WARPAINT SERIES No. 33Heinkel He 177A-5 {64-DN31 of 566100 aso at Aaborg, Denmark sive oA AC ge who PE T28Re gros bomb dr be cera hole. Drawings by David HowleyHE jo many observers of aviation history | the Heinkel He 177 appears to have been a disaster from the outset although closer investigation of the story reveals an aircraft created with a touch of genius which was finally corrupted by polit- ical interference by members of the Hitler regime The development of the Luftwaffe as a fighting force from 1919 was carried out in great secrecy as Germany was constrained by the terms laid down in the Treaty of Versailles. In essence these stated that there would be no establishment of military air- craft nor personnel to operate them in pos war Germany. This meant that development of aircraft had to be disguised under other banners, thus transports were designed that could be turned into bombers almost overnight by the use of conversion kits. Pilot training was hidden under the guise of sport flying instruction. This resulted in the appearance of a wide variety of gliders and aircraft such as the Junkers Ju 52 which had first seen the light of day as a transport but was easily converted into a bomber. Similarly the Focke Wulf Fw 200 Condor, which developed into a less than efficient patrol aircraft that proved such a plague to Atlantic convoys in the early years of the war, was originally flown as a long range The second pre-production aircraft of the Heinkel He 177A-02 which was built at Rostock- Marienehe and first flown in late 1941. (IWM) passenger transport Following changes in German politics and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler to power as leader of the National Socialists, the new Luftwaffe was revealed in all its glory on 9 March 1935. On display was some 1,800 aircraft and 20,000 men under the command of General Hermann Goering, a veteran of World War 1. Although in command of the fledgling air force Goering was more con- cerned with the politics of state than running his command, thus it fell to his deputy Erhard Milch, the State Aviation, to concentrate upon the develop- Secretary of A group of four Heinkel He 177A-5s of 1./KG 40 before the start of a training flight from an air- field in south west France. (Griehl) ment of the Luftwaffe and to persuade Hitler and his associates to aim for a more realistic programme of production and development. These pleas fell upon deaf ears as greater production targets were given to the German aircraft firms who proved unable to cope with the demands placed upon them However, in 1936 these rapidly expanding manufacturers did manage to produce the prototypes and pre-production versions of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter, Henschel Hs 123 single seat biplane dive bomber, the Dornier Do 17 medium bomber and the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bomber. On the purely bomber front the first versions of the Heinkel He 111 were entering flight testing and pre-release trials. Although purely a medium bomber the He 111 was desperately HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT PAGE 1The third pre-production aircraft, the Heinkel He 177A-03 landing after a test flight. (WM) needed as the emerging Luftwaffe was oper- ating the Ju 52 tri-motor in five squadrons, many committed to action in the Spanish Civil War. Development was proceeding apace with other more apposite designs, these mainly being products of the Dornier stable. The first vestige to appear was the Do 11C which began life as a mail transport and was oper- ated by Luftwaffe crews masquerading as civilians. Operating mainly flying European routes, crews gained invaluable experience in navigation ostensibly on behalf of Deutshe Lufthansa. Externally the Do.11 resembled the mail and cargo carrier it pur- ported to be although kits were made avail- able to install defensive weaponry, a glazed bomb aimers nose and mounting racks for bombs. + Although a good idea, the propensity of the aircraft to fall out of the sky due to major structural weaknesses led to the develop- ment of a new version. This was revealed as the Dornier Do 23 series which had a com- paratively short service life even though some 210 airframes were eventually deliv- ered, Their withdrawal led to the bomber arm of the Luftwaffe reverting to mainly operating Junkers Ju 52s. These were obvi- ously inadequate for any form of sustained campaign therefore the aircraft companies were asked to develop better designs. Eventually Junkers revealed the Ju 86 whilst Heinkel rolled out the ubiquitous He 111 Later development of the Ju 86 was to extend its life in front line service as a high altitude raider whilst Heinkel was to contin- ue the development of the He 111 so that it became the standard medium bomber of the Luftwaffe: Germany’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War was in conjunction with the forces of Italy, both sides supporting the Nationalists whilst the opposing Republican forces were supported by the Soviet Union. Deployment of the Luftwaffe in late 1936 as the Legion Condor was fairly guarded although the experience gained was applied to all those designs that were seen as worthy of further development. The deployment of German forces ended in March 1939 and was regarded as a success although all reports concentrated upon the performance of the fighters and the light strike aircraft which was to result in the creation of the blitzkrieg style of aerial warfare. One area skimmed over in these treatises was the strategic bombing of the Spanish Republican port facilities which, given the lack of specially developed bombers, were suprisingly successful. This omission in advance planning would eventually cost Germany and the Luftwaffe dear as they would be left lacking the tools with which to reply to the allied bombing campaign over their homeland. The emphasis on a more supportive form of air force was to result in the German bomber fleet being confined to twin engined aircraft with the heaviest available being the Heinkel He 111. The theory behind such thinking was that better results could be The Heinkel He 177 V2 which disintegrated in a shallow dive and crashed during an early part of the aircraft's development programme. It made its first test flight in February 1940. HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINTHeinkel He 177 camouflage and markings Drawings by David Howleybe r7za-thiz(yt2) Gab 2eGoering and his deputy Milch becoming more fractious almost on a daily basis Further trouble arose between the two as Emst Udet was pushed further into the lime- light, taking over some of Milch’s duties in the process. In a final effort to reduce the influence of Milch his main department, the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium), was divided into two by Goering. One part would deal with aviation on a Ministerial level whilst the other would control the Luftwaffe itself, All this political infighting was to eventually delay development of any form of strategic bomber which meant that the allies would have a clear field in the development of such by at least six years. With Milch sidelined and Generalleutnant Wever dead, the heavy bomber programme was effectively stalled being replaced by a clique within the Luftwaffe which advocated developing further medium bombers with a dive bombing capability. This new project became known as the ‘Bomber A’ pro- gramme and was presented to Blohm und Voss, Heinkel, Henschel, Junkers and Messerschmitt by the RLM for their propos- als. All submissions were to be up for con- sideration within two months The specification issued by the Technische Amt called for an aircraft capable of a top speed of 311 mph with a range of 3,107 miles. Powerplants were to be chosen from those supplied by Argus, Daimler Benz or Junkers. The number of engines installed was left to the designers originally, although as we shall see this soon changed. Take off length for the new bomber was restricted to 3,000 feet at normal weights with overload Working with ease and efficiency. The starboar DB606 engine of a Heinkel He 177A-3 which was the main cause of the aircraft's failure to live up to expectations in Luftwaffe service. (P Couderchon) weights initially being catered for by the of a catapult. Weapons capability restricted to the standard range of bombs which included 10, 50 and 250 Kg weight- ed items although room had to be available for increasingly heavier bombs currently under development. Original crew accommodation specified only three members consisting of two pilots and a radio operator. One of the pilots would act as the aircraft commander and, in concert with the radio operator, man some of the defensive armament. Much of this weaponry was intended for remote operation as was the specified heavy calibre cannon requested for installation in the nose The manufacturers delivered their initial designs to the RLM some two months after it was initially issued. Final consideration of all the outline drafts resulted in Heinkel being awarded the contract to develop the “Bomber A’ as Project P.1041 DESIGN WORK BEGINS. Design work on the new bomber began in early 1937 under the leadership of Dipl-Ing Heinrich Hertel. Earliest proposals deleted the cockpit cannon replacing them with installations in the wing roots and also con- fining the crew in a narrow fuselage seated in tandem, Further specifications covered the range of the aircraft which was extended to 1,500 miles whilst carrying a bomb load of more than 2,000 Ibs. Defensive armament was changed from handheld weapons to remotely controlled barbettes although the The five man crew of a Heinkel He 177A-5 of IL/KG 40 when based at Bordeaux for mari reconnaissance duties. (Griehl) HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT PAGE 5The Heinkel He 177 V6, and that shown here, V7, were basically similar. Each featured a revised nose section with fewer glazed panels. V7 had a MG 131 in the fuselage nose and a 20-mm MG FF in both the gondola and dorsal turrets. (IWM) former were fitted to the prototype and eval- uation airframes. Enough design work had been carried out by mid-1937 which enabled