Col. Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 Let me see if I have this right... The He277 is a twin fuselage version of the He177. So the He277Z is a twin version of the He277? Four fuselages? Yes. Double-decker don'tcha know No thanks to Col’s idea (that can be taken both ways!) there will probably be two versions built! Have been looking up some cool weapons for both beasts..... Hs-293D TV guided air to sea bomb, Hs-294 guided air to sea torpedo bomb (was actually tested in 1941) and the Hs-295 TV guided air to sea bomb. All part of the service Like the sound of these ideas so hope you do a few mock-ups for us to admire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Hmmmm there's a limit to the size of my bench........... Not if you do the navalized, folding wing version. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 With special "accordion" fuselage so it can fit on the lifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 With special "accordion" fuselage so it can fit on the lifts. That's just daft! Have a BIGGER aircraft carrier!! Trevor 'Winkle' Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOCKNEY Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Evening all I had the He277Z as a 9 engined 2 fuselaged beastie, with a forest of undercarriage legs and wheels, enough crew to fill a football ground and likely to need the length of Italy as a runway to take off, especially towing the Me325 glider ! Seriously Rich, anything you build will be great. ( I have to say that or he won't help me with my first resin build ! ) Cheers Pat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickyrich Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Not if you do the navalized, folding wing version. Trevor Too scared to think about that one!! Evening all I had the He277Z as a 9 engined 2 fuselaged beastie, with a forest of undercarriage legs and wheels, enough crew to fill a football ground and likely to need the length of Italy as a runway to take off, especially towing the Me325 glider ! Seriously Rich, anything you build will be great. ( I have to say that or he won't help me with my first resin build ! ) Cheers Pat Flattery gets you nowhere!!! Though you may regret my help and curse me the first time you glue your fingers together!!!! Just remember the nurses are there to help you! Brought my laptop to the plant today, so no real work will be done but I’ll start prototyping the two versions........this will be interesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperService Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Of course there is the option of the little known He277Z designed to tow the Me325 glider capable of carrying 3 King Tigers and a couple of Opel Blitzs repair / service trucks. That should fill up that bench of yours rather nicely Cheers Pat I think you're misreading the designations Jockney, not helped by the rather poor translation in the english edition of the Heinkel GmbH 'Official History of Flying Equipments Developed in the Course of Recent Hostilities' originally published 1949 in German. The He277Z consisted of one He277 mounted on top of the other so that from above the fuselages combined to look like only two fuselages. This is the reason for the 'forest of undercarriage legs and wheels' it also provided four points to take the Me325 towing rig. According to the same reference the navalized He177 was built in small numbers with folding wings but the He277 version was never completed, the aircraft was part-built when the project was abandoned and the airframe(s) completed as a standard He277. If you can find it the above reference is very good with factory GA drawings reproduced at small scale although the He177 and developments are not covered so well. Apparently one of these aircraft caught fire upon landing and veered into the building where the development team had stored the archive drawings, this suggests they are lost forever. Fortunately trickyrich is able to use the modern electronic brain to recreate renderings that are more than adequate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickyrich Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 ok have done a slightly better version of the Anti-shipping He-177Z-A6. I may as yet add a couple of Junkers Jumo 004's, these will be mounted on the inner side of the fuselage up near the nose. This is similar to the Ju-287, though at the moment I do like the very clean look at the moment. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickyrich Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I think you're misreading the designations Jockney, not helped by the rather poor translation in the english edition of the Heinkel GmbH 'Official History of Flying Equipments Developed in the Course of Recent Hostilities' originally published 1949 in German. The He277Z consisted of one He277 mounted on top of the other so that from above the fuselages combined to look like only two fuselages. This is the reason for the 'forest of undercarriage legs and wheels' it also provided four points to take the Me325 towing rig. According to the same reference the navalized He177 was built in small numbers with folding wings but the He277 version was never completed, the aircraft was part-built when the project was abandoned and the airframe(s) completed as a standard He277. If you can find it the above reference is very good with factory GA drawings reproduced at small scale although the He177 and developments are not covered so well. Apparently one of these aircraft caught fire upon landing and veered into the building where the development team had stored the archive drawings, this suggests they are lost forever. Fortunately trickyrich is able to use the modern electronic brain to recreate renderings that are more than adequate. I actually had thought about a seaplane version, this was the rarely seen He-177E6, the twin boom floats each containing three LT IIC F5w "Geier III" Active Homing Torpedoes. This version also had the extra Jumo 004 jets, though these were mounted on the wings like the He-377Z "Amerika" Bomber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Don't omit from consideration the biplane STOL variant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 7, 2013 Author Share Posted November 7, 2013 The He-177Z-A6 looks stunning Rich. As for the Jumo mounts - how about a central undercarriage unit behind the middle engine with the jet engines below the inner wings roots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Ok, ok. You've won me over with all the whiffery magic. Please put me down as on board for the group build as well. You can expect a certain american WW2 'P' designation converted to 'A', an attack role. I don't dare discuss further as the Japanese may be reading... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Ground attack P-38, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 You are definitely on the right track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 You forgot the one-off K10 that toted a couple of captured Grand Slams to bomb Harry Ramsden's Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 With all the talk of Zwillings in this thread, I thought that it would be interesting to think about similar designs on the Allied side. The first thing I thought about was a Mustang. That would look pretty good! Then I went 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vppelt68 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 A really brave man person could try to double (=triple? quadruple?) an already twin boom plane like the Lightning or FW 189. Or do one of them a biplane, perhaps? Anyway, not my ballgame. V-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerbannog Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Or a bi-plane zwilling? Gotha-Twin or Starken-Twin maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 A really brave man person could try to double (=triple? quadruple?) an already twin boom plane like the Lightning or FW 189. Or do one of them a biplane, perhaps? Anyway, not my ballgame. V-P You we're correct about the man portion of your post, however where you failed was the brave part! Alternatively, what about the concept of righting the wrong aircraft out there? Some Blohm and Voss asymmetry is in dire need of straightening out! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Alternatively, what about the concept of righting the wrong aircraft out there? Some Blohm and Voss asymmetry is in dire need of straightening out! How about a BV-141 with the engine and fuselage to starboard and the cockpit to port? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Now that's the spirit Enz ... wait ... nevermind. I guess your write up could read: ...it was made for the lefties out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Now that's the spirit Enz ... wait ... nevermind. I guess your write up could read: ...it was made for the lefties out there. The BV-141 has always puzzled me. The design was supposed to improve the view of the crew. That's fine... as long as what they are looking at is ahead, behind or to starboard. But what if the enemy decides to sneak up on them from the port side? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 The BV-141 has always puzzled me. The design was supposed to improve the view of the crew. That's fine... as long as what they are looking at is ahead, behind or to starboard. But what if the enemy decides to sneak up on them from the port side? The BV142's would look out the other way! Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 The BV142's would look out the other way! So they would have two aircraft on a mission, like the Grumman AF-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 8, 2013 Author Share Posted November 8, 2013 The BV-141 has always puzzled me. The design was supposed to improve the view of the crew. That's fine... as long as what they are looking at is ahead, behind or to starboard. But what if the enemy decides to sneak up on them from the port side? Was going to say a twin engine/boom layout with the crew pod in the centre may work but then it becomes a Focke Wulf 189 or whatever thar one was called. So how about taking the engine off and putting the crew compartment on in its place with an elevated position to improve the view then a couple Jumo 004s under the wing and a more conventional tail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts