- iching me at all, they're just plain stupid, nothing
- else.

No, IIRC you're Swiss. I'd expect you to be nuetral.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:43 PM
ahahaha do they read what they type? theyre the best jokes ive read in months! moments like this make me glad I dont have 1000-2000 posts, it shows how much bandwidth they waste by making these posts.
Of course I won't mention names, that's rude and is a sign of disrespect towards a select few.
Tis' a shame when people ruin a perfectly sane post about some engines by going out on personal crusades of stupidity.

Damn, I've contributed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Whoever reads this should just go about their normal browsiing activities and ignore this post and its facts. If you cant understand them maybe Im just a little off in the mind, or maybe youre just a little slow in the mind. Who knows or cares, I dont.

Good day to all of you.



-We're all a little ignorant, but we can still ask questions.



Yea if she wasn't a nazi and she was still alive,

I'd hump her.


ftp://63.15.185.43/hannah.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:46 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- What was the topic again? I lost track.

Isegrim versus the world. I think? :-)

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:51 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- What was the topic again? I lost track.
-
- Isegrim versus the world. I think? :-)
-

No no no. It's Isegrim vrs anything not German. We must be precise when speaking of Isegrim.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:55 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
I see 47 years of Soviet
- subjugation did nothing for Hungary's education
- system.


outch, skychimp , now you are a bit out of control.
how many people you know from Hungary ?
1 or 2 ?



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:08 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- AaronGT wrote:
--
-- Gibbage1 wrote:
--- What was the topic again? I lost track.
--
-- Isegrim versus the world. I think? :-)
--
-
- No no no. It's Isegrim vrs anything not German. We
- must be precise when speaking of Isegrim.
-
- Harry Voyager


Actually Isegrim and Mr_Nakajima were the only ones contributing on this thread.
Mr_Nakajima quoted a LW report which states that problems with engines were generated by bad maintenance and operating conditions, also by improper use, not by inherent defects of the engines, which were indeed delicate but that was normal considering that they were the most powerful powerplants in the world at that time.
Isegrim provided service stats proving that engines malfunctions were in normal limits for a heavy bomber (despite the inadequate maintenance they received).

We can consider this topic exhausted.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:12 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
- I see 47 years of Soviet
-
-- subjugation did nothing for Hungary's education
-- system.
-
-
- outch, skychimp , now you are a bit out of control.
- how many people you know from Hungary ?
- 1 or 2 ?
-

I think mostly that was in responce to the sheer ignorance in Isegrim's attributing that quote to Washinton or Sheridian. Considering that Washinton was one of the only contemporary proponents of Native American sovranty atributing "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," quote to him is *exceptionally* ignorant.

For refference, that quote came from Andrew Jackson, if I remember correctly. Jackson was also the president who told the Supreme Court to blip-off when they stated he had to enforce laws protecting the Native Americans.

It rather amply demonstrates just how little he knows or understands about the US. Hardly suprising, however.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:14 PM
And why do you think that Isegrim should know more about US than you or skychimp about Hungary?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:21 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And why do you think that Isegrim should know more
- about US than you or skychimp about Hungary?


As Andrew Jackson said, "Blip off."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:32 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- And why do you think that Isegrim should know more
-- about US than you or skychimp about Hungary?
-
-
- As Andrew Jackson said, "Blip off."


Speaking of ignorance.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:48 PM
You lot amaze me

Some of you are completely incapable of making a point without having a pop or insulting someone.

This thread went off topic on page one.

This has happened many times on this forum, always by the same people. I'm not naming names they know who they are.

I am also not going to waste any time sending PM's to anyone.

This kind of behaviour stops. NOW

Stick to subject matter, drop the insults, all of you.



<p align="center">
<A HREF="http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm" TARGET=_blank>
Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ</font></A>

<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)
Forgotten Battles Reality Check (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html)
</font></p>



Message Edited on 09/01/0311:58PM by EURO_Snoopy