Heinkel to pro- duce a timetable for development leading up to the first flight of a prototype. The start of the process was slated for July 1937 when the mock up would be available for inspec- tion. This would be followed by a first flight of the prototype in June 1938 with pre-pro- duction examples following in October. The inspection of the cabin mockup threw up some obvious faults in the layout and design. Although vision and weapons firing angles were adequate, the layout of the cock- pit and its general ergonomics came in for some heavy criticism. Extensive redesign, which included a more spacious cabin, was rev ealed to the inspectors by November 1937, Authorised for manufacture Project P.1041 was then redesignated as the He 177. In essence there were three versions of the HEINKEL He 177, WARPAINT Heinkel proposed, each being tailored for a specific range and task. Having been autho- rised, the new aircraft was then placed on hold as Ernst Udet informed the team at Heinkel that Hitler and Goering did not see the need for any form of heavy bomber for the proposed military campaigns across Europe. It was also at this point that Hitler and his advisors made a fateful mistake. They postulated that there would be no need for any form of aerial warfare against Britain as Prime Minister Chamberlain was playing the appeasement card, a ruse intended to give the country more time to rearm. Before it had even flown the He 177 was in danger of being discarded, its only per- ceived role being that of a patrol aircraft for the German Navy. Even then the politicians still required that the aircraft be capable of dive bombing. The head of Heinkel, Prof- Ing Ernst Heinkel, asserted that a four engined bomber, equal in size to the soon to emerge Avro Lancaster, would be incapable of such an operation without either extensive structural strengthening or the wings coming off during the pull up Further demands were placed upon the design team in early 1938 when the RLM insisted on an extensive increase in range plus an improvement in sustainable altitude. By this time the crew complement had also increased to four, all being housed in an extensively glazed cabin. The Heinkel team rd of the potential skill level of the pilots that could be assigned to their new design. From the outset the dual controlled aircraft would have balanced control circuits that would allow pilots of average ability to fly it Another factor that had to be built into the specification was the sudden realisation that there may be a need after all to attack Britain from the air. The evolving crop of aircraft readily available at that time included the He 111, Do 17 and Ju 88 each of which were limited in range and weapons carrying capa- bility. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe and the German high command so little had been done to develop the He 177 as an actual air- craft that operational use was estimated to be some two years away. Not only were the selected engines, the coupled DB606 units, only available in experimental form and requiring extensive testing, but dummy trials units were not even available for installing in the mock up wings. Further pressure was placed upon the Heinkel team when, in late 1938, the options for the six already ordered development air- craft were exercised. However only two pro- totype engines were available and they were being used to power the He 119 private ven- ture high speed reconnaissance bomber. Although trials with this aircraft were suc- cessful no further orders would be forthcom- ing Given these difficulties and the problems being experienced with the tail unit and its vibration index it is highly suprising that the RLM issued its specification for the new bomber on 12 November 1938. Specification LC 7 No.1661/38geh called for the delivery of the first unarmed proto- Three NCO crew members of a Heinkel He 177A- 5 of 1./KG 40 during the period that this unit was used for bombing operations from Chateaudun, France, in 1944. (Chris Goss)type on 27 February 1940 at a cost of RM 1,357,000. This quickly followed by confirmation for the remainder of the batch at a similar price. The question of installing coupled engine units still vexed all at Heinkel although the RLM continued to insist that the aircraft be capable of dive bombing, for this reason the proposal to build a four engined version was rejected, the given reason being that a four engined aircraft would experience increased drag during such an manoeuvre. Further changes to the He 177 were cov- ered by Structural Description No. 617. The document acknowledged the fact that the gross weight of the projected aircraft had grown to 63,934 Ibs, up from 55,115 Ibs. This was mainly due to changes in the engine cooling system which saw the origi- nal small radiators and expansive cooling surfaces replaced by much larger units. The increase in both weight and drag saw the specified top speed dropping from 311 mph to 286 mph. Although the Daimler Benz DB606 engines had been ordered in quanti- ty there was no forecast date for their deliv- ery. Allied to this no provision had been made for spare power units. Even so General Udet insisted that the first prototype be ready to fly on 30 August 1939. In order to cover for the lack of specified powerplants provision was made to install other engines. These included one airframe with Jumo 212s to be ready by January 1940, another had to be ready to fly in April 1940 powered by BMW 802s and another one complete with DB606s that featured the original surface evaporative cooling system. Although development work was continu- ing on the He 177 further problems were encountered with the production of the engine units as the factory manufacturing the gearing had trouble meeting the required material specifications and time scales. To cover for the possibility that the DB606 pro- duction powerplants would not be ready for service use the back up variant powered by four Jumo 212 engines was also progressed. In common with many prototypes the crew provisions were deemed inadequate by rep- resentatives of the Rechlin Flight Test sec- tion. It was accepted that the first unarmed aircraft, V1, would be usable for flight test- ing and that airframe V4 would be the first to feature armament and a layout close to production standard. Before the first flight of the He 177 V1 the RLM yet again stressed the ludicrous need for the type to be a dive bomber although one. of its.mora easiiblae cf fied the equipment fit for each of the pre- production aircraft. The first, as already stat- ed, would be the unarmed odynamic test airframe whilst the V2 and V3 aircraft would be equipped with a basic bombing control system for weapons clearance trials. Airframe V4 was destined to feature the intended bombing release system plus the installation of some of the MG-15 machine gun armament Construction of the prototype batch con- tinued throughout 1939 with assembly lines being established for the manufacture of major sub components. Construction had also proceeded enough to allow the installa- tion of a pair of pre-production DB606 A sequence of three pictures showing the loading of one of the heaviest bombs available for Luftwaffe operations. The bomb, being placed under the port wing of a He 177A-3, is an SC 2000 which had a length of 3.69 metres and a weight of 2,750 Ibs (J.M.Goyat) series engines. Initial ground running had produced no obvious problems although this was to alter as the flight test programme pro- gressed. As if to confirm their faith in Heinkel’s new bombers the RLM issued a confirmation of production for the He 177A; 0 pre-production series in September. This version would feature the proposed Type 3 cabin plus an improved bomb aiming and delivery system. Also changed in this ver- sion was the need for catapult launch fit- ments which were replaced by for multiple rocket units. mountings POLITICAL CHANGES Politics was again to rear its head ever before the first prototype had flown. A visit to Heinkel by General Udet was to result in an increase in production requirements and an upgrading of the He 177 programme's status as it had been realised that any move HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT PAGE 7ment of the ships of the Royal Navy outside nf the range of the Luftwaffe medium »omber force would render them safe from irborne attack. The result of this change of equirement saw a production contract being placed for 800 service aircraft for delivery the end of April 1943. At the same time 1e pre-production order was increased to 30 Althoug ne benefits of a long range heavy bomber ad finally been accepted, the proposed pro- uirframes h the new realisation of ction and delivery schedule was clearly idicrous PROTOTYPE’ FIRST FLIGHT Notwithstanding this, the first prototype He 177 Vl. Wk. Nr 000001 coded CB+RP. made its first flight on 9 November 1939 piloted by Dipl-Ing Leutnant Francke who had been paid a substantial bonus to under- take the flight. Although it only lasted some 20 minutes this first sortie was very much a mixture as far as results were concerned. As. expected the main undercarriage units were kept in the locked down position, however their shock absorbing qualities and the poor The worried expression on the face of this Heinkel He 177 pilot seems to suggest ‘What's going to go wrong next?’