He 112 Development Potential

[Juha]

At least those He 112Bs used by the Romanian AF were not a success and were whitdrawn from 1st line use even before their Hurricane Mk Is.

 

[Marcel]

Hi Marcel,

When I look at the offerings that might have been available, the DB-engined He 112 is near the top. I'm not too sure of the British would have sold the Spitfire at that particular time or if the Germans would have sold the Bf 109 at that particular time either since both nations were busy equipping themselves with the new warplanes. The DB-engined He 112 was probably one of the best bets, had it been available in quantity.

Had the Dutch wanted to buy Merlins and fit them to the He 112 thmselves, I'm not sure they were available for foreign purchase. Likewise the Allison V-1710, even though it was a medium-altitude engine as built without the turbo, also might not have been available in quantity at the time you wanted them.

So the best bet was likely either the DB-equipped He 112 or the P-36 / P-40, and I do NOT yet know how the DB-engined He 112 stacked up against the P-36/P-40. We DO know the P-40 gave a decent if not wonderful account of itself versus the early Bf 109s. It did OK in North Africa. It wasn't a Bf 109 but also wasn't hoplessly outclassed in all departments.

I think the Fokkers were good, but not in the same class as the Bf 109 and Spitfire. They were, more properly, in the early-to-mid-1930's class, without the same potential for development the Bf 109 and Spitfire had ... barring a complete redesign. Had it been redesigned, it would not have been the same Fokker.

It would be nice to see a D.XXI fly today ...

Yup, I agree on your assesment about the D.XXI and actually there is a project going to build a flying replica.
The Spitfire was indeed not for sale and so could not be bought. Likewise the BF109. We tested the V9 of the He112, the report of which makes an interesting read. Te Dutch actually chose the Hurricane, but waited too long to order, so when they placed the order, the UK already restrited the sales of this fighter. Merlin engine, same story. Actually there was a version of the D.XXI planned with either a DB601A or a Merlin engine, called the D.XXII. Also this fighter would have featured retractible gear. Unlike what you would think, the D.XXI didn't need a major redesign to fit these engines. Prototype was never build unfortunately.
As the He112 was mostly untested and when the war started also not available anymore, they should have bought the P-36. They bought the CW-21 instead. The CW-21 failed to reach the Netherlands in time and ended up in the NEI where they failed to make any impression.

 

[GregP]

The CW-21 ws a classic mistake. They took a civil aircraft, put in a big engine and it could climb over 4,000 feet per minute! But it wasn't especially fast and, much more importantly, wasn't build to military standards and was very short on armament. So it was easily damaged, didn't pack much of a punch, and wasn't going to outrun a real fighter. But it must have been a blast to fly!

Glad to hear about the flying Fokker replica! Keep us posted, please.

 

[rank amateur]

Yup, I agree on your assesment about the D.XXI and actually there is a project going to build a flying replica.

Marcel, that is very interesting. I know of a D21 in Tikkakoshi in Finland, a rebuilt from 1988 by Fokker for the Soesterberg museum and a for the langer part complete wreck in Aalsmeerderbrug but to my knowlegde none of these have even a minute chance of ever taking to the sky again.

 

[JAG88]

Some of the versions of the He 112 were almost completely different from one another. So I can't see how it's development potential could be questioned. First you'd have to have a difinitive type.

This He-112:
View attachment 298282

Doesn't look much like this one:
View attachment 298283

I think it had potential and, had it been selected, I have no doubt it could have been competitive with other fighters well into the war. Might have had to go with a thinner wing to get a lot faster ... don't know since it wasn't developed and I haven't put in a lot of He 112 aerodynamics investigation time. But if they can make a whole new fuselage, why not a whole new wing with an inherently faster airfoil? I certainly like the canopy and landing gear better than the one on any standard Messerschmitt Bf 109.

In the interest of retaking the OP...

This is the He-112V10 with the DB601Aa:

I doubt that double intake was the best possible design, maybe 109E type radiators could have helped a fighter that was already as fast as the Bf-109E4 with the same engine which, at least for me, hints that there wasnt anything wrong with the thickness of the wing itself...

