He111 early H and P engine cowling variations

[Merlin]

Hi,

With the ICM 1/48  He111 H-3 out it sees me studying the cowling differences of early H and P model He111s, partly because it has omitted the front fairings on the upper external cowl. (also the nose glazing wide metal 'collar' clearly visible in all the following photos but I mention this in the review thread).

What do you guys know of the differences in He111 engine cowlings. I have a Czech (?)book I cannot get to right now, with drawings of the variations in the plans section at rear, but with the advent of the ICM 1/48 He111 H3 I am looking at their take on the cowling, looking at pics on the internet, and the different exhaust stacks and trough shapes as well as the two varieties of intake up on top. Did the H-3 cowl vary at all ?

I see two types of air intake atop cowling, and two types of cowling design just aft spinner.

 

Internal  type where the air vent is going under the cowling top and external type where a raised coaming is used. This has curved fairings at its fwd edge, if there are variations on these I cannot find such ater a quick look on the WWW tonight, though Revell seems to think they went all the way to the spinner backplate with their H1 1/48.

 

Do the differing intakes correlate to Jumo or DB601 inside, I dont think so as I found H models with both (H being Jumo211) , and the P series is Daimler Benz.

Here are some pics to ponder over:-

http://www.picturesheffield.com/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;u01192&pos=1&action=zoom&id=36548

h-5 Norway hiilside

https://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/lagodal.html  (may have to copy paste this link to address window )

 

H-2 with internal type (note the internal stiffeners on the raised top cowling)   https://imgur.com/gallery/q4KeY

 

External type

https://stukablr.tumblr.com/image/114167422380

 

H-3 external  http://www.aircrewremembrancesociety.co.uk/styled-15/styled-17/styled-261/index.html

 

http://www.hambledonsurrey.co.uk/?page_id=511

scroll down external type

 

H-1 external, note the exhaust troughs, pic below has front panel line an inch or so aft of cowl front, then in P-1 pic and 2nd pic after that its more like 6 inches.

 

 

 

P-1   (NO+GO)  external

 

 

H-6 external

 

 

note the different exhaust system

 

Sub types I mention are taken from the articles of image names for these pics., they might be wrong.

 

Can one tell by looking at a cowling if its a H1 H3 H6 or P1 ?

 

Merlin

 

 

[Chuck1945]

2 hours ago, Merlin said:

 

Can one tell by looking at a cowling if its a H1 H3 H6 or P1 ?

 

Merlin

 

 

You can definitely tell the P series from the H series by the cowl. The P series was powered by DB engine (like the Bf 109E) with the carb intake on the left side, just as the 109s have them. The H series used a Jumo engine with the intake on the right side like the Fw 190D.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Chuck1945

[Graham Boak]

The final example of the exhausts is a flame-damping variant for night operation.  As far as I can see from these photos the exhaust trough is the same in all examples, but the exhausts themselves vary.  There's a possible implication that those on the Jumo are slightly further back than those of the DB, but the other variations may be hiding this.

 

The raising of the top radiator (presumably an oil cooler?) will have increased the ability to cool, suggesting that either the initial variant was deficient in that respect, or a more powerful engine was fitted requiring greater cooling.  The latter would suggest its appearance on the H-6: earlier examples may imply that this modification was placed in production before the H-6 was ready (delayed?), or that the original design was deficient.  I'd have thought the former less likely, given its appearance on the P which would well predate the H-6.

 

The change I find still ambiguous is whether the H-3 had the front gun in the gondola or not.  In some case certainly not, but in all?  Sources differ.

 

You should always be able to tell an H-6 by the wider prop, if you can see this detail on the cowl.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Graham Boak
Sorry, I was in a rush to go out and inadvertently reversed my true opinion on the timing of the higher intake.

[tempestfan]

There was a good series of articles by Heinz Mankau in German modell magazin in 1978 or 9, I think, who tried to establish the criteria for subtypes from manuals, pics and whatever was available then. No idea if his work has stood the test of time, but a newer book doesn’t imply original research necessarily. For example the drawings for the A-20 in the Monografie Lotnicze book are clearly „inspired“ by Alcorn/Bentley, and if this is the series your He drawing comes from, the He booklet is one of the oldest.

 If the Mankau articles are of interest I could have a look for the relevant box.