. Apart from this the picture shows the extensive nose glazing of the He 177 and the rather massive control column, (J.M.Goyat) quality brake units gave cause for comment. Although flight control handling was noted as adequate, mention was made of the rudder forces being to high for comfort. Also noted was the poor performance of the cabin con- ditioning system. During the flight a maxi- mum altitude of 6,500 feet was achieved although the sortie had to be terminated when the engine oil temperatures climbed well beyond their safety margins. Rectification was to occupy the next 11 days, the prototype flying again on 20 November. On this occasion the undercar- riage was retracted although all four units indicating a were noted as being sluggish. possible lack of hydraulic power. As expect- of trim during ed there was a slight chang retraction of the Fowler flaps although this was to be slightly exaggerated by the minor malfunction of an air brake. Joining Francke on this flight were two flight test Naumann and Wuppelmann eventful as at an altitude of 650 engineers. The flight was to prove very eet the air- craft suffered severe vibration which was breaking main undercarriage fairir bent itself round the wing. flight er to the airfield for rectification A further sequence of test flights followed throughout December whicl traced to. the door which eventually In response the w immediately returned the aircraft were to throw up a further series of faults some more seri- ous than others. Complaints about elevator loads were addressed by ¢ installation of enlarged surfaces although it was noted thai for pilot control forces were still too hig nes had to comfort. During another, the eng be shut down in flight due to the sudden loss As the aircraft glided back to Rostok-Marienehe it of oil pressure its home airfield o experienced a drag induced vibration which the crew somewhat. Further prob- lems concerning the undercarriage and its worried indicators were to terminate that particular flight. Two days later the V1 was grounded following damage to its elevator assembly Only one more flight was undertaken in 1939 and this was abruptly ended after a The Heinkel He 177 V4, CB+RP, WNr 0000004, was written off in an accident on 8 June 1941 as the result of an unexpected malfunctioning of the airscrew pitch control which resulted in a crash into the Baltic sea near Ribnitz. (Griehl) WARPAINTHEINKEL HE 177 PRODUCTION WNr. Version Codes Prototype 1 V1 CB+RP. 1st Prototype v2 CB+RQ 2nd Prototype v3 D-AGIG 3rd Prototype va 4th Prototype V5. PM+OD 5th Prototype Ve -_BC+BP. 6th Prototype 000007 v7 SF+TB 7th Prototype 000008 v8 —- SF+TC. 8th Prototype 000016 to 000035 32001 to 32004 A-0 series 32011 to 32013 A-0 series 15151 to 15280 A-1 series 332101 to 332121 A-1 series 135006 to 135024 A-3 series 332143 to 332198 A-3 series 332200 to 332251 A-3 series 332351 to 332394 A-3 series 332401 to 332497 A-3 series 332506 to 332555 A-3 series 332610 to 332629 A-3 series 335001 to 335078 A-3 series 535353 to 535372 A-3 series 535436 to 535870 A-3 series 550001 to 550324 AS5 series These are the known Werk Nos of the aircraft delivered to the Luftwaffe-others were built, but their numbers are not known. A-01 to A-020 pre-production and trials aircraft LIST total electrical failure. FAULT RECTIFICATION Rectification of all the various faults that afflicted the V1 occupied much of January 1940, therefore flight testing did not resume until mid-February. During this series of flights the evaluators concentrated upon the behaviour of the propellor and engine instal- lations plus the improvements made to the flight control surfaces and cable runs. It was after these flights that the final con- firmation of the order for the rest of the pro- totype batch was confirmed. Airframes V2 and V3 were already well advanced in con- struction therefore their maiden flights were undertaken during February 1940. Changes from the V1 included an enlarged fin and rudder assembly plus aerodynamic balance weights on the V2 whilst the V3 had a mod- ified tailplane trim adjustment pinion point. The test flight career of V3 was cut short after a tragic accident on 24 April 1940 near Geldorf. The cause was later traced to faulty trimming of the aircraft. Prototype V3 was to last only two months longer on the flight test programme. During a test flight on 27 June the aircraft crashed killing all four of the crew after one £ the propellors had its pitch setting incor- rectly set. As the Heinkel was operating at » level it plunged straight into the Baltic HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT at high speed. These losses left only one pro- totype to continue the evaluation of the He 177 this being machine VS. The loss of these two aircraft called the whole programme into question although it was allowed to continue using prototypes V1, and the now ready, V4 plus the VS. Flying resumed with the V1 which had by this time been fitted with a modified fin and rudder assembly. Once flight tests of the new mblies had been completed the V1 was retained as a general use aircraft, the bulk of the evaluation devolving to the other two aircraft. This total was reduced for a short period as V5 was soon in the Heinkel works undergo- ing extensive repairs after the wheel brakes had seized on landing. Such was the force of the aircraft’s retardation that both engines had been wrenched from their mountings. Whilst V1 was undertaking flight testing of the modified rear empennage and VS was being repaired, the other aircraft V4 was slated for development of the aileron con- trols and the behaviour of the He 177 at its new increased gross weight at close on 70,000 Ibs. To preserve the lives of the crew should any problems occur their positions were equipped with some early forms of ejector seats. To contain any control mal- functions the aircraft was fitted with a large anti-spin parachute. Armament and the behaviour of the bomb doors in flight were the province of the He 177 V6 which began flight testing in mid December 1940. Once these had been suc- cessfully completed the V6 was fitted with some of the intended defensive armament including a 20mm MG FF cannon in the lower fuselage. Further modifications to this airframe entailed fitting the modified rear flight controls and, later, the first pre-pro- duction DB606 powerplants. Operational trials with this aircraft and airframe V7 began in February 1941. Before these flights V7 had been employed on automatic flight control trials work. Although the He 177 programme appeared to be on course as far as flight testing was concerned the lack of available engines had begun to slow down the development programme and the deploy- ment of the pre-production machines. PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT The first A series aircraft began flight testing in early 1941 and featured the production cabin and rear fuselage assemblies. However, the definitive defensive arm ment was not available for installation there- fore the A-01 was flown without as weapons release trials were urgently required to clear the bomb bay configuration for the produc- tion aircraft.. Altogether some 35 A series aircraft were manufactured, construction taking place at the Heinkel works at Rostok- Marienehe and Oranienburg as well as at the Arado works at Brandenburg-Neuendorf. Engine failures and delivery delays were still giving cause for concern although by this time final fitting out of each airframe was being undertaken at Rechlin-Larz. This process was later moved to Luneberg where it operated alongside a small unit dedicatedto the training and conversion of pilots and crews destined to man the new bomber. However the constant delays caused by over ambitious planning meant that only three airframes, V7, V8 and A-02 , were available for this task The use of the V8 as a conversion trainer ended in July 1941 when it was sent to E- Stelle Tarnwitz for calibration of the bomb aiming system. Although these trials lasted only days the aircraft was never to return to Luneburg as it collided with a Ju 52 on take off from Rostok-Marienehe and wrecked beyond repair The lack of complete airframes was as nothing compared to the problems being encountered concerning the delivery of com- ponents, both major and minor, to the pro- duction lines at both Heinkel and Arado. One of the biggest delays experienced was that of propellor construction, both of the wooden and duralumin kind, where the tory concerned was unable to manufacture any items due to the lack of raw materials. ag. Probably scribble camouflaged for operations over the Russian Front, this Heinkel He 177& of 6/)KG 1 shows how crudely the camouflage was applied. (Chris Goss) Although the He 177 was intended to mour an impressive remote controlled armamer here too delays were becoming normal, thus only a few rudimentary sets were available for test and evaluation. One of the few remaining flyable aircraft was airframe VI which began trials in September 1941 in an effort to reduce the bomber’s tendency to ground loop. These were to end abruptly the following month when the V1 lost both main undercarriages during a heavy landing which sheared both units from the mounting points. Also show- ing the strain of continuous usage was air- frame V6 which was grounded in late 1941 for a complete major overhaul Whilst the test airframes were suffe! from landing accidents and other faults there was better news concerning the DB606 engines. In a bid to improve the reliability of the power plant modified and enlarged cowl- ings were fitted to both airframes V8 and A- 02. Almost overnight the behaviour of the DB606 powerplants improved dramatically as the new cowlings allowed the cooling system to perform closer to the required specifications. Having suffered a series of faults and problems the Heinkel He 177 development and training programme finally began to improve in late 1941. Airframes V6 and V7 were being employed by KG40 for crew training whilst VS was being used for spe- cialist flight trials. Meanwhile the pre-pro- duction sequence of 11 aircraft were also available for use. Six were to be found on a variety of pre-service release flight trials covering engine performance and behaviour, flight handling and autopilot behaviour The Heinkel He 177 took a lot of fuel and the job of loading it was not all that easy. Whilst some of the ‘black gang’ attend to the engines others are seen filling the fuselage tanks. (J.M.Goyat) HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT PAGE 11Heinkel He 178: FOsKP:20 of 1/KG 40, date ‘unknown, (Chris Goss) tnd the romaining engine struggling, the fl Towing erash sas inevitable with fatal com sequences forthe crew. The resultant inves tigation saw the homber fleet being ground ced yet again for further rectification and pre: By mid-1942 a positive decision by Drtng Heinkel to finally sort out the problems of the He 177 was met by the RLM issuing series of totally impractical instructions backed up by yet another mountain of