would the He112 instead of the Bf109 have made any difference

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont think the He 112 was any better than the Bf 109. The He 100 may have been able to make a difference but not the He 112. Either way it does not matter because political fools like Hitler and Goerring would have screwed it up anyhow.

Totally correct, that's what they would have done!

Still, the He112B was an interesting design, having a bubble canopy and armed with 20mm canons. It was considered to be better than the Bf109B that flew at the same time.

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

>Hmm, they did however use a lot of skilled labour on the development of advanced prototypes with doubtfull use. Take the Me262, a great plane in itself, but influence on the outcome of the war was nill.

If you'd ask yourself "What else should the German industry built with the resources instead in order to win the war?", you'll notice that you'll come up with a rather short list.

And the Me 262 was the one aircraft that was needed to protect the German industry from the Allied bombers which were destroying resources and disrupting production - and if you'd built anything else, it would have been unprotected by the Me 262 and bombed, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Njaco]

I don't think its a matter of type of plane. Everything was bombed regardless of the Me 262. There was too few of them. Same would've happened, IMHO, with anything that was produced.

[HoHun]

Hi Mosquitoman,

>If the He100/112 had a longer range than the Bf109, it could have replaced the Bf110. That would have meant more fighter cover over London and could have put things a little more on a knife edge IMO.

The He 112B-2 carried 230 kg of fuel. The Me 109E carried 304 kg. Though the tanks of the He 112 could have been increased in size when upgrading the engine to a DB601 (as the Me 109's were), I don't think there is any reason to assume the He 112 could have had a markedly superior range.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[net_sailor]

HoHun, according my sources:
He 112B-1 (powered by Jumo 210Ea):
fuel: 317 litres
range: 1150 km

He 112 V10 (DB 600Aa):
fuel: 317 litres
range: 950 km

Bf 109B-2 (Jumo 210Da):
fuel: 230 litres
range: 450 km

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

Summarizing Bf 109 had too many aerodynamical disadvantages.

[The Basket]

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

Thrown out the Luftwaffe for sure.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by net_sailor

HoHun, according my sources:
He 112 V10 (DB 600Aa):
fuel: 317 litres
range: 950 km

According to my sources, the V10 was equiped with a DB601Aa. V7, V8 and V11 were equiped with a DB600.

[net_sailor]

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

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

[HoHun]

Hi Netsailor,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi again,

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

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

Henning (HoHun)

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by net_sailor

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

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

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

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Netsailor,

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

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

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[net_sailor]

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

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

[HoHun]

Hi Netsailor,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Shortybrucs]