In addition to the radiators the whole nose could have used some cleaning up as well. A 1941 version for example could have seen the MG-17s deleted and replaced by a Motorkanone, thus deleting the side bulges, and with MG-131s replacing the wing MG-FFs. Not, too happy about the exhausts either...

But in the end, the improved He-112, even if slightly outperforming the Bf-109 as some people thought at the time, was a non starter, simply put any fighter other than the mass-production oriented Bf-109 loses the war for Germany right away, the increased expense and use of resources (especially labor and floor space) would mean either less fighters or a reduction in production in some other LW program and push the Germans even further back in the air power equation than they already were.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I doubt that double intake was the best possible design, maybe 109E type radiators could have helped a fighter that was already as fast as the Bf-109E4 with the same engine which, at least for me, hints that there wasnt anything wrong with the thickness of the wing itself...

The comparison with 109E, speed-wise, might not tell us all. The Emil was a cluttered aircraft, with fixed tailwheel, braced tail, engine cowling left much to be desired, the radiators were deep. Once F series entered service, they were ~25 km/h faster on same power, due to major clean up of the aircraft's externals; one cannon less will also add some speed.
We can also compare the Daimlerized He 112 with MC.202 and Ki-61 - the other two Axis fighters were also much faster than it, or the Emil on same or similar power. Agree that exhausts were of a 'wrong' layout on the Daimlerized He 112, though, cost at least 10 km/h?

 

[JAG88]

The comparison with 109E, speed-wise, might not tell us all. The Emil was a cluttered aircraft, with fixed tailwheel, braced tail, engine cowling left much to be desired, the radiators were deep. Once F series entered service, they were ~25 km/h faster on same power, due to major clean up of the aircraft's externals; one cannon less will also add some speed.
We can also compare the Daimlerized He 112 with MC.202 and Ki-61 - the other two Axis fighters were also much faster than it, or the Emil on same or similar power. Agree that exhausts were of a 'wrong' layout on the Daimlerized He 112, though, cost at least 10 km/h?

Indeed, the cleanup did bring the 109F1 to 595Km/h, but I do not thing the others were faster, it was roughly on par or slightly slower (5Km/h)than the MC202 and slightly faster than the Ki-61 IIRC, not much of a difference.

On the other hand the 109E experimented a jump in performance no only thanks to the DB601 (that would account for roughly 75Km/h of the 110Km/h the E got, IIRC), but by relocating the radiator to the back of the wings (and other small improvements), a pending task for any hypothetical operational He-112 given how clumsy and draggy those intakes look on the prototype.

That is it, I just think there were still some areas were the 112 could improve on and through that maybe even match the clean lines of the 109F, if that is possible the aircraft would likely match the 109 in speed while coming ahead in some other areas... not that any of that would make it a better option for a production fighter of course, a DB-powered and German weapons-armed Folgore for example could have been a better fighter than the 109 and the 112, but being as unsuited for mass production as the Spitfire makes it a no-no for the LW.

Same for the 112.

 

[tomo pauk]

Indeed, the cleanup did bring the 109F1 to 595Km/h, but I do not thing the others were faster, it was roughly on par or slightly slower (5Km/h)than the MC202 and slightly faster than the Ki-61 IIRC, not much of a difference.

Perhaps there is an misunderstanding - I've listed the MC.202, Ki 61 and 109F as being notably faster than the 109E, with all 4 fighters using about same engine power (the 109F have had more power, of course, but tis does no matter in this comparison).

On the other hand the 109E experimented a jump in performance no only thanks to the DB601 (that would account for roughly 75Km/h of the 110Km/h the E got, IIRC), but by relocating the radiator to the back of the wings (and other small improvements), a pending task for any hypothetical operational He-112 given how clumsy and draggy those intakes look on the prototype.

