Flying Failures - Heinkel He 177 Greif

Рет қаралды 14,853

21 күн бұрын

Join this channel to get early access to new videos a week ahead of their public release:
/ @rorymacve
Guten Morgen! :D
Built to be the instrument of Nazi Germany's bombardment of Europe during World War II, the Heinkel He 177 was originally considered as a technical tour-de-force, providing innovative cooling systems and automated gun turrets that would have made this aircraft a formidable foe against the Allied interceptors dispatched to bring it down.
However, thanks to a seemingly endless list of design compromises, it turned out that a pursuing interceptor was not necessary in destroying the resultant He 177, as this aircraft was perfectly capable of either bursting into flames or falling to pieces on its own, and has now gained a notorious reputation as 'The Flaming Coffin' for its long streak of horrendous crashes.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated KZfaqrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Press the Join button to get access to new videos a week ahead of schedule by becoming a channel member for just £2.99 a month!
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Key Aero (and their respective references)
- Wikipedia (and its respective references)

Пікірлер: 69

@charlesmoss8119 20 күн бұрын

For some reason this reminds me of the Manchester - stick four engines properly on the wing and design out the dive bomber hit and the basic aircraft looked ok - but while Avro quickly got on with things the Germans just kept flogging a dead horse. (I realise no one was ever dumb enough to aim to dive bomb with a Manchester)

@neiloflongbeck5705 20 күн бұрын

No, but was designed, along with the HP.56 and Stirling, for catapult assisted launching. I don't believe that this went beyond a few test launches before the system was dropped.

@22pcirish 20 күн бұрын

The test pilot Alex Henshaw rolled one though!

@steveball2307 20 күн бұрын

In the meanwhile, the UK built 7000+ Lancasters, 6000+ Halifax and (heaven help us) even 2000+ Stirlings.......

@keefymckeefface8330 20 күн бұрын

good job we not try turn the Lanc into a tactical dive bomber...

@Sacto1654 20 күн бұрын

Well, the predecessor to the Lancaster, the Avro Manchester, suffered the same unreliable engine issues with the Rolls-Royce Vulture engine similarly to how that plagued the He 177. Fortunately, Avro was able to source the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and the modified Manchester with four Merlin engines became the best RAF bomber of the war.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 20 күн бұрын

@@Sacto1654 and the X 24 Vulture was like a twin obsolete V 12 Kestrel sharing a common crankshaft.

@ABrit-bt6ce 20 күн бұрын

@@keefymckeefface8330 Dive bombing a Lanc was done on the odd occasion, those PFF and 617 could get a bit extreme when precision was required.

@robertwilloughby8050 19 күн бұрын

Yes, it was said that if you had the Stirling cockpit, the Halifax roominess and integral strength, and the Lancaster's everything else, you'd have the ultimate British bomber.

@luislealsantos 20 күн бұрын

Another excellent documentary. Thanks.

@tsegulin 20 күн бұрын

The He-177 program seriously damaged Heinkel AG. Heinkel had flown the first jet aircraft (He-176) and built the first jet fighter to fly (He-280) but all the problems it suffered with the He-177A and the demands associated with it from the RLM (Hitler really wanted to bomb England) ended up causing Siegfried Gunther to request that Generalluftzeugmaister Erhard Milch permit him to cancel the He-280 in order to move engineers from it to the ongoing grief with the Greif. Milch had seen the He-280 as a backup in case the Me-262 didn't work out and by that time it looked like it was shaping up nicely, so he allowed Heinkel to kill its jet fighter. Arguably, mismanagement of the He-177A program not only cost Germany a heavy bomber but a jet fighter also. Almost all of the problem with the He-177A was related to its DB-606 (2 x DB-601) coupled engines. These had worked well in the radical high speed He-119 bomber/reconnaissance so it was expected to help the He-177 achieve the RLM's ambitious performance demands. They were using the DB-606 as a stopgap until the high powered Jumo-222 or DB-604 engines became available. Years of development on the DB-604 was wasted when the RLM cancelled the project and the engineering issues, inadequate numbers of available engineers and the RLM constantly changing required specifications delayed the Jumo-222 for years. When it finally began to appear in 1944 it was clearly still not quite ready for operational service. I'm not sure why - perhaps it was to minimize drag by keeping engine size small - but as I understand it project engineer Heinrich Hertel designed the He-177 wings with engine mounts for these power plants that did not include a firewall. Consequently the tendency of the DB-606 oil pumps to cause hot oil to foam at attitude and drip down onto near white hot inner exhaust pipes led to fires that rapidly spread to fatally compromise control surface controls and wing structural components leading ultimately to the disintegration of the aircraft. It was not for nothing that the HE-177A was nicknamed by its crews "The Luftwaffe's' cigarette lighter". Heinkel claims that once he discovered this he fired Hertel. I get the impression that once the coupled engines were replaced with four separate engines in the He-277 and He-274 all that went away and the result was a fine aircraft with excellent potential as a heavy bomber. By that time though, Germany had lost the initiative in the air war and needed to switch its dwindling resources to produce more fighters to protect itself than it needed bombers.