[Kaldrack]

I would be inclined to take Heinz Mankau's research as being pretty solid. If you could post the relevant issue numbers for the “Modell Magazin” articles it would be appreciated.

 

 

[tempestfan]

Yes, certainly with was available to him; pity he didn't turn his research into something more substantial, as I don't think we have a definitive (if there can be) work on the 111so far. I'll have a look.

[Graham Boak]

I don't have the Classic book on this aircraft, but what are its shortcomings?  Other than being (of course) not fat enough.

 

I do have the three volumes on the subject from Airdoc, of which number 7 is the relevant one.  For those not familiar with the series, there is comparatively little text but a lot of very clear photographs.  From these, and bearing in mind that captions may not be correct, I suggest the following

 

P prototype and H-1, early H-2(?): the intake is a recess in the general lines of the top cowling

early P and later H-2, possibly H-3?: the intake is a shallow rise above the cowling

H-3(?) onwards, later P: the very obviously raised intake, considerably larger than the one above.

 

There are quite clearly three different intakes.  For the H, I suggest that these could be linked to the Jumo 211A, the 211D and the 211F engines.  For the P, the matter is clouded by Griehl's comment that the P-4 had the Jumo 211D, whereas the DB601 is the engine for the P series.  The P-1 had the DB601Aa, whereas the P-2 had the DB601A-1 - which may acount for at least one of the changes.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Graham Boak
Remembered book after initial posting.

[tempestfan]

Hmmm, good you mention it...it's on my "to look into" pile. Main shortcoming I can think of at the mo is that it arrived with a big slit in its sleeve, which I didn't expect from a new book...maybe that biased me

[Merlin]

Hi,

good initial pointer P port H stbd intakes :-)

as Kaldrack asks...

I would be inclined to take Heinz Mankau's research as being pretty solid. If you could post the relevant issue numbers for the “Modell Magazin” articles it would be appreciated.

 

This would be brilliant to see, though without the magazines we would still be pondering, can the articles be posted or viewed somehow ?

 

I have found the book I was thinking of, what are the rules regarding posting a scan of the relevant parts from the plans ? For the moment I will describe as best I can.

 

It is Heinkel He111 Aircraft Monograph 2 Robert Michulec AJ Press 1994 Poland ISBN 83-86208-12-0

 

page 38 has 5 view drawings (plans) of each cowling (port one) for DB601A, Jumo 211A-1, Jumo211A-3, D and F

DB601 shows the larger of the two external coamings with adjustable rear flap, Jumo 211 A-1 is the 'internal' variety,  Jumo211 A-3 the smaller of the two externals with no rear flap.

DB601 has the 170mm deep front cowl section, Jumos the 60mm deep variety. (done without mag glass quickly)

DB601 a circular intake port side, Jumo211 A-1 a shallow arc of an intake, other Jumo a 'three quarter' circle.

Some smaller surface detail differenes in access panel ad minor vents also evident.

 

Page 37 has 7 different exhaust collectors,

H-23,

one of the most widely used type E/F-4/early H version,

very early type(very rare He111E)

night version Late He111H

mainly He111P

He111H middle versions

another type night late He111H

 

I will scan and post here pending feedback  on rules.

 

What Jumo would a H-3 have ? Warthunder site says 211 D.

 

Regards

 

Merlin

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Merlin

[tempestfan]

46 minutes ago, Merlin said:

 

I would be inclined to take Heinz Mankau's research as being pretty solid. If you could post the relevant issue numbers for the “Modell Magazin” articles it would be appreciated.

 

This would be brilliant to see, though without the magazines we would still be pondering, can the articles be posted or viewed somehow ?

 

I have found the book I was thinking of, what are the rules regarding posting a scan of the relevant parts from the plans ? For the moment I will describe as best I can.

 

It is Heinkel He111 Aircraft Monograph 2 Robert Michulec AJ Press 1994 Poland ISBN 83-86208-12-0

I'll have a look for them. I was wondering too abut the (C) aspects of posting scans/pics of the articles - it happens regularly, but other fora have been threatened by legal action from authors in similar cases. No idea if the publishing house stil exists/has a successor - Mr Mankau may be a member of the Brunswick model club as he lives in the area, I coud try and find a contact there in hope he relays me to Mr Mankau.

 

BTW, of course the articles are in German, and while containing drawings, quite word-heavy.

That's the English version of Monografie Lotnicze; I have it, too, and quite possibly it was reprinted by Flugzeug in a German edition.

 

Found the mm's, or rather single mm, as I do not seem to have 11/78 which contains part 2. Pt. 1 covers P and H up to H-10. Did a quick re-browse, and he certainly did a lot of cross-referencing to contemporary literature. His conclusions are neatly explained. Yes, I guess still a valuable asset.

Edited April 4, 2018 by tempestfan
Adding the reference for the mags

[Graham Boak]

Airdoc 7 has several photos of the H with the smaller raised intake, mainly captioned as H-4, and several of P with the larger intake, captioned as P-1, P-2 or P-4.  In one case we have the identity 1726 captioned as a P-2.  So it doesn't seem to be quite as simple as Michulec appears to suggest.

 

The H-3 should have Jumo 211D, yes.

 

I don't understand the comments about 60mm and 170mm "front cowl section."  Just what is being referred to?

[tempestfan]

5 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Airdoc 7 has several photos of the H with the smaller raised intake, mainly captioned as H-4, and several of P with the larger intake, captioned as P-1, P-2 or P-4.  In one case we have the identity 1726 captioned as a P-2.  So it doesn't seem to be quite as simple as Michulec appears to suggest.

I don't understand the comments about 60mm and 170mm "front cowl section."  Just what is being referred to?

Merlin refers to the "ring" right behind the spinner, which seems deeper/longer on P's. Mankau's drawings do not dfferentiate in this respect.

 

Brief summary what he says :

- P general: relatively large oil cooler above engine with a flap at the rear, three small blisters/fairings in 3/6/9 o'clock position in front of radiator (nicely seen above)

- P-0/1: DB601Aa, straight downwards-leading exhausts

- P-2: "ejector" exhausts

- P-3: dual control trainer of P-2

- P-4: 1 or 2 exterior PVC1006L

- P-6: 601N, fully enclosable B-Stand with increased frontal armour, gondola with 2 MG's

- H-0/1: Identical, 211A-1, short charger intake, relatively flat oil cooler above engine, exhaust collectors

- H-2: 211A-3, no other differences known; probably all built with 3 MGs

- H-3: 211D, reference to The Aeroplane Oct 11, 1940 with report on WkNr 6353, longer compressor intake, longer, possibly slightly higher oil cooler (his drawing of the H-1 shows an indented "half moon" in front of the intake, whereas for the -3 this area is flat; general shape of -3 is narrower at the rear, while -1 is slightly narrower at the front); initially 3 MG's only

- H-4: 211D, otherwise as P-4

- H-5: B-Stand as P-6, modified gondola without Linsenlafette and enhanced front glazing, individual exhausts

- H-6: 211F-1, increased prop chord, larger spinner, flame dampening (?) individual exhausts; part of the range with new, shorter A-Stand for MG FF; he says this A-Stand remained the same throughout the rest of the H's, but I seem to recall seeing some pics, possibly in the otherwise unimpressive Vom Original zum Modell/Black Cross booklet suggesting there was a third type of A-Stand 

 

[Merlin]

Quote

I don't understand the comments about 60mm and 170mm "front cowl section."  Just what is being referred to?

there is a panel line running around the entire cowling just aft of the spinner, denoting a curved fwd cowl section that remains in situ when cowls removed, on some this is quite close to the spinner ,on others much further back, measuring quickly the Michulec plans I calculated those two values as fore/aft distance (not taken on the curve but on datum)

 

Merlin

[Nick Nichols]

On 04.04.2018 at 2:40 AM, Merlin said:

h-5 Norway hiilside

https://ktsorens.tihlde.org/flyvrak/lagodal.html  (may have to copy paste this link to address window )

From Loss List of Book "La Kampfgeschwader 100. L'Escadre au Drakkar (1938-1944)":

 

He 111 H-2 (6N+CK, WNr 5452). 2./K.Gr. 100. Abattu par de la DC Aà Lagodal (N). 100 %. Fw Kurt Ebert (P) et Gefr Otto Mâdl tués;Uffz. Georg Ring et Uffz Wilhelm Korte blessés et PG.