paper: work. Although the He 177 was seemingly beset by numerous problems there were some suc: ceess’s daring 1942. Not only did A-07 fchieve a new overload maximum it also ‘passe its endurance flight test which lasted some 12 hours. Another suocess was the per formance put up by A-06 against a eaprured Spitfire which proved that the big bomber ‘wax more than capable of defending itself against a single sea fighter as long. as the engines behaved themselves. Dive tests occupied VS throughout April 1942 although they were less than sueccess- ful. During the initial fights all the test insirumentation file. This was followed by the detachment of various parts of the air fame such as the dorsal gunner’s cupola which collided withthe tail assembly whilst part of one of the bomb doors also worked Foose and collided with the same assembly. Disaster struck in July when A-013 lost a wing during an exeessively high “G" pull up, Fortunately most of the crew escaped, All these accidents coupled with delivery prob lems of major components meant that atthe current rate of progress the Heinkel bomber ‘would be delayed from service entry for years ‘Although much ofthis narrative has con centrated upon the problems that beset Heinkel and Daimler Benz in developing the “ypc Heal Ho 177 ‘abe camodtage wie of PUM T7185, ‘hich aposaras on rostrata pe. HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT PAGE 13This underview of an He 177 reveals the location of the cockpit access hatch and the forward external mounting point upon which is mounted an Hs 293 radio controlled bomb. He 177 and its power plants another area of equal importance was also suffering from the interference of various supposed experts. In common with the aircraft of its time the first proposal for the new bomber involved the standard selection of manually operated machine guns dispersed around the fuselage. One of the first changes involved the inclu- sion of a tail gunner’s position which had been omitted from the earliest proposal Further changes had to be undertaken when the pressure cabin was included into the design. This led to the complete deletion of the manually operated fuselage armament and its replacement by remotely controlled turrets into which was mounted either the 7.92 mm MG81 or 13mm MG131 weapons. This new assemblage was confirmed in 1939 although it took until 1940 for a full system to be installed into a pre production aircraft, V-12, and flight tested. In common with other components des- tined for the He 177 the machine guns were also subject to delays especially the MG 131s. Instead where possible the specified alternative, the MG81, was installed instead, although delays in manufacture of these weapons meant that the standard Luftwaffe machine gun, the MG15, had to be fitted instead. This lead to the prototypes and pre production aircraft being fitted with a mix- ture of weaponry. The He 177 in all forms was meant to have the FDL 131/2 remote control barbettes system as fitted to the Ju- 288 as its primary installation. However, the problems with the delivery of machine guns meant that inevitable delays occurred thus only airframes A-01 and A-03 were flying with the ems installed by 1942 Definitive weapons installation was carried out on A-04 and featured the full comple- ment of weapons, some relocated due to the results obtained from previous flight test experience. Given these delays the fact that initial ground and air firing trials had been completed by A-04 during November 1941 was quite impressive. Having tested what had been defined as the armament layout for the production series further changes were proposed before the delivery of production aircraft. Changes included the fitment of an extra 20mm MG 81Z cannon in the nose, the ventral gondola would also have an MG 81Z instead of the original MG 131. A further change saw the deletion of the aft dorsal DL 131 from the 61st aircraft onwards whilst a new improved flexible gun mounting complete with an 30 mm MK 101 cannon was proposed. Further modification to the tail position was also proposed with the manual gunnery equipment being replaced by a remotely controlled four gun turret . Although firing trials with a mock up were successfully car- ried out problems with series production meant that the manual position would be the one retained for the in service bombers. Various trials were carried out during 1942/43 and were to prove successful in both air and ground environments although problems were experienced with the gunbelt feed systems. Defensive armament in the nose position also came under review as the He 177 fleet was suffering losses due to head on attacks by allied fighters. However a test installation meant that the bomber would have a reduced top speed which was Heinkel He 177A-5/R2 KM+UD, WNr 550054, when attached to 6./KG 100. It retains its original factory markings. (IWM)bly on one of the Operation Steinbock raids over London in early 1944. (J.M.Goyat) Below: Two He 177 unit commanders, Obit Heinrich Schloper of 2./KG 40 and Hptm R. Dawezynig of IV/KG 40 (Goss) deemed unacceptable. A further develop- ment setup was fitted to airframe A-1 although further trials involving conversion of production airframes A-3 and A-5 were cancelled as the He 177B programme itself was terminated. Running in parallel with the development of the defensive systems was that of the bomb bay fitments and its offensive load. To aid development and to be able to counter any problems encountered with the He 177 programme Heinkel built a mock up of the complete bomb bay structure and mount- ing During this time the ability to carry larger bombs in all three bays was to become a priority. Although there were some prob- lems of installation for some of the lighter weapons this part of the programme contin- ued relatively smoothly. Drop release and clearance trials began in May 1941 using aircraft A-02. Deficiencies in the airframe including the hydraulics and bomb door operating mechanism were to delay the suc- cessful completion of the trials Further problems were experienced with weapons delivery accuracy when trialled by airframe A-| as there were directional stabil- ity problems which meant that most of the released weapons missed their targets. The use of airframes A-03 and A-05 complete with their longer and squarer fuselage meant greater stability and accuracy. By 1943 the He 177 armament type sheet covered a mul- tiplicity of weapons which included mount- ings for external racks and bombs. First operational use of the He 177 as a bomber began in earnest during 1943 OPER IONAL DEPLOYMENT The first operational unit to deploy the He 177 was 1./FKG 50 which formed at Brandenburg-Briest during the summer of 1942 with the first aircraft arriving in June. Even as the new bombers were arriving they were undergoing extensive modifications to make them fit for service. The wings and their mountings needed strengthening to counteract the tendency they had to break away from the rest of the airframe in a dive whilst the enlarged tailplane assembly and modified rudder were required on some Whilst the modification programme was underway the unit was also charged with developing the He 177 Zerstorer attack ver- sion. As the new bombers required so much work to bring them close to operational use the squadron commander declared 1./FKG 50 unfit for Luftwaffe combat servic The rework of the delivered Heinkels final- ly meant that FKG 50 was able to begin full operations in November. However, prob- lems with the engines meant that of the 33 aircraft on strength only a third were capable of flight, even so the assigned crews were able ta comnlete 247 sorties during whichBombing up a Heinkel He 177A-3 in preparation for a night raid. By comparision the He 177 had a capacious bomb bay and could take addition- al weapons under the outer wing panels. Luftlotte 4. This was the era of the defence of Stalingrad and massive amounts of air support of all kinds were needed to supply and defend the troops on the ground However, the winter weather was extreme. The air and ground crews arrived mainly by train as did the greater majority of their equipment although the severity of the w spares meant that many items were found to be damaged on unpacking The arrival of the aircraft was not without incident as at least two arrived on one engine as the other grouped pair had suffered a cat- astrophic failure. Eventually a total of 26 He 177s managed to reach the new base although two were returned to Brandenburg due to engine problems. Further flights were to result in serious damage to a total of nine engines which left the unit with just 17 air- craft to begin operations. These problems notwithstanding FKG 50 did finally begin operations. The first sortie consisted of five aircraft led by the Commander, Major Schede. Not long after take off two returned with engine problems whilst another was forced to divert. The greatest loss was that of the Unit Commander whose aircraft went down after suspected engine failure and the crew killed. In the event only one aircraft managed to reach Stalingrad The new unit commander was Hauptmann Schlosser and under his command the He 177s resumed operations. A similar covered this sortie with at least one bomber being lost due to catastrophic engine failure which left the crew with no other option but to abandon the stricken aircraft. Further mishaps meant that in the event only two air- craft managed to reach their targets. Additional sorties followed although severe bad weather meant that the drop zones were obscured, thus the crews had to return home. ather and lack of equipment to unload the story The rate of attrition meant that the unit’s operational strength remained at a handful of serviceable aircraft, in consequence the number of aircraft allocated to each mission was eventually reduced to two. Unlike the bomber units of the Allies the concept of supporting mutual defence did not seem to be an approved tactic thus at least two of these flights were intercepted by Soviet fighters. During one of these support missions to Stalingrad two of the He 177s were bounced by a pair of Russian fighters The resulting gun battle