@SharkHustler 19 күн бұрын

Indeed, and some good observations. I believe though that what curtailed the He 177's promise from the outset was in fact not just in its powerplant requirements/fitments, but as well - through the [indirectly-related] RLM requirement that the airframe design (as per all new [future] bomber designs) necessitated the capability for dive-bombing - Heinkel's need to supplant this requirement via limiting drag with but a ([complicated] coupled-engined) two-nacelle design, with far-more compromising design elements at play than perhaps what was initially set-out from the outset (as for a [more-conventional] four-engined [bomber] type). It was this [dive-bombing] specification/capability which necessitated Heinkel and his design-team no real alternative choice but to opt for a two-nacelle design to meet the [drag-limiting] requirement for dive-bombing. Whether this was the only choice in design alternatives (at the time) is not so much up for debate, but it is clear that when the RLM relinquished and vetoed the [dive-bombing] requirement (I believe sometime in '43) - thereby allowing Heinkel to eventually go-about enhancing his [later] design with the He 177B project ([through] a conventional four-nacelle [proper] heavy-bomber planform) - his [cleaned-up] four-engined/nacelle bomber had virtually no issues whatsoever - but by that time (as the old _['Reichsverteidigung']_ saying goes), it was far too little, too late. Nonetheless, it is hard not to imagine that the very-advanced (if not downright futuristic) He 177 could have very-well been one of the best (if not the best, even in light of the B-29 [program], with [at least] equally-similar [un-ironed-out] engine -problems) 'what if' heavy-bomber designs of the war, had it not initially encountered Ernst Udet's unyielding [dive-bombing] demands, ultimately leading to its many design-pitfalls and hurdles, of which most were eventually, and triumphantly, ironed-out by war's end - though with few, if any by then (except for but its captors), appreciative enough, nor caring much at all, of the Griffin's exorcized will in freeing itself of its defeated Nazi talons.

@Sacto1654 20 күн бұрын

What's interesting was that Luftwaffe's flight test center at Rechlin actually analyzed in 1942-1943 why the DB 610 engines constantly had problems. The engineers found out that there were some 56 defects that caused engine failures and fires, and an He 177 that had the engine modifications to correct these issues actually worked perfectly. Pity they couldn't modify the He 177's already in service at the time, because if they fixed the problem by middle 1943, the He 177 could have gone on to reasonable career as a heavy bomber.

@Ensign_Cthulhu 18 күн бұрын

What's damning is that they didn't find these problems much earlier.

@nightw4tchman 19 күн бұрын

Lord Hardthrasher did a great video on the He177 as well as others on the Battle Of Britain and other WW2 German aircraft.

@onenote6619 20 күн бұрын

A lot of the problems can be put down to wanting such a large aircraft to do dive-bombing missions, which is pretty crazy. But it can also be understood in light of the failure of German industry to produce new, advanced piston engines. A wide array of designs were planned to use the Jumo 222, for example, but it never went past the prototype stage.

@gort8203 20 күн бұрын

"A lot of the problems can be put down to wanting such a large aircraft to do dive-bombing missions, which is pretty crazy." I see this comment a lot on KZfaq, and I'm trying to understand exactly what "problems" are caused by building a heavy dive bomber. I agree that asking a heavy bomber (for that time) to dive bomb is an unusual burden on the design due to the structural strength and equipment required for that role, which will make the airplane less efficient and less productive as a level bomber. But if the operational doctrine of the requesting air force requires that capability and it is willing to accept the tradeoff, what is the “problem”? Other then reduced range or payload, what specific deficiencies are introduced? I think the dive bombing requirement is getting more of the blame for the deficiencies of this airplane than it deserves.

@noahwail2444 19 күн бұрын

@@gort8203 Same thing happened to the JU 88. IF there was a need for divebombing, why not make a dedikated version for that, and leave the rest alone? Imagine how much better the 88 would have been, without all the extra, unnessesery, weight. Same for the He 177. And then put 4 BMW 801 on it...

@gort8203 19 күн бұрын

@@noahwail2444 The weight was not unnecessary if it was needed to provide the capability desired. So your response does not address my question. The JU 88 was one of the most versatile combat aircraft of WWII with over 15,000 produced, so I don't even know what you think its "problems" were. There is a performance benefit to lighter weight, but operational flexibility is usually more important in warfare than performance numbers. Sacrificing flexibility and utility for a few more pounds of load or knots of speed is usually not the best choice for a warplane.

@fistsofham8474 19 күн бұрын

@@gort8203 So the problem here is that the requirements set out by the RLM are fundamentally stupid, because they want to combine two philosophies that are entirely at odds with one another. They want a long range heavy bomber, which requires it to have large wings for efficiency, plus room to store all the fuel you will need (Generally stored in the aforementioned big wings), plus enough capacity for an actually useful bomb load, and this all needs to be done on a strict weight limit so that you actually have the range to get where you need to go. But then, they also want an accurate dive bomber, which requires you do brace those big wings. The problem here is that the length of the wings to the amount of strengthening they need is not a linear relationship: Big wings will need proportionally more strengthening, because longer wings mean that the forces involved have a larger leverage to work against you. So, do you stick with big wings like a long range bomber needs, or do you cut them down so that you don't have to reinforce the bejesus out of them, and ruin your weight, fuel capacity and flight characteristics? The Germans tried the reinforcing anyway, and the project was a failure. Instead of a Jack of all trades, they ended up with a Joker.

@kevatcrewe 20 күн бұрын

Thanks so much for this. I've always been fascinated by this particular aircraft!

@sirrliv 19 күн бұрын

The thing I don't understand about this aircraft is why they didn't just make it a four-engine layout like every other heavy bomber in the world at the time. Four-engine aircraft were unusual, but far from unheard of in the Luftwaffe, the Kondor maritime patrol plane being the most famous example. Ditch the complicated multi-engine gearbox, give each engine more space to breath, ease maintenance access, and all of the Grief's problems disappear.

@natehill8069 17 күн бұрын

Not awesome enough. That was Germany's biggest problem in the war, they couldnt stop designing and just BUILD something*. Heck, Porsche still does this today; seems like they make more _versions_ of the 911 than actual 911s shipped. A large run of tanks for them was like 1,000. While Russia built 70,000 T-34s and the US built 50,000 M-4 Shermans. It doesnt matter how fantastic your uber-ultra-turbo-royal-Tiger tank is if you have 500 of them and the enemy can put 10,000 of his on the same field, they will just wrap your tank up in a "bee ball" of 20 tanks, take the keys out of the ignition and leave you there without even have to actually shoot you. It is said that every time someone came to Stalin and said "I have this great improvement for the T-34, comrade", that he would say "can it be added without stopping the assembly line?" and if they said No, they were thrown out. Probably shot too, it being Stalin. *the one exception was the "Kriegslok" or war locomotive, it was a 2-10-0 that they made simple to build and strong _enough_ and built 7,000 or so of. STILL running in some places in eastern Europe today.

@philiphumphrey1548 17 күн бұрын

In theory 2 engine nacelles are more aerodynamically efficient than 4. That's one of the reasons why most large passenger aircraft nowadays have two very large engines instead of four smaller ones. But in world war 2 the technology of cooling a 3000+ bhp engine (or pair of engines) in a single nacelle proved repeatedly to not good enough.

@YYZ-SRQ 15 күн бұрын

@@philiphumphrey1548 The reason why large passenger aircraft run 2 instead of 4 engines is not for aerodynamical efficiency but rather it is cheaper to do maintenance on 2 engines and for fuel economy as a larger engine will use less fuel then being replaced by 2 smaller ones. Key reasons why the A340 was a complete flop and ditched in favour of the A330. Only a handful of airlines still operate the A340 and I am sure they can't wait to get rid of them

@atomdent 20 күн бұрын

Thanks, entertaining, as always. Well done!

@scofab 20 күн бұрын

Fascinating as always, thank you.

@LadySophieofHougunManor7325 20 күн бұрын

Awesome video informative as always ❤❤❤❤❤

@natehill8069 17 күн бұрын

Evaporative cooling sounds like a neat idea, shame they couldnt make it work. They use something similar on steam locomotives in desert areas where water is hard to come by, they have radiators on the tender that condense the steam for re-use. Obviously weight and surface area less of an issue on a locomotive.

@macjim 20 күн бұрын

Educational and information

@natehill8069 16 күн бұрын

SO, the JSF of its day.

@PreservationEnthusiast 20 күн бұрын

It should have been calked the Heinkel Grief!

@sablatnic8030 18 күн бұрын

I remember something about Reichsfeurzeug, wasn't it about the 177?

@CaymanIslandsCatWalks 20 күн бұрын

Rory! Why only 117k subs?! I’m subbed with other accs and now this one! See you at the top!

@monkeyeagle1921 20 күн бұрын

The aircraft that did more than any other to win the war…… for the allies…

@aluminati9918 20 күн бұрын

Great vid on this error ridden plane. One small note: operational bomb load was not quite so bad. Rather than the 2.200lbs bomb load, most sources quote load at a higher, 48 x 50 kg SC50JA bombs (5.300lbs/ 2,400 kg total) being the std. load. So not into B17 performance, but still OK.

@danmcdonald9117 20 күн бұрын

Cursed nomenclature but they didn't know, lol 😂. Another great video, thank you

@BobAbc0815 20 күн бұрын

Congratulations for the perfect Pronounciation of the Umlaut in "Kampfgeschwäder" (unfortunately in a Word that only has the regular a instead of the dreaded ä, but good Pronounciation anyway)

@Ka9radio_Mobile9 20 күн бұрын

Ill fly the next prototype! Ya, right!

@thomasmcalear8673 19 күн бұрын

@7:47 LURCH, AS A YOUNG MAN...

@casinodelonge 19 күн бұрын

Its a beautiful design though, looks like a B-29, should have gone for a 4 engine layout.

@user-yc2oz8kc5k 19 күн бұрын

The He177 Instead of "greif" should've been named "grief."

@user-kw5qv6zl5e 20 күн бұрын

At least it had the right name

@jamesthompson215 20 күн бұрын

Ah the Heinkel He 177 Greif, or you mean grief? Cus that's all the Germans got from them!

@ctid107 20 күн бұрын

Any chance you could include metric units also? Thanks

@atatexan 18 күн бұрын

Good Greif what a terrible mess

@cpt_bill366 19 күн бұрын

Grief would have been a better name

@Sturmisch 20 күн бұрын

Once Heinkel made a four separate engines plane out of it it was OK, But it was Hitler who wanted to make it a dive bomber, and the two paired engines in each wing caused a lo tof trouble

@UncleJoeLITE 17 күн бұрын

Still mo metric Ruairidh?

@drstevenrey 13 күн бұрын

The landing gear. Come on. Were they all drunk. The rest of this ship is sort of okay, but needs four separate engines, desperately.

@kineticdeath 20 күн бұрын

so if they went the traditional path of 1 engine per nacelle they could have had a decent bomber designed from the ground up. Whether that would have had any influence on the larger scheme of things is wide open for debate, large high level german bombers over the UK in 1942 could have been problematic

@quattro4s 17 күн бұрын

Now it is obvious where the Americans took the design of He-177 , maximised it in size amd adding two more engines and made the B-29. We must be fortunate that all the problems the He-177 faced , led to the low availability in the war theater and subsequently to it's cancellation otherwise we all know what would have happened!

@andrewreynolds4949 20 күн бұрын

So much for German engineering

@thomasfrancis5747 19 күн бұрын

Possibly an example of Nazi management incompetence. Seems odd that they didn't just develop the proven Focke Wulf Fw200 Condor into a conventional long range 4 engined bomber?

@philiphumphrey1548 17 күн бұрын

Germany badly needed a fast and long range heavy bomber in 1940/41 in order to bomb Britain and attack convoys. By mid/late 1942 the window of opportunity had closed and the war was already effectively lost. A heavy bomber (even a decent one) wasn't going to make much difference.

@benstaubyn 20 күн бұрын

Metric would be Magnifique.

@willwilliamsabc 20 күн бұрын

Why not both, for older Brits etc and Yanks, and rest of the world!

@paulschumacher1263 19 күн бұрын

"Greif" is pronounced "grife," rhymes with "gripe."

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 20 күн бұрын

Showing the crash of the two Curtiss Helldivers at time 6:10 seems like dishonest fake fill-in for those stupid viewers who wouldn't know any better? A bit Mark F.

@SportyMabamba 19 күн бұрын

Illustrative footage m8, no deception there.