What if

Hi folks,

Standard drill - place for He-177 and derivatives (i.e He-277, He-274) whiffs.  To kick off here's one I'm toying with - a post war, unarmed He-277 Maritime Patrol aircraft:

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FHe277MP.gif&hash=60169c9940e28ca1c6268ec1d7dbff249152ea69)

What other ideas do you have?

Regards,

Greg

Looks good  :thumbsup:

neat ! -- French colours ?

I just love the He-177 anti-tank / ground-strafer they DID build -- what about an anti-formation gunship to break up all those B-17s ?

Raafif there was an anti-bomber He-177 proposed with a battery of rockets in the fuselage.  Greg did put the art up a while ago.

Regards,

Mav

Sweet :thumbsup: how about an Air Sea Rescue Version? that work for you? Dan

I like it Greg  :o
Look forward to where this might go  :thumbsup:

M.A.D

 :bow: :bow: :bow:


More!   

The 177 is one of my favorites.

If you show the 4 engine, you'll need to show longer horizontal stabilizers and twin rudders.  The single fin did not work well in the 4 engine prototype.

The "bomber killer" had twin MK 101's in a semi-flexible mounting under the nose.  This one was also proposed for train busting.

The bomber rocket killer had something like 44 upward firing rockets at an angle ad to the right slightly.

If they had simply switched to 4 engines and got rid of the ridiculous dive bombing requirements, the 177/277 could have been a force to contend with.

Just get rid of the dive bombing requirement and lengthen the engine bearers and the He177 might have been a force to contend with.   It was more the development being forced than that it was necessarily an inherently bad design, in itself.   Heinkel always maintained that if they'd allowed him to get the engine problems right, it would have been an excellent bomber.

QuoteHeinkel always maintained that if they'd allowed him to get the engine problems right, it would have been an excellent bomber.

That I did not know.   Thank-you.    So, in other words, had Heinkel been given the room to develop the aircraft as desired, Spain could have used them post-war along with France.  More remotely, how about the USAF in SEA?   

Quote from: Daryl J. on March 12, 2011, 06:45:24 PM

QuoteHeinkel always maintained that if they'd allowed him to get the engine problems right, it would have been an excellent bomber.

That I did not know.   Thank-you.    So, in other words, had Heinkel been given the room to develop the aircraft as desired, Spain could have used them post-war along with France. 

Doubtful.  Spain couldn't afford them and by the time they'd have been perfected, Franco had seen which way the wind was blowing and was more interested in talking to the Allies than the Axis.   France is more likely, afterall they did capture the He-274 and put it into service but they were so financially strapped that it is unlikely they'd have the wherewithal to fund it.  Perhaps if they stopped wasting money in Indo-China and Algeria?

Quote
More remotely, how about the USAF in SEA?   

Why?  In Whiffery-land, anything is possible I admit but it would seem strange for the USAF to have adopted the bomber of their defeated foe when they had aircraft which were better, such as the B-32 and the B-29/50.

QuoteWhy?

Because it would look cool.    :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The realism/practicality of such are of course zilch.   

What about an AWACS version.

Quote from: Tuck on March 12, 2011, 06:18:58 PM
If they had simply switched to 4 engines and got rid of the ridiculous dive bombing requirements, the 177/277 could have been a force to contend with.

Unlikely.  They didn't have the fuel for a concerted strategic bombing campaign.  The Luftwaffe was in trouble with regards to fuel in 1943 and that was before we started to attack the oil production facilities.  In addition,they didn't have enough trained crews and the Luftwaffe's electronic bombing aids and radio gear wasn't anywhere near the perfrection enjoyed by theAllies.

No, Possibly against the USSR but certainly not against the UK - the Russians didn't have the radar defences and our defence network was the best in the world.

An AWACS?  No, not enough space on board for all the radar gear and the operators.  There's a reason why most AWACS are converted airliners.  Strengthened Condor perhaps with BMW801s.

The proposal to use them as bomber killers is simply ludicrous, if not downright suicidal.  If Me 410s (smaller, faster and more nimble than a 177) can be cut to ribbons by Mustangs and Thunderbolts, then 177s wouldn't have a chance.

