As an ex military man involved in procurement for the last 7 years, the Requirement to produce a twin engines bomber with engines of at least 2000 hp, was seriously flawed. That is a solution, not a requirement. The Requirement is to go W kms, at X speed, at Y altitude and carry Z amount of bombs. Aeronautical engineering and design will tell you what size plane you need, what power from and number of engines you will need, how much fuel will need to be carried to move Z amount of bombs. If you dont have the equipment to meet that technical solution, you either design them or change the Requirement.
Hopefully you can help the RN with its 2 heavily flawed aircraft carriers. They couldn't afford catapults so ended up with a handful of very expensive lower capability VSTOL F-35s. And they keep breaking down.
The development of the Lancaster had Exactly the same Problems with the Engines Catching Fire, for the same reasons they cobbled together two engines it was a disaster! GOOGLE the AVRO MANCHESTER, after Building around 200 of them they Kept the Fuselage and Fitted New Wings and four Separate Engines and re-Named it the LANCASTER
They were developing a true 4 engine version of the 177, the 274. The French finished the prototype and flew it for many years after the war. The RLM also canceled the ME-264, telling Messerschmitt to focus on fighters instead. The 264 would have been like a German B-29.
@kat13man good point! He also said it failed as a bomber because first and foremost a bomber had to be a stable platform. Great man Broon. Should be a national hero in Scotland but the SNP would rather crow about an Anglo Norman warlord who lived 700 years ago as a national icon 🙄
I think two engines in line with a contarotainting props was the way to go if they wanted to have less drag by reducing the number of engine mounts. Goering was right this time, welding two engines together was a bad idea and should have been dropped as soon as they noticed the inside exhausts were not working properly and flooding with flammables. I am guessing they could not mount them bottom to bottom because the gear that combined the two would need to be that much bigger to span the extra few feet, and weigh that much more. Another Vunder Vepon that thankfully helped them lose the war. I was surprised the program was started in 36, I thought the He177 was a late war weapon.
No matter how advanced and well engineered it was, the He177 was a poor strategic bomber of limited value. Were the British built three very good strategic bombers, the Germans lost interest in building a bomber that actually worked, which was to greatly affected their war effort. Like many German projects, it was too advanced for the technology of the day and was an expensive flop. It would have been better to build a more reliable 4-engine design, with coupled engines if one goes down the other quickly followed.
The Germans lacked the fuel to sustain huge fleets of strategic bombers. Plus our losses were at times unsustainable. The Germans had other means of dealing with us - U boat campaign to starve us and limit our imports of material. The Germans always suffered from a lack of strategic materials and frequently over engineered the solutions to handle those problems, often creating imaginative machines which still fascinate us.
It actually was a 4-engined bomber, with only 2 props. The idea behind it was to make it capable of dive bombing which was an insane idea for this size of a plane. Anyway, Germany had to focus its resources on other more urgently required aircraft, so the 177 got never really fixed. Still it's an impressive piece of engineering.
@@wanderschlosser1857 I believe I mentioned it had couples engines, which contributed to its failure. I would indeed have been impressive had it worked.
I realize the Greif was not a good aircraft but, damn, it was a really good looking aircraft. Wow, they sure could have used the late model version in 1941/42. Who knows how it would have gone in the East with this in your arsenal?☺
It would have suffered great losses , Germans never had a long range fighter to match defense fighters , And we know how that worked out for U.S. heavy long range missions without escorts
Adherence to dogma is probably the worst and most prevelent flaw of an organization. Originally, this bomber was supposed to be designed so that it could drive bomb.
There also wasn’t many of them made that could be converted to military use . They did make a couple handfuls of an upgrade or modified version called the ju390 and ju290. But dwindling material resources the shortage of fuel and the turn in the tied of war caused those projects to be abandoned I believe the us the uk and maybe Romania all got one of those planes. The us one was flown to America. Flight tested studied then scrapped 😢
It didn't just fly from bombers, but also the contemporary fighters, so it didn't need much armament by that. And the cooling was surface cooling with water below the plates of the wings, making it even more fast than having an ordinary cooler! Sadly this made the plates change from the difference in temperature, and didn't really function.