[Graham Boak]

Thanks re nose ring - OK, fore-and-aft.  I agree now,  I was confused by thinking in the vertical.  I'm moderately convincing myself that the DB cowling underside runs straight (level) forward before curling up to the nose, whereas the P cowling has a slight bulge downwards in profile.  Yet another subtle difference?  Or just staring too long at photographs?

[tempestfan]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Thanks re nose ring - OK, fore-and-aft.  I agree now,  I was confused by thinking in the vertical.  I'm moderately convincing myself that the DB cowling underside runs straight (level) forward before curling up to the nose, whereas the P cowling has a slight bulge downwards in profile.  Yet another subtle difference?  Or just staring too long at photographs?

H ? The first pic indeed hints at that, but it may be influenced by the angle. Mankau draws the H straight and horizontal, with the P straight and with slight upward slope.

[Graham Boak]

No, if it is anywhere at all, then it is definitely P rather than H.  It's perhaps easier seen by looking at the more distant engine, so you can see the outline rather than the eye being drawn to the detail.  I hadn't looked at the photos in the thread but at the greater number in the Airdoc.

[tempestfan]

I asked because you contrasted DB cowling with P, if I didn’t misread you.

[Graham Boak]

OK, earlier post corrected.  I think that the P cowling has a slight bulge underneath.

[Merlin]

Hi,

I have scans now of my plans I refer to of the three cowling variants in Michulec's book, whats the situation regards posting them here though ?

 

Merlin

[Graham Boak]

Well, you could ask the moderators for advice, but they appear to rule on such matters with a very light hand!   Not being a moderator, I'm very reluctant to advise anyone to break copyright.  As modellers and enthusiasts we are dependent upon the work done by these specialist writers and publishers, and to take away what could otherwise be their income is not only wrong morally but in the long run self-defeating for the hobby.  However, it seems that legally there is an opening, in that excerpts can be re-published for the purpose of review or illustration.  There is some value, of course, in being advertising for the source.  So you, as others, may take advantage of this providing that full credit is given to the source.

 

Some publishers do include statements that any republishing of their material is not permitted - generally you do not see their material republished. There are people who take no notice of any copyright restrictions and just post what they like, but I haven't heard of anyone being taken to court over such an act.   As the majority of such cases do involve books that are out of print, in some cases long out of print, it is understandable and it would be difficult for publishers to prove direct losses as a result.

 

It would be nice to believe that every photo I see and enjoy on the internet was totally legal, but I live happily enough with the reality.  There is after all no doubt about the immediate value to the enthusiast.

 

If you have qualms, look inside the publication for any specific restriction on republishing, and if you find some, don't post.  Is the book long out of print,  and no longer available in current catalogues?  If so then I'd say you were free to post, providing you give credit.  For something in between these extremes, it's your moral decision. 

[Kaldrack]

As long as the images are accompanied by an accurate source including the book title, author, publisher and or illustration artists name then they should fall under the “fair play”, “fair usage” copyright laws for education and research purposes.

 

If the book is out of print you are well covered by the above...

Edited April 6, 2018 by Kaldrack

[Merlin]

Hi,

p2 of book says, All rights reserved, No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying recording or any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from copyright owner.

 

it is A.J Press 1994, Poland.

 

there is a tel number Books International for the English Edition which this is.

 

It is out of print. but does one need to make that call ? If I accompany the scan with source etc details, good advertisement, given the screed, which is often normally found in a book, is that wording the final say...disallowed ?

 

Merlin

[Kaldrack]

“Fair dealing

Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

 

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

 

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

1. Does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair.
2. Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used.

The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.”

 

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#fair-dealing

 

If all aviation research related forums took the stance which publishers state in their copyright clauses, 99.9% of the images and text posted directly or linked to on forums would infinge copyright law. It would make aviation or any type of research on forums or any other medium virtually impossible seeing as in most part you require visual references from which to discuss. A limited amount of images or text copied and posted for direct research purposes is covered by the above “fair dealing” section of UK copyright law.

 

Of course the publishers will state that nothing can be reproduced. This is why the “fair dealing” exceptions exist. So as not to stifle research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting.

 

In this particular case both 1. and 2. above are covered because a.) the book is out of print so the publisher will not lose any revenue due to posted material and b.) the posting of excerpts of a drawing would not be deemed as unreasonable and would be deemed fair by any right minded person.