badly damaged one aircraft whilst the other aircraft suffered the destruction of one paired engine. It was dur- ing traumatic times such as these that the extra development and strengthening of the Heinkels paid off as both were able to return to base albeit one was later declared unre- pairable. DESIGNED TASK In late January 1943 the He 177s of FKG 50 began the task for which they were N designed. However the change from con- tainer dropping to that of live ordinance was not a happy one as the engine problems con- tinued to plague the remaining aircraft. Operations continued until 31 January when Stalingrad finally fell. During this short peri- od of operation five He 177s had been destroyed whilst many others were damaged beyond repair and others were grounded awaiting repair The remaining crews and aircraft were returned to Brandenburg and the unit’s exploits were evaluated to see where tactics could be improved to exploit the strength of the type. One of the best measures discov- ered against fighter attacks was to push the nose down to gain more speed. It was also proved that the defensive armament was more than adequate especially that installed in the extreme tail which was seen to be a A preserved version of the notorious Daimler Benz DB606 engine fitted to the Heinkel He 177. It was a combination of two engines with a com- mon crank shaft and frequently caught fire and had many other malfunctions during its service. HEINKEL He WARPAINT PAGE 17Heinkel He177 units Unit WNr. Version Code E 7 000022 A-07 GA+QP 000032 A014 GA+QW EHAG 000016 A-01 DL+AP 000031 A016 = GA+QY 15256 At VF+RF 550047 A-5 6N+GM 15222 A-1 VE+UV 135006 AA ND+SA 15226 A VD+UA 15273 A-1 VF+RV KdE 000021 A-06 GA+Q0 32011 AO DRHS KG1 15198 Al DH+CX 15203 A-1 V4+UC 2/KG1 15197 At DH+CW 3/KG 1 332540 A-3 V4+HL 332543 A-3 V4+KL 4/KG1 15208 Ad VE+UH S/KG1 332146 A VD+XV 332366 AS V4+EN 6/KG1 332474 AS V4+LP 8/KG 1 332351 AB V4+CN 332491 AB V4HIS 9/KG 1 332229 A-3 V4+PT 10/KG 1 332147 At V4+lV 1/KG 4 15280 At 5J+EH IL/KG 10 550039 AS KM+TO I/KG 40 15264 At VF+RN 15269 Ad VF+RR IL/KG 40 32002 AO DR+IK 32004 AO F8+DV IVJKG 40 32013 AO DR+IU 15207 At VE+UG 5/KG 40 535443 AB F8+BN 535447 A-3 F8+EN 6/KG 40 324444 3 F8+EP 10/KG 40 535752 AS F8+AU 11,/KG 40 535678 A3 F8+CV 12./KG 40 535673 AB F8+DX 535857 AB F8+AX 13./KG 40 550168 AS F8+AX I/FKG 50 15156 At Gi+BQ 15180 Ad BL+FJ KG 100 15164 Al GI+BY 1/KG 100 332224 AB 6N+TL 332241 AS SL+WW 2/KG 100 332212 AS 5J+NK 332235 A3 6N+HK 3./KG 100 332189 A3 SU+AL, 332204 AB 5J+AK 4/KG 100 332143 At VD+XS 550130 AS 6N+MM 5./KG 100 550065 AS KM+U0. ? 550120 AS 6N+AN 6./KG 100 550121 AS 6N+HP 550125 AS 6N+IP 10./KG 100535848 A-3 6N+AU Ts2 15177 AB BL+FG Abbreviations Est 177 Erprobungsstaffel 177 Proving Test Squadron 177 EHAG Ernst Heinkel AG EK Erprobungskommando Test Command FFS(B) —_Flugzeugfuhrerschule B Advanced Flight Training School/Blind Flying School KdE Kommandeur der Exprobungesizlion Commander Proving Test Establishment TS Technische Schule Technical School reat boon. One area that came in for great cism was, not surprisingly, the power- s which had proven extremely trouble- HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT some although the aire approved for daylight use. However night sorties were not cleared as there were no flame dampers installed. In contrast the airframe and undercarriage were praised for their strength which had seen some damaged aircraft return to base where others might have failed. The service life of the He 177 with 1/FKG 50 was fairly short as they were to dispose of their remaining aircraft to the Luftwaffe bomber training system. Amongst the types passed onto the Multi-engine Training School were the few remaining A-1 aircraft, those that had been upgraded to A-3 stan- dard and the three converted Zerstorer air- frames, In common with all new aircraft entering service there is a requirement to provide examples for the training of initial opera- tional crews. The first unit to begin in depth training with the He 177 were Gruppen I and II of KG 40 based at Fassberg and Lechfeld respectively in the summer of 1942. Further training was undertaken by crews from KG-4 ‘General Wever’ and KG 100 ‘Wiking’ which began in 1943, both units being based at Lechfeld. During this period all training was under- taken on fully equipped aircraft although the manufacturers had pressed for a more dedi- cated trainer version that would feature reduced armament amongst other changes. Such was the slowness of conversion that it was late 1943 before any were available for use by FFS(B)16, Flugzeugfuhrerschule, Advanced Flight Training School, operating from Burg Bei Magdeburg. Other flight schools that operated the He 177 were FFS(B)15 based at Bourges in France and FFS(B)31 at Brandis. Eventually, by a of almagamation, the final operat- ing unit to fly the He 177 in the training role was FFS(B)I6. This grouping had been undertaken in a final effort to cure the prob- lems that still beset the He 177. Many of these were still engine related which kept the rate of attrition high, one of the main diffi- culties being to persuade pilots not to over control the aircraft after engine shutdown which frequently resulted in the airframe becoming over stressed. Although the train- ing school had managed to produce enough crews to satisfy the needs of the bomber force it was to cease operations in July 1944 as there was not enough aviation fuel left to operate any of the aircraft. One final unit to suffer disbandment due to fuel shortages was the Reserve/ Replacement bomber wing 177 which had been formed by the almagamation of the training Gruppen of KG 4 and KG 100. Based at Neuburg-Donau the unit was to cease operations until hastily resurrected in November 1944 to provide pilots for the soon to emerge Messerschmitt Me 262. In the event this re-equipment failed to take place, the unit disbanding again soon after. The final unit to operate the He 177 in the conventional bomber role was KG | which used both the He 111 and Ju 88 before tran- siting to the controversial Heinkel in November 1943 when they transferred to Brandis after the Battle of Stalingrad. Full scale re-training began in January 1944 when the first He 177 A-1s and A-3s_ landed at Burg Bei Magdeburg. Although initially impressed with their new mounts the sheen of new ownership soon wore off when it was realised that these were early production machines that had seen some considerable service and had suf-fered accordingly. Further airframes, 20 in number, were also allocated to KG | although delivery of most was to be delayed as they were suffering from a variety of defects mainly concentrat- ed with the engines. Considerable efforts were expended in pro- ducing enough serviceable He 177s to equip the unit with the first deliveries beginning in March 1944. Eventually, after some shuf- fling about of aircraft between various units, KG 1 settled down with 22 aircraft. Attrition, as the crews learned to operate the complicated heavy bomber, was high. Within a month nine of the unit’s aircraft had been lost in crashes. However, the problem of lost aircraft was soon covered by replace- ments although this did not alleviate the deficiencies in trained air and ground crews. Other problems that afflicted the unit included a lack of specialist tools and equip- ment that frequently left many of the aircraft unserviceable with minor faults. Those that could be flown started operational bombing sorties although losses again began to mount. Aircraft flown by the crews of the Heinkel He 177A-5s of II/KG 40 at Bordeaux- Merignac airfield in 1944. These aircraft were used for maritime reconnaissance and attack using the Kehl IV equipment and Henschel Hs 293A-1 glider bombs (Greihl via Goss) more experienced II./KG | had more suc- cess whilst others in the Gruppen suffered further reductions due to crashes. Within two months of becoming operational KG 1 had managed to lose a large number of its 100 allocated Heinkels. A further delay to increasing the opera- tional effectiveness of KG 1 was experi- enced as the aircraft were flown to Sagan- Kupper for reconfiguring into their new role as short range attack bombers. As the plan stood the modification teams were given only four days to convert each airframe. However lack of spares meant considerable delays were encountered thus by late July only 56 of an available allocation of 67 He 177s were available for use. These and others collected from other air- fields around Germany were transferred to various airfields in East Prussia where it was intended that they would be used to stem the advancing tide of Soviet forces. In reality the airfields destined for use by KG | were totally inadequate for operations by an air- craft the size of the He 177. Allied to this was the lack of decent sized hangers and a general shortage of fuel. Although beset by problems, the crews of KG | managed to mount some impressive sorties the most notable being against the railway mar- shalling yards at Velikiye when 87 bombers were despatched. Successful though these missions were they did not prove enough to stop the attack- ing Soviet forces from breaking the German Army lines in the central sector of the Eastern Front. In response Reisch-Marschall Goering ordered that KG | should attack the enemy armoured columns. The unit to which this He 177A-3 5J+KL was attached was probably 3/KG 100. It has the under fuselage attachments for either the PC 1400X or Henschel Hs 293 remotely controlled bombs. (J.M.Goyat) WARPAINT PAGE 19Amongst the many experiments conducted using the Heinkel He 177 was this rather unique example in which a towed aerodynamic wing shape was fitted with a Schleppgereat auxiliary fuel tank. (IWM) From the outset these orders were seen as ludicrous and the first wave of attacks confirmed this when ten of the bombers were shot down by effective anti-aircraft fire. Further sorties were ordered all with a similar result. Eventually the losses had mounted to such an extent that KG | had to be withdrawn back to bases in central Germany. Here its aircraft, damaged or otherwise, had their power- plants removed whilst the airframes were reduced to scrap. KG 1 had in the event only operated the He 177 for a few months and had experienced the full gamut of problems that had beset this troublesome aircraft. MORE ENGINE PROBLEMS. Throughout its time in the bomber role the He 177 had been plagued by engine failure problems. In an effort to counter this Daimler Benz carried out further research into coupled powerplants and methods of making them more reliable. Finally the improved DB 610 engine emerged and was immediately slated for installa- tion in the He 177. To expedite the introduction of the new engine a test airframe was built by Heinkel which began test flying in March 1943 with DB 610s flying not long afterwards. The improvements in the engines was coupled with requests for modi- fications to the airframe and especially the cockpit area. Another part of the fuselage that came in for close scrutiny was the rear empennage. It was proposed that the original single fin and rudder be replaced by a twin fin unit which in turn would have meant a full redesign of the rear fuselage capable of housing a fully operational gun turret. Although most of these improvements had been proposed in light of combat experience very few would progress past the mock up stage given the problems being encountered by those aircraft already in service and on order. Further flight tests of the DB 610 had begun to throw up another set of problems, that of extensive oil leaks many of which were caused by the stresses encountered in manoeuvring such a large aircraft. Once the initial enthusiasm for the DB 610 had worn off the real extent of the problem was begin- ning to be understood. After some 10 hours test flying the He 177A-3/V-19 had gone through some three sets of engines. Further Right: The Heinkel He 177 was capable of carrying a total of four Hs 293 weapons as shown here. Normal practise was to omit the rear fuselage weapon as ground clearance was very tight. HEINKEL He 177. WARPAINTdoubts about the operational readiness of the new version of the He 177 were raised in another test report that revealed that the bomber could barely fly above a low speed with flame dampers fitted. Such a shortfall in performance meant that in common with those aircraft flying with DB 606 power- plants the new version of the He 177 would only be usable as a day bomber. As the earlier versions of the He 177 had been found inadequate in the bomber role due to technical problems with the engines amongst other faults a new role had to be found for the 565 A-5s being constructed. First intimations were to convert them into torpedo bombers for which purpose He 177 A-3/V-17, WNr.353005, and A-3/V-30, W Nr. 135018, were converted. Test flying with the aerial torpedoes as fixed loads were undertaken by E-Staffel 177 during late 1942. Their report submitted later that year stated that an aircraft such as He 177 would be too difficult to fly at a low enough level and steady enough to deliver the weapon accurately. All this was done without launching a single torpedo. Although the test report roundly condemned the use of the He 177 as a torpedo bomber the RLM still insisted that future aircraft be delivered with mountings for two weapons under the fuse- lage and one under each wing. Fortunately for the crews assigned to these aircraft they were never asked to undertake this haz- ardous mission, the invasion of Europe and the subsequent retreat of the German forces putting paid to such ideas. In other areas of development the He 177 with more reliable engines might have been a success. Although maritime reconnais- sance was the province of the Fw 200 Condor developments in Allied Fleet and convoy defence had exposed the various weaknesses of this converted airliner, In response the RLM asked Heinkel to revise the Zerstorer idea as a replacement for the Condor. The concept was to provide an aircraft with heavy forward armament capable of attack- ing ships and escort vessels as well as being capable of intercepting lone transports and Allied bombers flying across the Atlantic In theory this heavily armed aircraft would be more than capable of causing havoc Above: The Henschel Hs 294 was a rocket powered air launched torpedo capable of radio guidance. Although thoroughly tested this weapon failed to enter full scale service. Mounts were however built into the He 177 airframe so that one of each could be carried under the wings and fuselage. Below: Radio guidance for the PC 1400X /Fritz X was under the control of Keh! series of transmitters. The weapon was successfully used against the Italian fleet caught on its way to surrender to the allies although very few were deployed by He 177 units wherever it turned up, however the experi- ence of FKG 50 on the Russian front soon dispelled this presumption. Test flying of a converted aircraft soon reinforced these conclusions as it was found that it flew some 60 mph slower than the conventional bomber. At least three of this variant were employed for a short period by I/FKG 50 based at Ludwigslust airfield although none were tested operationally in any of the roles conceived for it. In light of these findings the RLM cancelled the Zerstorer programme as quickly as it had conceived it. Those few airframes that had been built finally ended up as training air- frames having seen no operational service whatsoever. Further experimental versions were Heinkel He 177A-3 coded V4+HP of 6/KG 1 in 1944 showing the distinctive camouflage scheme adopted by these aircraft at that time. (Chris Goss) HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT PAGE 21The first Luftwaffe unit to have Heinkel He 177s on the Russian Front was 1/Fernkampfgesh- wader 50 and was intended as a long range bomber group stationed at Zaporozhye (Grieh!) planned these including three He 177s con- verted to the ‘Big Destroyer’ or Grosszerstorer role, in which the weapons were pointed upwards. The concept was that a series of these converted bombers would manoeuvre beneath a passing Allied bomber stream and fire rocket shells into the passing aircraft. Eventually five Heinkel bombers were converted for this role each being fitted with 33 vertically mounted eight inch rocket barrels the offset angle being set at 60 degrees. Initial flight trials began in January 1944 although in the event only one airframe was available for trials as one had already been lost in a crash and three others were destroyed on the ground after an Allied air raid. As there was a large number of spare He 177s available another eight aircraft were quickly converted to this new role. First impressions of the bomber destroyer were favourable although it did let itself down when the electrical system of a display air- craft malfunctioned causing all 33 tubes to fire at once. As this misfortune took place in front of many of the senior staff of the Luftwaffe they were less than impressed thus the Big Destroyer concept was quietly shelved. A similar idea was that of using photo electric cells to set off the weapons although evaluation was as far as the idea was progressed, GUIDED WEAPONS The next series of trials that concerned the He 177 were more successful and covered the development of the Henschel Hs 293 radio guided weapon for use by the big bomber. First trials of this bomb were under taken using an He 111 carrier in May 1940. These initial trials were aerodynamic in nature, it was not until that year’s end that the powered version was submitted for test- ing. The powerplant in its underslung pod a 600 Ibs Walter rocket motor. Design alterations for the He 177 were completed in May 1941 with a pattern aircraft being ordered at that time. Before this single air- frame was ready for flight trials a further 40 were ordered for operations over the Atlantic. Of this first batch the final six were equipped to carry and launch the alternate weapon to the H 3, the Fritz-X radio con- trolled weapon. Launch parameters for both weapons required an altitude of at least 1,000 feet to allow the missile to reach its maximum speed of 280 mph at 18,000 feet. 131E2 canon. The remote control system for the upper gun turret is shown in this schematic drawing. The installed weapon is an MGKehl I guidance equipmer development of air lau included the PC 1400X side bomb whiet by sinking. the -velopments in the ‘which was renamed the Keb nt fitted. Further inched weapons armour piercing ady proved i itleships Roma, apons improvements there were fur idance system V Maal 7A Not 5X0 100 248 Hinkel He 1774-1 6MSAN of 8.46 109 bases at atbog. Soomannt8de Read 70 ra TEGEL IS TT WOGRTOEFirst light rials were undertaken using the He 177-3/V21 which was completed atthe Heinkel works in early 1943. This aireraft vas quickly followed by the delivery ofthe First production aircraft tothe test airfield at Penemunde. Initial trials covered the inst lation of a pair PC 1400X bombs in tandem under the fselage. Beeause oftheir size the weapons interfered with undercarriage retraction and had insufficient clearance for ‘ground manoeuvring. A re-design ofthe original layout reduced ‘the fuselage carriers to one although, even in this configuration, clearances above the ‘ground were marginal. Consideration had ‘eon given to wing mounting the weapons however weights and balance measurements had not been carried out and there remained ‘question concerning the strtural strength of the wings. All these doubts were overrid- sen by the desire to integrate these revolu tionary weapons into the inventory ofthe He 177 thus the type was cleared for the car riage of the Hs 293 and the PC 1400X in both the wing and fuselage positions, In the case of the former, explosive charyes were installed that would allow the mounts and ‘weapons to be blown clear should the eat cr aircraft got into difficulties; forthe glide bombs the normal release system was Seemed sufficient. Unlike normal bombs these advanced weapons were loaded using a special loading trolley rather than a normal winch. Once installed they were kept warm using exhaust gasses from the engines which kept them in optimum condition throughout their joumey tothe launch point. Kehl equipped He 177s were confined to IJKG 40, These aircraft retained only the wing mounts; however from