Part of the increase of performance was already in Jumo-outfitted variants when switch was made from 'plain' exhaust stacks to the ejector-type stacks. The Emil received not just a relocation of the radiator, but there were now two radiators, and this will increase drag, not decrease it. The nose radiator on the pre-Emil 109s does not seem to be such a draggy affair anyway, especially not when compared with under-wing radiators.

That is it, I just think there were still some areas were the 112 could improve on and through that maybe even match the clean lines of the 109F, if that is possible the aircraft would likely match the 109 in speed while coming ahead in some other areas... not that any of that would make it a better option for a production fighter of course, a DB-powered and German weapons-armed Folgore for example could have been a better fighter than the 109 and the 112, but being as unsuited for mass production as the Spitfire makes it a no-no for the LW.

Same for the 112.

You better bring out some good source about the Spitfire being unsuited for mass production.
The He 112 have had some things better than the Bf 109, like the cockpit layout and U/C geometry - perhaps more useful details than extra km/h the 109 can do?

 

[GregP]

I think all the major protagonists had planes that could have been great ones ... that never made production or only did so in tiny numbers.

I can think of some for the USA (several), the UK (MB-5), USSR (many), Germany (several), Finland (Pyorremyrsky), Italy (Re.2005 and beyond), Japan (several), Australia (CAC-15), and Poland (P-.39, P.50), to name a few.

So the He.112 is in some good company.

 

[JAG88]

Perhaps there is an misunderstanding - I've listed the MC.202, Ki 61 and 109F as being notably faster than the 109E, with all 4 fighters using about same engine power (the 109F have had more power, of course, but tis does no matter in this comparison).

Yep, I was still thinking in terms of the OP and the possible growth of the He-112, it and the 109 were 1935 aircraft that underwent some significant (and necessary) aerodynamic modifications and improvements in order to try to reach their full development potential, the MC200 was a 1937 aircraft and the Ki-61 an even later one, both benefited from advances in the field and hence began as cleaner designs from the start.

Part of the increase of performance was already in Jumo-outfitted variants when switch was made from 'plain' exhaust stacks to the ejector-type stacks. The Emil received not just a relocation of the radiator, but there were now two radiators, and this will increase drag, not decrease it. The nose radiator on the pre-Emil 109s does not seem to be such a draggy affair anyway, especially not when compared with under-wing radiators.

If the two radiators increased drag over the alternative of a larger frontal scoop, what was the point of doing it? If the wing radiators were worse than a big frontal scoop I think the redesign made in the F would have certainly addressed it, instead it kept them and improved on them. Hence the idea of room for improvement on the frontal scoop He-112.

You better bring out some good source about the Spitfire being unsuited for mass production.
The He 112 have had some things better than the Bf 109, like the cockpit layout and U/C geometry - perhaps more useful details than extra km/h the 109 can do?

Well...

What I was aiming at was the fact that the Spitfire required about three times the number of working hours a Bf-109 needed, it was not far from the Italian aircraft and He-112 in that respect... "less well suited" maybe? To me it amounts to pretty much the same in the end, but English is my second language after all.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
If the two radiators increased drag over the alternative of a larger frontal scoop, what was the point of doing it? If the wing radiators were worse than a big frontal scoop I think the redesign made in the F would have certainly addressed it, instead it kept them and improved on them. Hence the idea of room for improvement on the frontal scoop He-112.

Emil needed greater cooling capacity over Dora and earlier versions because the DB 601A made almost 2/3rds more power than Jumo 210. So it is either one much bigger radiator, or 2 smaller radiators to cool the more powerful engine. The new engine was also longer and heavier, with a heavier prop, so relocating radiator(s) behind the center of gravity served well to ballance out the change 'in the nose'.
The 109F introduced improved radiators, that were wider but also shallower, so greater percentage of radiators was burried in the wing than before; also the boundary layer passage was introduced, with intention that radiators receive as much of the non-disturbed air flow as possible.
All of this is not to say that frontal scoop on the He 112 was an ideal soution, but probably not that a big problem, too.

Well...

