Flying Failures - Heinkel He 177 Greif

[@charlesmoss8119]

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]

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]

The test pilot Alex Henshaw rolled one though!

[@PeterKreft]

I had a game store in the 90ies and once an elderly gentleman came in and wanted to buy a joystick. Of course I was intrigued and asked him what he wanted to use it for. He told me that he had been the pilot of the FW-44 Stieglitz owned by our local aeroclub but had given up his flying license on his 70th birthday because he did not want to endanger anyone. While he was really fit for a 70 year old man he feared to lose his consciousness while doing aerobatics and killing his passenger or innocent bystanders, so he had decided to switch to MS Flight, because it had a Stieglitz as a fan addon. We became friends and I often visited him at his home. He had been navigator on a Ju-88 in Russia, and while he had been trained as a pilot he didn’t pass the exam for some reason. But he was very much in demand among aircrews because he COULD fly the plane, and since the Ju-88 had no co-pilot he was the only other person capable of flying the plane, and if the pilot was injured he was the only person who could bring plane and crew home, safe. Later in the war he flew the He-177 from France in reconnaissance for the german U-Boats. He greatly admired that plane, and while it had huge problems with the overheating of the tandem engines, it handled like a fighter. When we met the last time he told me about his most traumatic experience in the war. To better understand this, you have to know that Luftwaffe crews in Russia lived under very cramped conditions and two crews had to share one room. On that day they flew a dive bombing mission on a heavily defended ground target and while in the dive their sister plane was hit by russian flak and they just disappeared. Where there had been a plane a millisecond before there was only a dark, expanding cloud, the flak ammo must have hit the bomb load. But the worst was the moment when they returned to their room after the bombing run, and the remnants of their friends, boots still damp from the day before, where there and they knew that they would never again return. But he also had some funny stories to tell. After the war most of the surviving german pilots knew one another quite well and one of his friends was Erich “Bubi” Hartmann, then a Colonel of Fighters. In the early 60ies he was based in Cologne, only 80 km from my hometown. Hartmann, beyond his exploits in WW2, was known as being not too much concerned about rules and regulations. So, when the new football stadium was inaugurated in my town, he asked Hartmann if he could come to attend the grand opening. Well, Hartmann did in fact come. He took his F-86D Sabredog and made a NOE approach directly over the stadium kicked in Afterburner and then looped over the city. One of the reasons he never made General.

[@steveball2307]

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

[@keefymckeefface8330]

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

[@Sacto1654]

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]

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

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

@@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]

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]

Another excellent documentary. Thanks.

[@tsegulin]

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]

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]

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]

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

[@nightw4tchman]

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

[@onenote6619]

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]

"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 KZbin, 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]

@@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]

@@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]

@@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]

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

[@sirrliv]

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]

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]

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]

@@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

[@infantryattacks]

The He-177 had the lowest loss rate of all Luftwaffe bombers during Operation Steinbock, the last sustained bombing campaign by fixed-wing aircraft against Great Britain. KG 1 used the He-177 on the Eastern Front in 1944 and experienced few mechanical problems. It conducted successful bombing raids with few losses from antiaircraft fire or fighter interception. He-177s spearheaded the night raid against the airfield complex at Poltava that destroyed over 40 B-17s and about 15 P-51s on the ground. The problems associated with the aircraft stem from the fact that Goering cancelled the heavy bomber program in the late 1930s to concentrate instead on medium bomber production. Once the Germans recognized that WW 2 wasn't going to result in a rapid victory, Goering placed the production of a four-engine bomber back on the menu, but by then precious time had been lost. The He-177 was rushed into combat at Stalingrad where it was misused as a transport aircraft and suffered heavy losses due to persistent engine issues and rough airfield conditions, especially within the pocket of Stalingrad. In essence, this aircraft was still in the developmental stage when it was committed to combat operations. Deficiencies noted in combat required modifications and slowed everything down. Once the primary issues were dealt with, and the ridiculous order to use this aircraft as a dive bomber was rescinded, the situation Germany faced no longer supported four-engine bomber operations simply because there was insufficient fuel to conduct all Luftwaffe operations, especially heavy bomber operations. A version with four-separate engines was developed, but it encountered severe stability issues and forced a major redesign of the aircraft. By the time this version's bugs were resolved, only eight production versions were completed before all heavy bomber production was cancelled in July 1944 in favor of the Emergency Fighter Program. In short, Germany was a resource-poor country. It lacked nonferrous metal deposits and had insufficient fuel to conduct a successful world war. Any German attempt to rush a four-engine bomber into production DURING A WORLD WAR was doomed to fail simply because of insufficient resources and time constraints.

[@scofab]

Fascinating as always, thank you.

[@natehill8069]

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.

[@atomdent]

Thanks, entertaining, as always. Well done!

[@macjim]

Educational and information

[@LadySophieofHougunManor7325]

Awesome video informative as always ❤❤❤❤❤

[@aluminati9918]

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.

[@CaymanIslandsCatWalks]

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

[@PreservationEnthusiast]

It should have been calked the Heinkel Grief!

[@sablatnic8030]

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

[@danmcdonald9117]

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

[@BobAbc0815]

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)

[@monkeyeagle1921]

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

[@thomasmcalear8673]

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

[@casinodelonge]

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

[@Ka9radio_Mobile9]

Ill fly the next prototype! Ya, right!

[@ctid107]

Any chance you could include metric units also? Thanks

[@FitzArias]

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

[@RichardCorongiu]

At least it had the right name

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Still mo metric Ruairidh?

[@jamesthompson215]

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

[@quattro4s]

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!

[@atatexan]

Good Greif what a terrible mess

[@kineticdeath]

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

[@Sturmisch]

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

[@cpt_bill366]

Grief would have been a better name

[@thomasfrancis5747]

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]

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.

[@paulschumacher1263]

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

[@andrewreynolds4949]

So much for German engineering

[@natehill8069]

SO, the JSF of its day.

[@benstaubyn]

Metric would be Magnifique.

[@willwilliamsabc]

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

[@duncancurtis5108]

We had an Airfix model with crew minus arms and legs cos we couldn't be arsed to complete German aircrews😅

[@michaelwallbrown3726]

typical German over design of an aircraft/tank/anything

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

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]

Illustrative footage m8, no deception there.

[@daystatesniper01]

Brilliant video but basicalltyit was a pile of crap

[@geoff1201]

Please - aitch not haitch .