Heinkel carrier borne aircraft project

[Wurger]

Hi,

after finally crossing my sources I present you guys a Heinkel project to embark in the "Graf Zeppelin" aircraft carrier. The well-known sesquiplane He114 was subject to an advanced design featuring retractable wheels (I don`t know about the tail one) and a bigger (full span?) lower wing, equiped with (sources diverge here) either a liquid cooled DB601A or a BMW133 radial engine. It was envisaged as a multipurpose airplane. I am waiting for your input ! And there`s more...

 

[Wurger]

No reactions??

This project`s dimensions: lenght 12m; 4,7m high; span 13,6m; span with wings folded 6m; weight 4000kg.

It seems that it actually came to hardware form, and even flown. The RLM was discontent with it because it didn`t fulfill the desired maximum take-off distance, as well as having a limited pilot`s field of view. It was pursued, howhever, in case the Ar195 and Fi167 came to nothing.

This info comes from M.J.Whitley`s "Deutsche Grosskampschiffe", Motorbuch Verlag, an excellent reference to me .

 

[Grey Havoc]

Was it intended as a combination scout and torpedo bomber? And why did it get approval for development in the first place when the original He114 was lacklustre, at best?

 

[Hardrada55]

Drawings?....or better yet, a picture.

 

[Wurger]

A reconnaissance aircraft, as well as a torpedo bomber, like the Ar195 and Fi167. No drawings, I am afraid!

 

[hesham]

May be,it was this;


He 114C-2 Unarmed shipborne (Kriegsmarine commerce raider) version. Four built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_114

 

[Apophenia]

The four He 114C-2s built in 1939 were identical to the sequiplane He 114A-2 model other than being unarmed.

German Aircraft of the Second World War, AL. Kay, JR Smith, EJ Creek, 1972, pg.141

 

[Wurger]

It is not the same, please mind that it had retractable wheels and other non similar features. Read the first posts.

 

[Jemiba]

Haven't found anything about such a development of the He 114 so far, nevertheless, I would not rule
out it completely, although I'm a little bit sceptical about the source, keeping in mind the nonsense, I've
already read from (acknowledged !) aviation authors about naval themes. So, maybe, it wasn't just
M.J. Whitleys cup of tea ?
But the He 114 in general is an interesting theme. The closest to the new version may have been B-2 version,
which is said to have been delivered to Romania, some aircraft allegedly fitted with a DB 600 engine. Unfortuantely
I couldn't find photos of those service type aircraft with inline engines, only drawings of the V-2.
Some problems, I have with that carrier version: Why a retractable landing gear was incorporated, I'm not sure,
Arado and Fieseler still used a fixed one and take-off performance probably wouldn't have been increased, due to
higher weight. Not sure, that changing from sesqui-plane to biplane configuration always isn't that easy, but maybe
it was just an attemot to increase wing area without increasing span (important for carrier use). AFAIK, the two
contenders for the carrier borne recce/torpedo bomber were regarded as backup against each other and the specification
was given to Arado and Fieseler only, priority was low, as the "Graf Zeppelin" wasn't expected to enter service soon,
but maybe Heinkel got to know and answered with an unsolicited proposal ?
The He 114 wasn't intended to carry offensive weapons (contrary to the Ar 195, developed from the Ar 95) and crew
position was obviously quite unsuitable for carrier use, as there already were complaints for "standard" use. So changing
it would have meant really a major re-design, probably without much left of the original, for a different role. So I don't think,
that the "He 114" would have been kept by the RLM (Remember, it was the the "Ar 195", too, not, say, the "Ar 95T") and
honestly I have only slim hopes, that it ever reached the prototype stage, as from that era, I'm pretty confident, that we
haven't lost knowledge about any actually built type completely.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to reject the possibility of that type completely, I'm just applying Occam's razor.

 

[Wurger]

After my first post I had the chance to buy the book "Ernst Heinkel Flugzeugwerke 1933-1945", by Volker Koos. He`s just the authority in Heinkel history, as you may know. In the section devoted to the He 114 he wrote:

"...Anschliessend sollte aus der He 114 V-2 der prototyp eines Trägerflugzeugs He 114 V-4 entstehen. Dafür wären der rumpf mit oberflügel der ursprüngglichen maschine mit einem neuen unterflügel, mit einziehfahrgestell und spornrad sowie jetzt dem motor BMW 133 zu versehen gewesen. Diese absicht wurde aber im April 1936 fallen gelassen".

From what I could translate, a prototype should be built from the He 114 V-2, a carrier-borne He 114 V-4, keeping the upper wing but with a new lower one, with retractable landing gear and a tail wheel, powered by a BMW 133 ( much like a Fafnir 132H, development cancelled ). The project was dropped in April 1936.

It makes two well-known and respected sources (Whitley and Koos) on the subject. It`s pretty obvious it existed.

 

[Jemiba]

Well, I agree . Recently I had the mentioned book by Volker Koos here from the library, but honestly
didn't read it completely.
Nevertheless, that the project already was dropped in 1936 sounds a little bit strange, when it really
was a contender to the Ar 195/Fi 167, as the development of those types didn't start before 1937/38.

 

[Apophenia]

It is not the same, please mind that it had retractable wheels and other non similar features. Read the first posts.