What I was aiming at was the fact that the Spitfire required about three times the number of working hours a Bf-109 needed, it was not far from the Italian aircraft and He-112 in that respect... "less well suited" maybe? To me it amounts to pretty much the same in the end, but English is my second language after all.

Do we know for a fact that, after the same lead-in time of a given factory, the Spitfire required about 3 times the number of working hours as Bf 109?
Your English is great, BTW

 

[Balljoint]

Do we know for a fact that, after the same lead-in time of a given factory, the Spitfire required about 3 times the number of working hours as Bf 109?
Your English is great, BTW

Comparison may be difficult without a handicap Me-109 factor for slave labor, distributed production and occasional bombing. However since the Bf/Me 109 was an adaptation of the fast private aviation Bf-108 Taifun and the Spitfire has its roots in racing, it's fair to infer that the Spit may be a bit more involved.

Repair and rebuild is perhaps a measure of production complexity. The simpler Hurricane includes much tube and fabric construction that could be repaired at the squadron level while the Spit went back to the factory for less severe damage. Fortunately, Lord Beaverbrook set up an excellent repair system such that the BoB shortage was pilots not planes. My gut judgment is that the Me-109 is maybe midpoint between those two.

I can't really say but my impression is that the Men in Black did a damn good job of keeping the LW planes repaired in the field, at least in the Soviet Union.

 

[GrauGeist]

The aircraft industry did not employ slave or unskilled labor until 1942-43, when the war situation was such that Germany needed every able-bodied man and needed to increase it's output. Add to Messerschmitt's factories being bombed from 43 onward.

So there will be a notable difference in the finish quality between a Bf109E and a Bf109K, for example.

 

[GregP]

From personal experience, the Bf 109 is NOT simple to work on. There are many things that WOULD be simple if the order of assembly was followed but, once the aircraft is together, you don't have the luxury of order of assembly. For instance, if the landing gear attach points are being assembled onto a NEW Bf 109, they are easy. If the Bf 109 is assembled, then someone is down in the cockpit, head first, in a very uncomfortable and awkward position trying to remove and reinstall the bolts that hold the brackets on while the rudder pedals and other items are all in the way. We finally said enough and removed all the pieces ... and, in fact, completely disassembled the cockpit for access, including removing the instraument panel.

That precipitated a completed strip and repaint of the cockpit since we now had access. In fact, we made a new instrument panel, too. They wouldn't do that in wartime, but there are a lot of things in the Bf 109 that are easy if assembled in the correct order and are otherwise nearly impossible to accomplish unless you have the flexibility of a 20-year old, and even then it would be tough. I daresay many repairs on other aircraft are in the same arena of being OK if done during assembly and tough if a field repair is the task. But the Bf 109 is tighter than any other WWII fighter I have workled on and that includes most American fighters, a Zero, a flying wing, and a B-17.

I expected that because the Bf 109 is quite small compared with the others, I DID manage to get inside it through the rear hatch, but it was definitely on the uncomfortable side. A repair is one thing. Several hundred or more repairs would be a nightmare to contemplate. I'd almost rather make new ones than change out damaged landing gear on a regaular basis. The only parts of the repair that were straightforward were repairing the wing and changing the engine mount.

On post # 65, did anyone else notice that the side view shows an intake immediately behind and below the propeller and the front voew doesn't have that intake represented?

 

[JAG88]

From personal experience, the Bf 109 is NOT simple to work on. There are many things that WOULD be simple if the order of assembly was followed but, once the aircraft is together, you don't have the luxury of order of assembly. For instance, if the landing gear attach points are being assembled onto a NEW Bf 109, they are easy. If the Bf 109 is assembled, then someone is down in the cockpit, head first, in a very uncomfortable and awkward position trying to remove and reinstall the bolts that hold the brackets on while the rudder pedals and other items are all in the way. We finally said enough and removed all the pieces ... and, in fact, completely disassembled the cockpit for access, including removing the instraument panel.