the outset they experienced problems. In-depth investiga tion by the Kehl development team discov cred that many ofthe electrical circuits were incorrectly protected from both moisture and stray voltages whilst in other cases. the ‘wiring circuits were incomplete, Once these problems had been rectified the unit was able to resume operations. During these sorties the bombers took off at an all up weight of 68,000 lbs and would climb to.a height of 1,000 Feet. This would bbe maintained until just before tauneh ‘when they would climb to the designated release altitude and drop the weapons. AL this point, during the 30. minute attack phase, the aircraft gross weight had reduced to $9,000 Ibs, Upon launch at rur- naway another 5,000 Ibs had been lost Although these sorties engendered some ‘success, operational losses overall for the [Luftwaffe marginalised this effort and they ‘were gradually wound down. During is period of operations II/KG 40 managed to Acquire some 35 aircraft although a the oinkel Ho 1775 6NoMP o! KG 100 captures at Facoarg i May 1980" AU TOTES wie ALM 7 sero Heine He 177ASCV38 4-15 coped at Prague. Psy nay Yecs, Fob 77168 wh TS Heinkel He 1774-5 showing the extent of the ‘The unt cannot be ident as sven thee hs been toned down leaving ny the inva Intere KU itnguanabie Ut oye ‘war progressed the operational number fll to just 13, Allied 10 this was the severe shortage of trained crews and the insruc- tors to train them ‘One other problem continaed to page 1TLIKG 40 and that was the perennial one of a shortage of serviceable engines. Ts com- Pound the unit's difficulties they were ‘moved fom their original base at Fassburg to Chateaudun in France. Not long ater arval farther He 177s were delivered from the Heinkel works which was to add to the unit's problems especially as there was a severe spares shortage. This resulted in many new reat being stripped for spares ‘pon arrival ‘A spares shortage was not the only hurdle for 1L/KG 40 to overcome as, in common with other operon, they sullered constant losses. Some were due operational sorties, ‘mainly bombing runs during the Lite Blitz of southern England in early 194, whist others were trace back to the normal engine overheating and fire fal, "There were some successes however whea two Hs 293's hit and destroyed a pair of freighters although the los of three bombers and four damaged was a high price to pay. Similar story covered a raid_over the Mediterranean where 21 He 177s. were Defensive fire resulted in the on of six alteraft plus to which ferashed during the retum joumey. The resultant claims of a destroyer, two frigates and ten allied fighters destroyed. were Wi comed by the High Command. However, this suecess came ata substantial cost with 24 bombers having been lost plus another Six ioral requiring extensive epi at tous workshops, Replacements were quickly forthcoming ad further measures o improve the reliabil ity of the engines were undertaken by spe- alist teams. AS this improved so other VEINKEL He 177 WARPANNTugh at frat lance the highly glazed cack the He 1774: seemedthe Allies had identified the bases fe operating fom and responded wecordingly. The resulting intruder raids duced the number of available airrat destroyed whilst others were damaged beyond repair. In common with other units operating in France KG 100 was suffering serious att tion with only 17 aera shown to be serv igeable although in teuth fifty p these were grounded awaiting spares Further airerat were to be rendered beyond repair when, on a light into Germany’ for mission, a force of five He 1775 were Fired upon by the local anti-aircraft organisation \which continued even after the damaged for ‘ation had landed at its destination, The final mission flown by the bombers of KG 100 took place in Inte April 1944 . The Purpose of this raid, which contained 100 aircraft, was to attack Royal Navy ships in ieinity of Portsmouth using the PC- Aight and below: This He 177-3 was rebuilt by SNCASE at mole a ‘not known. Note the German Under the wings and the e 1400X glide bom ‘Withdrawn from operations the aireraft 0 KG 100 sat scattered about tl Fields, Ostensibly sill in the order of battle the big bombers were grounded due to lack of fuel, However up until February 1945 they were m ntained in flying. condition Heinkel He 1774-7 WWe.550256 which was rid of armament in the nose and had this Feplaced by the SuG 200 Honentwel ASV radar the aerials for wich ean Just be saan inthis ple {ure"on tn" Haroard sie tte nose. before being struck ff ch were dispersed to other units, the engines of the airframes were removed and many were scrapped where they stood. ‘One final role was wied with the He that of strategic reconnaissance. To Wekusta/Obdl a weather reconnaissance fon Was formed in May 1941 receiving it first He 177s in June 194 for operations ‘over the Atlantic, Having ms at least 17 aircraft he un carried ott oper ations until grounded die to lack of September, With is bombers oper had their engines removed for storage whilst the serapped. Although the He 1 history asa failure its appall political will to have a heavy bomber eapa 7 could be viewed by main buigbear was th ines developed for it phis df ble of the dive bombing role, Had the ai craft been properly planned, developed ang ied with bet would have had a bigger impact on the war. An attempt was made in later days to provide atleast a tion which included bath the He and He 274, HEINKEL He 177. WARPAINTHeinkel He 785 Heinkel He 277¥- NW-9,Above: Seen during a test flight over southern England, Heinkel He 177A-5, which acquired RAF markings, invasion stripes and the serial S439, clearly shows the camouflage scheme in which it was captured after serving with KG 40. Right: The same aircraft as it arrived from France still with French markings but with the invasion stripes painted on. (IWM) HEINKEL 277 AND 274 Given that the prime fault with the He 177 was its powerplants it should come as no surprise that Heinkel wanted the opportunity to correct these problems. Both the Daimler Benz engines under development were caus ing concern therefore proposals were put forward to the RLM to install separate radi- Heinkel He 274V-1 in its ori ial four-engined twin fin and rudder configuration. This version would have been more successful than its pred- ecessors had it been put into large scale pro- duction. bats wihiion NKEL He 177 WARPAINT Se oe al engines in a single trials aircraft. As the design stage began powerplants from BMW and Daimler Benz were proposed for an air- frame that would feature an increased span and a redesigned cockpit layout which would later include pressurisation for high altitude flying. The range requested in all the proposed versions was set at 34 miles which fell some way short of the production He 177 A- 7 although it was somewhat faster. Delivery should have been in August 1943 although in reality given the spares shortages and Allied bombing meant that a revised delivery dateUC Pictures by Phillipe Couderchon and J-M Goyat Above: The roomy cockpit of the He 177A-5 is illustrated in this view. Compare this with the drawing on page 25 of the A-3 version. The sin- gle pilot has good upper, side and lower visibili- ty and although the instruments do not seem to be in conventional array they are comprehen- sive and well laid out. Below: The cause of all of the He 177’s problems can be squarely placed on the erratic serviceability of the DB 606 engines. These on an A-5 show the three exhaust pipes and the four-bladed propeller. HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINTKEL He 177 WARPAINT 1. and 2. After a number of failures the massive twin-wheeled undercarriage of the Heinkel He 177 gave good service after being extensively- modified. These two pictures show the con- struction from both fore and aft. 3. The fore- ward armamanet of many versions of the He 177 consisted of an MG 81 machine gun mounted on a gimbal to the right of the pilot's seat and oper- ated by the bomb aimer. 4. The left hand side of the cockpit showing the somewhat complicated set of engine controls. Both throttles and pro- peller adjustment levers appear to be next to each other causing concern about their misuse in action. The two forward levers controlled the undercarriage retraction and the trim wheel is set just behind the throttles. Radio controls are mounted on the cockpit wall. 5. An underwing view of the He 177's wing showing the large Fowler flaps in the partially down position. Also shown is the interior of one of the bomb bay doors.set for late 1944 was closer to the truth. Even this was to prove optimistic as the German war effort struggled to cope thus the date slid to mid-1945. Because of this the Heinkel Development Department proposed that many of the changes destined for the new bomber be dropped. This meant that a basic He 177 could be built with four engines for faster delivery Although this proposal was accepted by the RLM they still insisted that both the A and B versions be progressed as fast as pos- sible for service entry. To speed up the pro- gramme several standard bombers were fit- ted with various major assemblies. Therefore aircraft V15 was fitted with the proposed forward fuselage whilst aircraft V25 was the pattern airframe for the enlarged rear empenage and another aircaft was fitted with twin fins and rudders for test flying. Once these test flights had been completed the first He 177B-5, NN+QQ WNr.535550, was rolled out for its maiden flight on 20 December 1943. This made a more than suc- cessful flight than its predecessors and was to be followed by the He 177V-101 which was rolled out in early February 1944. With both of these aircraft undergoing flight test- ing Heinkel then proceeded to build four more as they considered this version of the He 177 worthy of continued development. Part of the programme then moved onto developing armament layout much of which was borrowed from the Junkers Ju 290. With much of the development of the He 177B-5 completed, Heinkel began planning for construction of pre-service use aircraft at its plants in France for final assembly and test flying. But all of this was to come to naught as the RLM ordered Heinkel to aban- don the He 177B series and concentrate more on the He 274 instead. This did not spell the end of the He 177B programme as Heinkel continued to fly the aircraft ostens: bly in support of the He 274. As the war pro- 6. The manually operated turret on the He 177's dorsal line was both compact and had clear all round vision. 