Understood. My reply was to counter Hesham's suggestion that your shipboard biplane plane and the sesquiplane He 114C-2 might be the same.

 

[Wurger]

Nevertheless, that the project already was dropped in 1936 sounds a little bit strange, when it really
was a contender to the Ar 195/Fi 167, as the development of those types didn't start before 1937/38.

It is a bit strange. Whitley refers to a RLM meeting tracing the requirements for carrier borne aircraft held in July 1936. The development of the "Träger-Mehrzweckeflugzeug", multi-purpose carrier aircraft category was awarded around that date or even before because in September mockups of the Ar 195 and the Fi 167 were ready. Another puzzling question is that Whitley states that the Heinkel proposal would use a DB 601A engine. He adds other interesting features: it was rejected not only because it had low pilot visibility but also it had not the necessary take-off distance.
The author concludes with:
"Angesichts der auftragsüberlastung bei dieser firma entschied das RLM, das Heinkel-projekt sollte nur weitergeführt werden, wenn die beiden anderen nicht den erwartungen entsprachen".
Due to Heinkel`s overbooked project agenda, this highly modified carrier-borne He 114 should only be continued as a backup if the other contenders (Arado Ar195 and Fieseler Fi167) didn`t come up to expectations.
I have contacted Herr Koos on the subject. I`ll let you know if there is an answer.

 

[Wurger]

Herr Koos answered my question. Here it is, as promised.

unfortunately I have no more informations about the version of the He 114 planned for some period for the aircraft carrier. So I never have seen a drawing of this project or have informations about the project (P) -number, if there was another than the P 1022 designation for the Heinkel Borderkunder-Projekt as a follower of the He 60. The few informations about this project I know are from the Flugzeug-Entwicklungsprogramme (FEP) of the RLM. The FEP from 8 July 1935 states that a Borderkunder Ersatz He 60 projected by Heinkel should be flight-ready at 1 March 1936. The FEP (1 November 1935) notes for the first time a He 114 Borderkunder Trägerflugzeug He 114 V 4 (BMW 133). The caption for this read: V 4 bestehend aus V 2 (Rumpf, Oberflügel), siehe Bemerkung V 2. And the Bemerkung V 2 reads as follows: Mit BMW 133 - besonderer Unterflügel mit einziehbarem Fahrgestell und Spornrolle. The He 114 V2 was said to be a Borderkunder (Doppelschwimmer) with Jumo 10 + BMW 133.The FEP (1 January 1936) still shows the same planning and notes for the He 114 V 2 and the to rebuild He 114 V 4. The FEP (1 April 1936) shows, that the He 114 V2 was already flown and tested at the Erprobungsstelle, but for the He 114 V 4 is given the same planned rebuilding, but it is said: vorläufig zurückgestellt, i.e. the work was stopped on this version. In the following FEP (1 July 1936) the Trägervariante of the He 114 is no longer to find and also the He 114 V 4 is no longer mentioned.I do not know the official reason for this decision and cannot comment the reason Whitley give in his book. Most of my material of the German Navy is still on film or on CDs, but not easily readable on paper for me. There are hundreds of digitalised pages but I am not able to bring this into some order to use it, because of other dutys.Es tut mir leid, nicht mehr helfen zu können.

 

[Jemiba]

For a short moment I had the idea, that this He 114 derivative could have had been the same
as this one http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18568.0.html
(open, slightly relocated cockpit for better visibility and maybe a fixed landing gear in the earlier
design stages), but a quick checked revealed, that there's really too less conformity ... :
So, I tried to make a quick sketch, using a DB 601 with a radiator below the engine and the landing
gear from the He 70, which was retracting outwards and in modified form should even fit to the short
lower wing. Didn't change the cockpit so far in the way it was done with the Ar 195 compared to the
Ar 95, but ground clearance could have been sufficient for carrying a torpedo.

(Drawings from http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft26208.htm, http://www.the-blueprints.com/vectordrawings/show/5458/heinkel_he_70_blitz/
and http://sites.google.com/site/europazentral/Luftwaffe/fighters were spoiled for this sketch)

 

[Wurger]

Excellent draft, Jens. I would change the He70 landing for the one in the He118V1.

 

[Jemiba]

Excellent draft, Jens.

Not at all ! I did it during my lunch break, but I still cannot use Corel here !

I would change the He70 landing for the one in the He118V1.

Could be a good idea !
(He 118 drawing used from http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/he-118.php )

 

[Jemiba]

And if Heinkel would have followed the pass shown by Arado and attended to
the problem of the not too good view from the cockpit...

 

[Wurger]

Groovy B) !

 

[hesham]

From Jet & Prop 1/2008,


here is the Heinkel He.50G project,intended to use on Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier.

 

[Wurger]

Just found another reference to the Heinkel carrier borne aircraft, dated 1st June 1936, i.e., after the already mentioned April FEP. It is "Verzeichnis der Deutschen Militärflugzeug nach dem Entwicklungsstande vom 1.6.1036", and there it is, a "Heinkel Project for a "Trägerflugzeug". The Heinkel He114 is mentioned, so they were considered distinct. The Heinkel tender for the "Borderkunder"aircraft, later won by the Ar196, is also present.