That precipitated a completed strip and repaint of the cockpit since we now had access. In fact, we made a new instrument panel, too. They wouldn't do that in wartime, but there are a lot of things in the Bf 109 that are easy if assembled in the correct order and are otherwise nearly impossible to accomplish unless you have the flexibility of a 20-year old, and even then it would be tough. I daresay many repairs on other aircraft are in the same arena of being OK if done during assembly and tough if a field repair is the task. But the Bf 109 is tighter than any other WWII fighter I have workled on and that includes most American fighters, a Zero, a flying wing, and a B-17.

I expected that because the Bf 109 is quite small compared with the others, I DID manage to get inside it through the rear hatch, but it was definitely on the uncomfortable side. A repair is one thing. Several hundred or more repairs would be a nightmare to contemplate. I'd almost rather make new ones than change out damaged landing gear on a regaular basis. The only parts of the repair that were straightforward were repairing the wing and changing the engine mount.

On post # 65, did anyone else notice that the side view shows an intake immediately behind and below the propeller and the front voew doesn't have that intake represented?

Hehe that was exactly one of the contention points between the 109 and 112, the Messer was designed for ease of production, the Heinkel for ease of maintenance, in both cases the non-prioritized attribute suffered by comparison...

Amazing that you have had such chances to work on those iconic aircraft, congrats!

 

[JAG88]

Emil needed greater cooling capacity over Dora and earlier versions because the DB 601A made almost 2/3rds more power than Jumo 210. So it is either one much bigger radiator, or 2 smaller radiators to cool the more powerful engine. The new engine was also longer and heavier, with a heavier prop, so relocating radiator(s) behind the center of gravity served well to ballance out the change 'in the nose'.
The 109F introduced improved radiators, that were wider but also shallower, so greater percentage of radiators was burried in the wing than before; also the boundary layer passage was introduced, with intention that radiators receive as much of the non-disturbed air flow as possible.
All of this is not to say that frontal scoop on the He 112 was an ideal soution, but probably not that a big problem, too.

Sorry for the delay, crazy day...

I understand and agree with all that, but that double scoop makes me VERY uncomfortable!

Do we know for a fact that, after the same lead-in time of a given factory, the Spitfire required about 3 times the number of working hours as Bf 109?
Your English is great, BTW

Man, I will have to dig in my sources, from what I can recall the Spit was time consuming and ease of production didnt really play a role in its design process. In any case, yes, all aircraft improved its production time during the war, that is perfectly natural, but we will see which one really was the easiest (hopefully).

Thx, but my English does have a tendency to desert me whenever I feel too confident on my fluency... or I type or talk too fast.

 

[JAG88]

Found the source, Corelli Barnett in "Audit of War", claiming that a Spit VC took 13.000 hours to build compared to the 4.000 of a Bf-109G, but IIRC the G started at the 6.000 hours of the F and only later would lower to 4.000 and then 2.000 man hours... so I am not sure that comparison holds water and I lack data for later Spit mods.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks, I'll look it up

 

[JAG88]

Silly of me, I completely forgot that Heinkel went on to design the He-100 and that in its final version it did feature a radiator for a DB 601 installation, so perhaps hey would have gone with some larger version of its retractable radiator?

Anyway, I think the only shot this aircraft would have had is if the KM carriers had been completed, one of the A-1s was used a a prototype for a carrier version and with its wider landing gear it would have been a better proposition than the 109T.

A pic, just because I like inverted gull wing aircraft....

And a schematic:

 

[tyrodtom]

Found the source, Corelli Barnett in "Audit of War", claiming that a Spit VC took 13.000 hours to build compared to the 4.000 of a Bf-109G, but IIRC the G started at the 6.000 hours of the F and only later would lower to 4.000 and then 2.000 man hours... so I am not sure that comparison holds water and I lack data for later Spit mods.

Shouldn't you feel a little skeptical of figures that's obviously been rounded off, up or down maybe a great deal ,to come out to in exact 1000 hour increments .
To come out exactly 2/3 rds of the previous figure, and then exactly 1/3rd stretches belief.