*He 177 Operations in Russia* The end of He l 77 operations in the West was by no means the end of the He 177 in Luftwaffe service. During the late spring of 1944, Kampfgeschwader l under Obstlt Horst van Riesen began converting to the aircraft, the first Gruppe moving to its operational airfields in East Prussia in May. Before the end of the month, 1./KG 1 was joined by II and III. Gruppe, and the Geschwader now comprised some ninety He l 77As, undoubtedly the most powerful striking force on the Eastern Front. Operations began almost at once, the bombers striking at troop concentrations and Soviet supply centres in support of the German army. No attempt was made to strike at strategic targets although many were within range. The bombers attacked in daylight at about 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and losses were very low. The few Soviet fighters that managed to reach the bombers' attacking altitude rarely pressed home their attacks because of the formidable defensive armament of the He 177. Also, very few He 177s were lost because of engine fires; constant modifications had ensured that troubles suffered by the coupled engine installation were reduced to a minimum. The machines that did crash due to this cause were mainly those flown by inexperienced pilots who mishandled the throttles, causing the engines to overheat. At one time, KG 1 made several pattern bombing attacks, the only time such tactics were employed by the Luftwaffe. During one such operation, von Riesen led 87 bombers in a mass attack on the railway centre of Velikye Luki. Flying in three waves, each comprising a Gruppe of some 30 aircraft, the He 177s must have been a most impressive sight. From: “German Aircraft of the Second World War” by J. R. Smith & Antony L. Kay Pages 187 to 188 Copyright 1972 ISBN 85177 836 4
The Lancaster Started off as the AVRO MANCHESTER with 4 Engines cobbled together in 2 Nacelles it was a disaster with VERY poor reliability and the propensity to CATCH fire , after building around 200 , they realized the error and kept the fuselage , Fitted New wings with 4 separate Engines and re-named it the AVRO LANCASTER !
Germanys whole war plan works great on small European countries but falls apart as the distance increases. They were ahead of their time in equipment and behind the times with their logistics and an army marches on its stomach. Had the German war machine been lead by men hired by their abilities not social standing or ideological beliefs the war would have been a very different outcome I mean they hobbled Rommel to build defensives and then ignore is advice. Just dumb. Had they listened to Rommel we would have faced masses of tank formations on the beaches. Lucky for us mind you…
I venture a higher % of B-29's were lost due to engine fires than the He-177. But it has been many years since I looked at/studied this stuff. Does anyone know how many He-177's were lost to engine fires ? Most happened within the 1st "150" He-177 test and A models. 1000 later models removed the fire risk.
The Nazi party loved a show. They loved seeing 20, 30 40 x2 engined bombers flying in formation even if they were not as effective as a 4 engined heavy bomber. All about show sometimes with the Nazis.
I think the designers were trying to be too clever coupling two engines to a single propeller. Once they sorted out all the technical problems that they had it turned out to be an okay aircraft but by then it was hampered by fuel shortages and Allied defences. It would have been quite useful on the Russian front ranging behind enemy lines to bomb distant war factories that were well and truly out of range of other Luftwaffe bombers.
Yeah that was a terrible idea! Anyone with a basic understanding of aircraft could tell you that… yet udet was a pilot and thought it was a good idea? wtf?!
I can't fathom using an aircraft that big for dive-bombing, especially if the mission parameters included the actual return of the plane from its mission.
During WW1 the allied RE8 two seat fighter had the epic nickname of ''The Spinning Incinerator.'' It was a dreadfully stall prone aircraft that came with strict instructions for the gunner/observer to NEVER stand up during landing to look over the upper wing as the ''head resistance'' would cause a stall and crash. These names give an excellent basis for assessing how the crews viewed these aircraft and a respect for the crews that still flew and fought in them.
Who writes the copy for this stuff? It's awful. "Revolutionary, colossal, armed to the teeth, innovative, against all odds....brave pilots, change the course of the war", this is such crap.
Dear old Adolf helped us Allies yet again by trying to demand too much out of this or any aircraft in WW2. Just think about asking a B-17 or a Lancaster to be able to dive bomb! This aircraft did some amazing stuff and was extremely tough! It was and was very fast, it could bomb London and return home, even Mossies had trouble catching a 177. The 177 would be able to hit incredible speeds as it would shallow dive and yes the night fighter Mossie and Beaufighters struggled to catch it, especially the Beaufighter.
The fact that Britain and America both produced four engine bombers that were just as powerful but simpler and cheaper to produce and fly proves that the Germans were crappy engineers. America built 18,000 B-24s that pounded German cities into dust and destroyed German factories and infrastructure, while Germany built rockets that regularly missed their targets. The Russians moved their factories out of range of the bombers they knew the Germans had and thus survived to win the war with their cheap tanks and aircraft. Luckily the Germans never realized just how important strategic bombing could be.
The Germans have been accused of a lot of things by historians who analyze the reasons they ultimately failed in their efforts to prevail in WW2. Crappy engineers has never one of them. Over engineering in things like the StG 44 assault rifle and their Panther and Tiger tanks, I've heard of. Crappy engineering is a new one to me.
Ever heard of sabotage? We lost the war that was staged by the Allies and violated international law because of sabotage and betrayal from within our own ranks. The traitors were in the most important positions and informed the enemy about every German move and every new invention for selfish reasons and total political blindness. Without the theft of German patents and the kidnapping of German scientists, the US and the Soviet Union would never have become 'great powers'. And without the illegal FED, the war opponents would not even have been able to buy enough weapons for the war. The USA owes everything it is today to the Germans. The majority of Americans are even of German descent. You're "crappy" in the head!
As an ex military man involved in procurement for the last 7 years, the Requirement to produce a twin engines bomber with engines of at least 2000 hp, was seriously flawed. That is a solution, not a requirement. The Requirement is to go W kms, at X speed, at Y altitude and carry Z amount of bombs. Aeronautical engineering and design will tell you what size plane you need, what power from and number of engines you will need, how much fuel will need to be carried to move Z amount of bombs. If you dont have the equipment to meet that technical solution, you either design them or change the Requirement.
Hopefully you can help the RN with its 2 heavily flawed aircraft carriers. They couldn't afford catapults so ended up with a handful of very expensive lower capability VSTOL F-35s.
And they keep breaking down.
@@bfc3057 Sorry, not my part of ship. I was Hydrographic Survey vessels and diving equipment.
@@csjrogerson2377 what a shame. Still I hope you helped bring some sense to your area.
@@bfc3057 Introduced HMS Ocean, had the Requirement for HMS Enterprise and HMS Echo approved, introduced one-man and 10-man recompression chambers.
@@csjrogerson2377 good stuff
Imagine if they just made it into a normal 4 engine bomber, like the start of the Lancaster
The development of the Lancaster had Exactly the same Problems with the Engines Catching Fire, for the same reasons they cobbled together two engines it was a disaster! GOOGLE the AVRO MANCHESTER, after Building around 200 of them they Kept the Fuselage and Fitted New Wings and four Separate Engines and re-Named it the LANCASTER
They were developing a true 4 engine version of the 177, the 274. The French finished the prototype and flew it for many years after the war. The RLM also canceled the ME-264, telling Messerschmitt to focus on fighters instead. The 264 would have been like a German B-29.
Winkle Brown flew a captured one and said it was the most unpleasant German Luftwaffe plane to fly with dangerously light elevators.
He called it the Glass Bomber.
@kat13man good point! He also said it failed as a bomber because first and foremost a bomber had to be a stable platform. Great man Broon. Should be a national hero in Scotland but the SNP would rather crow about an Anglo Norman warlord who lived 700 years ago as a national icon 🙄
I think two engines in line with a contarotainting props was the way to go if they wanted to have less drag by reducing the number of engine mounts. Goering was right this time, welding two engines together was a bad idea and should have been dropped as soon as they noticed the inside exhausts were not working properly and flooding with flammables.
I am guessing they could not mount them bottom to bottom because the gear that combined the two would need to be that much bigger to span the extra few feet, and weigh that much more. Another Vunder Vepon that thankfully helped them lose the war. I was surprised the program was started in 36, I thought the He177 was a late war weapon.
Add the fact that they were fixated on dive bombing, it should've capable to make a 60°(!) dive.
Naturally some prototypes didn't made it back !
*LOSE THE ROBO-‘NOUNCER!*
No matter how advanced and well engineered it was, the He177 was a poor strategic bomber of limited value. Were the British built three very good strategic bombers, the Germans lost interest in building a bomber that actually worked, which was to greatly affected their war effort. Like many German projects, it was too advanced for the technology of the day and was an expensive flop. It would have been better to build a more reliable 4-engine design, with coupled engines if one goes down the other quickly followed.
The Germans lacked the fuel to sustain huge fleets of strategic bombers. Plus our losses were at times unsustainable. The Germans had other means of dealing with us - U boat campaign to starve us and limit our imports of material. The Germans always suffered from a lack of strategic materials and frequently over engineered the solutions to handle those problems, often creating imaginative machines which still fascinate us.
It actually was a 4-engined bomber, with only 2 props. The idea behind it was to make it capable of dive bombing which was an insane idea for this size of a plane. Anyway, Germany had to focus its resources on other more urgently required aircraft, so the 177 got never really fixed. Still it's an impressive piece of engineering.
@@wanderschlosser1857 I believe I mentioned it had couples engines, which contributed to its failure. I would indeed have been impressive had it worked.
I realize the Greif was not a good aircraft but, damn, it was a really good looking aircraft.
Wow, they sure could have used the late model version in 1941/42. Who knows how it would have gone in the East with this in your arsenal?☺
It would have suffered great losses , Germans never had a long range fighter to match defense fighters , And we know how that worked out for U.S. heavy long range missions without escorts
They did. See He.277.
@@wendyoh3381 Might have been a great aircraft but the design was never built except for a partial prototype.
This was also a dive bomber. That must’ve been a hoot. After the war French used 177 as their main bomber. These were built in French factories.
Very well done presentation
Alas, no. Too many repetitions spoil it. It's badly planned and poorly edited. Interesting material, but . . .
@@EllieMaes-Grandad At least one comment sharing my observation. one more channel to avoid. Thank you, I´m not alone.
Good god. I've never seen a colour picture of a '177 before
Adherence to dogma is probably the worst and most prevelent flaw of an organization. Originally, this bomber was supposed to be designed so that it could drive bomb.
What happened to the FW200 condor?
It kept breaking in half, when it wasn't being shot down by Eric Winkle Brown and his pals😅
There also wasn’t many of them made that could be converted to military use . They did make a couple handfuls of an upgrade or modified version called the ju390 and ju290. But dwindling material resources the shortage of fuel and the turn in the tied of war caused those projects to be abandoned I believe the us the uk and maybe Romania all got one of those planes. The us one was flown to America. Flight tested studied then scrapped 😢
@@CHEGTO thank you.
It didn't just fly from bombers, but also the contemporary fighters, so it didn't need much armament by that. And the cooling was surface cooling with water below the plates of the wings, making it even more fast than having an ordinary cooler! Sadly this made the plates change from the difference in temperature, and didn't really function.
*He 177 Operations in Russia*
The end of He l 77 operations in the West was by no means the end of the He 177 in Luftwaffe service. During the late spring of 1944, Kampfgeschwader l under Obstlt Horst van Riesen began converting to the aircraft, the first Gruppe moving to its operational airfields in East Prussia in May. Before the end of the month, 1./KG 1 was joined by II and III. Gruppe, and the Geschwader now comprised some ninety He l 77As, undoubtedly the most powerful striking force on the Eastern Front.
Operations began almost at once, the bombers striking at troop concentrations and Soviet supply centres in support of the German army. No attempt was made to strike at strategic targets although many were within range. The bombers attacked in daylight at about 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and losses were very low. The few Soviet fighters that managed to reach the bombers' attacking altitude rarely pressed home their attacks because of the formidable defensive armament of the He 177. Also, very few He 177s were lost because of engine fires; constant modifications had ensured that troubles suffered by the coupled engine installation were reduced to a minimum. The machines that did crash due to this cause were mainly those flown by inexperienced pilots who mishandled the throttles, causing the engines to overheat.
At one time, KG 1 made several pattern bombing attacks, the only time such tactics were employed by the Luftwaffe. During one such operation, von Riesen led 87 bombers in a mass attack on the railway centre of Velikye Luki. Flying in three waves, each comprising a Gruppe of some 30 aircraft, the He 177s must have been a most impressive sight.
From:
“German Aircraft of the Second World War” by J. R. Smith & Antony L. Kay
Pages 187 to 188
Copyright 1972
ISBN 85177 836 4
This is about as good and reliable as my last Audi
Germany lacked a heavy bomber for the Battle of Britain, like the Lancaster 4-engine..
That didn't fly until about a year later
The Lancaster Started off as the AVRO MANCHESTER with 4 Engines cobbled together in 2 Nacelles it was a disaster with VERY poor reliability and the propensity to CATCH fire , after building around 200 , they realized the error and kept the fuselage , Fitted New wings with 4 separate Engines and re-named it the AVRO LANCASTER !
Nazis lacked lots of things. Like common sense.
Germanys whole war plan works great on small European countries but falls apart as the distance increases. They were ahead of their time in equipment and behind the times with their logistics and an army marches on its stomach. Had the German war machine been lead by men hired by their abilities not social standing or ideological beliefs the war would have been a very different outcome I mean they hobbled Rommel to build defensives and then ignore is advice. Just dumb. Had they listened to Rommel we would have faced masses of tank formations on the beaches. Lucky for us mind you…
I venture a higher % of B-29's were lost due to engine fires than the He-177. But it has been many years since I looked at/studied this stuff.
Does anyone know how many He-177's were lost to engine fires ? Most happened within the 1st "150" He-177 test and A models. 1000 later models removed the fire risk.
The Nazi party loved a show. They loved seeing 20, 30 40 x2 engined bombers flying in formation even if they were not as effective as a 4 engined heavy bomber. All about show sometimes with the Nazis.
13:43 that looks an awful lot like Joe Smith, who took over the development of the Spitfire after R.J. Mitchell died
I think the designers were trying to be too clever coupling two engines to a single propeller. Once they sorted out all the technical problems that they had it turned out to be an okay aircraft but by then it was hampered by fuel shortages and Allied defences. It would have been quite useful on the Russian front ranging behind enemy lines to bomb distant war factories that were well and truly out of range of other Luftwaffe bombers.
No notice, let's check it out.
Every aircraft has its own unique merits and flaws…
at least build a normal 4 engine the he 277 this one works very well...dont forget he 177 can dive bomb...
NEVER WELDED TOGETHER!! But rather "Siamesed".
Didn't help by insisting that it should be able to dive bomb to. Interesting review on this plane by the Legend Eric "winkle" Brown
Yeah that was a terrible idea! Anyone with a basic understanding of aircraft could tell you that… yet udet was a pilot and thought it was a good idea? wtf?!
I can't fathom using an aircraft that big for dive-bombing, especially if the mission parameters included the actual return of the plane from its mission.
If you read"The Dam Busters", one of the expert pilots of 617 Sqn tried dive-bombing in a Lancaster - and found that it worked, and it was accurate.
Led Designer or "Leed" Designer. I hate uncorrected/unedited auto-readers.
The flaming coffin! Trust the ordinary serving soldier to accurately find a sarcastic name for a poor machine.
During WW1 the allied RE8 two seat fighter had the epic nickname of ''The Spinning Incinerator.''
It was a dreadfully stall prone aircraft that came with strict instructions for the gunner/observer to NEVER stand up during landing to look over the upper wing as the ''head resistance'' would cause a stall and crash.
These names give an excellent basis for assessing how the crews viewed these aircraft and a respect for the crews that still flew and fought in them.
Until today I only knew 'Flying lighter' as her nickname. This film is really well made, audio, video and content wise.
Who writes the copy for this stuff? It's awful. "Revolutionary, colossal, armed to the teeth, innovative, against all odds....brave pilots, change the course of the war", this is such crap.
They called it the "Reichsfeuerzeug".
The. Brits found out how USELESS 7.62 machines guns were for fighter defense! The 20 was just as limited for tail defense !
Three very good British what? Intrigued here.
Didn't last long. Mothballed because of fuel shortages in 44.
Dear old Adolf helped us Allies yet again by trying to demand too much out of this or any aircraft in WW2. Just think about asking a B-17 or a Lancaster to be able to dive bomb! This aircraft did some amazing stuff and was extremely tough! It was and was very fast, it could bomb London and return home, even Mossies had trouble catching a 177. The 177 would be able to hit incredible speeds as it would shallow dive and yes the night fighter Mossie and Beaufighters struggled to catch it, especially the Beaufighter.
Generally if a plane looks like a pile of junk, it’ll be a pile of junk. This looks like a pile of junk.
or a changed plan?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD : THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DB605 S !!!!THE "S" IS A PLURAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mate, you weren't under the duress of WW2!😡
Terribly written
Ah! The Junkers Jew 288. 😂
The fact that Britain and America both produced four engine bombers that were just as powerful but simpler and cheaper to produce and fly proves that the Germans were crappy engineers. America built 18,000 B-24s that pounded German cities into dust and destroyed German factories and infrastructure, while Germany built rockets that regularly missed their targets. The Russians moved their factories out of range of the bombers they knew the Germans had and thus survived to win the war with their cheap tanks and aircraft. Luckily the Germans never realized just how important strategic bombing could be.
The Germans have been accused of a lot of things by historians who analyze the reasons they ultimately failed in their efforts to prevail in WW2. Crappy engineers has never one of them. Over engineering in things like the StG 44 assault rifle and their Panther and Tiger tanks, I've heard of. Crappy engineering is a new one to me.
@@marchills4131 When engineers do not take into account practicality and ease of production then they are crappy engineers.
Ever heard of sabotage? We lost the war that was staged by the Allies and violated international law because of sabotage and betrayal from within our own ranks. The traitors were in the most important positions and informed the enemy about every German move and every new invention for selfish reasons and total political blindness.
Without the theft of German patents and the kidnapping of German scientists, the US and the Soviet Union would never have become 'great powers'. And without the illegal FED, the war opponents would not even have been able to buy enough weapons for the war.
The USA owes everything it is today to the Germans. The majority of Americans are even of German descent. You're "crappy" in the head!
America was better at engineering no question
Or that its a war crime