7. Various tail turrets were tried out on different versions of the He 177. This one is on an A- 7 suitably jacked up for maintenance purposes. The picture was taken at Toulouse-Blagnac after the Liberation, 8. Twin MG131Z cannon were fitted in the dorsal line remote control turret the astrodome for which was situated at the rear of the crew cockpit and controlled by two levers for deployment and elevation. See page 22 for a diagramatic illustration but with a different gun. ‘| gressed the Allied bomber forces beg concentrate their efforts upon destroying the German aircraft industry. Even as raids were occurring in the Vien’ area Goering was signing an order that authorised Heinkel to build the new improved bomber at a rate of some 200 per month. To add to the confusion the RLM issued an order that basically cancelled all development of heavy bombers and switched production to fighters of all types in a desperate last ditch attempt to stem the Allied advance. One final throw of the dice took the form of pressurised versions of the He 177 devel- opment of which began in December 1940 although the pressurised cockpit assembly was not expected until mid-1941. The first version was the He 177 A-4 whilst high alti- tude engines were test fitted to He 177 A- 015. The success of both these aircraft led the Heinkel design team to propose three different versions powered by different engines. These specifications were then classified as the He 177H although this was later changed to the He 274. Test flying of the development aircraft was undertaken throughout the latter part of 1943 and into the early part of 1944. During these trials the pressurisation system behaved impeccably. So much so that a similar unit was proposed for installation in the rear gun- ner’s position. The only one minor fault to appear during these flight tests was a slight leak around the entry hatch seal. Although both aircraft behaved exceptionally well the lack of resources to continue their operation result- ed in their grounding in March 1944. In order to continue flight testing it was pro- posed that airframe V10 be cannibalised for spares to repair its sister aircraft V11 which would then be transferred to Rechlin. This was successfully achieved although it was a short respite as the whole programme was cancelled in June 1944, ATOMIC WEAPONS One final project that was proposed as a development of the He 177 was the so-called Amerika bomber whose stated aim was to reach the United States. Added to this was its weapon which was intended to be the German atomic bomb. Four companies eventually revealed designs for this particu- lar proposal these being Heinkel with its He 277, Focke Wulf with the Fw 300, Messerschmitt with the Me 264 and Junkers with the Ju 290. One of the first to appear was the Me 264 which was quickly followed by the redesig- nated Ta 400 from Focke Wulf and the He 277 from Heinkel. As both of these designs were theoretically superior to the Messerschmitt aircraft its flight programme was abandoned. However none of these designs were to reach any torm of fruition as the German war machine was receiving a battering from the Allies. Thus as Germany collapsed all the bomber programmes were abandoned. As the Allies advanced they captured examples of the He 177 for test and evalua- tion purposes plus both of the He 274s \ captured almost intact as attempts to s: HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINTA Heinkel He 177 with four engines. Making its first flight on 20 December 1943 it was designat- ed as the He 177 B-5 V-101 coded NN+QQ WNr.535550. A number of successful flights were made. (Griehl) tage them had failed. In the UK the first real sight of an He 177 came when several were shot down during the Little Blitz. In response the Royal Aircraft Establishment requested that stren- uous efforts be made to capture an intact air- frame. Intelligence reporting by the SOE revealed that several examples of servicea- ble bombers were parked at Blagnac airfield, near Toulouse. This facility had been estab- lished as a primary repair centre for the He 177 in France. The operation began on 2 September 1944 and utilised a Lockheed Hudson and a pair of Beaufighter escorts to fly to France. Although the weather played havoe with the operation the Hudson at least reached its destination where the pilot, Roly Falk, selected a Heinkel for the trip back to the UK. The French mechanics did warn the pilot that the He 177 could be a handful to fly although upon arrival at Farnborough the pilot stated that he had experienced no par- ticular handling problems. Once the He 177, an A-5 version, had been post-flighted it was rolled into the hanger for maintenance and the application of RAF roundels instead of the French items origi- najly applied. It was also at this time that the serial TS439 was allocated. Test flying by aircrew from RAE revealed that the behav- iour of the aircraft was quite stable although the elevator was deemed far to sensitive which possibly accounted for some of the crashes in German service. Overall the final report stated that Heinkel and the various agencies had basically wasted much time and effort developing a bomber for which there was eventually no need and that in essence the flaws in the aircraft would have needed much work to eradicate. From a technical point of view the con- trols were seen as far to sensitive for an air- craft of such a size whilst the powerplants nd the general feel of the aircraft gave ch cause for concern. A certain amount praise was reserved for the cabin onomics and the weapons system how- =r even these items were found to suffer design flaws. In conclusion the test m commented that had the aircraft been a product of an Allied aircraft manufacturer it uld have been rejected as unfit for its HEINKEL He 177 WARPAINT purpose from the outset. Initial flight testing of the single complet- ed He 274 was eventually carried out from December 1945 at the airfield that the Farman organisation occupied near Paris. Redesignated AASOIA is was subsequently transferred to the airfield at Orleans-Bricy. Once the initial evaluation had been com- pleted the aircraft was used for testing the SO 4000 and NC 270 scale models before their being considered for production. After eight years in the flight test role the He 274 was eventually scrapped at Marseilles in 1953 Only one He 177 left Europe which was shipped to the United States for evaluation after which it entered storage at the USAAF facility at Oak Ridge, Illinois. MISTEL COMBINATION With Germany and its armed forces in tur- moil the resultant chaos meant that there were some 200 redundant He 177s standing around without crews, fuel or a role. It was therefore proposed that these out of work aircraft were used as the lower part of a Mistel guided bomb which had proved suc- The last flying test bed was the He 177 V38 KM+TB, which was used for testing FuG 216 and 200 radars (Grieh!) cessful with a Ju 88 as the lower component. Given approval by the RLM the pro- gramme was quickly put into development. The intended upper component was to be an Fw 190 which would be mounted in a simi- lar manner to that already tried successfully. Even before the first development flight had been undertaken a series of important targets for their use had already been identified within the bounds of the Soviet Union. A rush programme to reinstate those aircraft standing around various airfields to flying status was put into place. This was to be completed by December 1944 for use against several specified targets in an opera- tion that had to be flown in January 1945. Such an operation was obviously not fee ble as subsequent events throughout Europe were to prove as Germany struggled to maintain its borders. Thus the partially converted non-flown Mistel He 177s were ordered to be destroyed at their various airfields which effectively brought the programme to a close. Heinkel He 177 kits and accessories Scale Type Manufacturer Reference Remarks 1:72 Heinkel He 1774-5. Airfix AX05009 Complete kit 1:72 Heinkel He 177A-5. Revell RV4616 Complete kit 1:72 Heinkel He 177A, Czech Master CMK7060 Resin engine set 1:72 Heinkel He 1774, Czech Master CMK7061 Resin exterior parts 1:72 Heinkel He 177A Czech Master CMK7062 Resin undercarriage 4:72 Heinkel He 177 Eduard ED72357 Photo etched parts 1:72 Heinkel He 177A-3 Extra Tech EX72122 Photo etched parts 1:72 Heinkel He 177 Airwaves AEC72126 _ Interior detail set 4:72 Heinkel He 177A _—_Eagle Strike Decals ESP72040 Decals Part 1 1:72 Heinkel He 177A Eagle Strike Decals ESP72041 Decals Part 2 1:72 Heinkel He 177 Eduard EDXS094 Canopy and wheel paint masks 1:72 Heinkel He 177 Eduard EDXS538 _ National insignia paint masks 1:48 Heinkel He 177A-3. MPM MPMHMLOS Resin kitHeinkel He 177 V5 PM:OD the ith proteype in 19 Helnkal He 177A Fa-APOTHER TITLES IN THE WARPAINT SERIES Bristol Beaufonor £6.95, Biackbun Buccaneer £27.50, sinker J 87 Stic £750, F100 Sper ‘Sabre £7.80, Hawker Typhoon £7.50, Avo Shackleton £7.50, sunkors Wu 88 £7 50 Hawier Honor £1150, Grumman FA Marites £750, Vekors Wellngion £7 50, OH Sea Vnen 12750, Farey Swords £850, Fw 200 Condor £7.50, BAC Lightning £11.50, Shor Sting £7.50, Hahat Sea Fury €7-50, Gloster savein £9.50, Dougie Skyraco £880, DH Hore! and ‘Sea Homet £9.50, Supermarine Searo (fon engined variants £9.50, Ararong Whiwort \Wnitey £850, Glostar Metoor £1650. Fay Gamet £8.50, Domier Oo 217 £850. Shor ‘Sincertand £050. Brat! Blenheim £2.50, Hiitand Vampire £10.50, Frey rely £17.50, Hawker Sea Hawk £950, Avo Wulan £9.50, FRAFIFN Phantoms, A-20 Bosontavoc £9 50, Wiarpant Special Repubic P47 Trunderbot ‘Not a tes are curert in evocution, Const ‘rave advonsemants oF ho wad fr inst ratty ey Ubu a —_— eee ee RR ety Somme naa Sen er eee bo ee ee ee aa ee ae Sie lavas toned Mes cere a Son Ph ne A oe ae ato ea £8-50