The 177s were used against tanks - they were sent out when the front collapsed in mid 44.  Von Reisen sent them out in pairs but fewer than half returned.

Quote from: The Wooksta! on March 13, 2011, 06:37:27 AM

An AWACS?  No, not enough space on board for all the radar gear and the operators.  There's a reason why most AWACS are converted airliners. 

For the era you would be looking, why not something akin to the Shackleton AEW.2?

Quote from: GTX on March 15, 2011, 01:42:29 AM

Quote from: The Wooksta! on March 13, 2011, 06:37:27 AM

An AWACS?  No, not enough space on board for all the radar gear and the operators.  There's a reason why most AWACS are converted airliners. 

For the era you would be looking, why not something akin to the Shackleton AEW.2?

... or perhaps a Wellington?  ;)

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23065&mode=threaded&pid=252375

http://gregers.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=11045&sid=42ced955a7f97de3f8aa4534024fee61

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi598.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt62%2FDefford09%2FWellington1.jpg&hash=5abf9dd658aa94bcbb4709f4f22103f1dd564c16)

Thanks - forgot about them.

Regards,

Greg

Except the Wellington is a low/mid wing aircraft and designed with crew access from nose to tail so there's built in space for a couple of radar operators.  The 177 was a shoulder/mid wing and the rear isn't intended for crew access - the gun positions were accessed directly via a hatch underneath for the mid upper and the canopy for the tail.  There's no crew access from the cockpit to the rear - aft of the cockpit is full of fuel or bombs.

Had the Luftwaffe lasted long enough and gone down the AWACS route, it would most likely have been either a converted Condor, Ju 290 or Ju 352, possibly transport He 111s.  Oodles of space for black boxes and their operators and less tendency for the engines to burst into flames.

Quote from: Cobra on March 12, 2011, 04:59:42 PM
Sweet :thumbsup: how about an Air Sea Rescue Version? that work for you? Dan

At the risk of being cynical, at least you could use them for illuminating a wide sea area to allow others to search. Weren't they known as the "Reichslighter" ?  .......... or was it just the early versions caught fire ?

No, pretty much all of them.

At one point, Designer Hertl (who did the initial design) returned to Heinkel to try to iron out the bugs.  They identified 40+ design modifications/corrections that would have alleviated much of the fire issue, but it was felt the modifications would disrupt the production lines too much.  Heinkel wanted to switch to 4 separate engines early on but they kept assuring him the twin coupled powerplants were on the verge of reliability (false).  The 177 was alot like the B-29, only in terms of innovative design.  The difference was that America worked tirelessly to resolve the bus of the B-29 whereas the Luftwaffe didn't.

AEW Derivatives - both piston and turboprop:

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FE177B-620-20AEW.jpg&hash=54cfc9d476d50e7765e06805c2de6ce2ea8d30d2)

Regards,

Greg

Quote from: Tuck on March 16, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
At one point, Designer Hertl (who did the initial design) returned to Heinkel to try to iron out the bugs.  They identified 40+ design modifications/corrections that would have alleviated much of the fire issue, but it was felt the modifications would disrupt the production lines too much. 

We would not like to disrupt full production of our aircraft that doesn't work LOL

Yes. Impeccable Nazi logic. 

Rather like the logic that decreed that the UK should keep producing 2 Pdr anti-tank guns well after their utility was questionable and should concentrate exclusively on Spitfires and Hurricanes over other, promising designs.  Then we have the debacle of the Manchester bomber.  The debacle of the Hereford bomber.  The debacle of the Albermarle bomber.  Remember, Voltair suggested that "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

The Nazis applied the same rationale - better to have some aircraft than none, just as the UK did in 1940.   Logically, it would have been better for them to have halted production, made modifications and then restarted it but that would have disrupted upstream production as well with consequent flow on effects.  Remember, when they decided to put the He177 into production, they were winning the war.  When its faults became apparent, they had started to lose it and they, in their opinion, needed every aircraft they could lay their hands on.   It was unfortunate for them that the faults were so bad that they couldn't fix them with either incremental changes (which they tried) or remanufacture (which they also tried).   It was fortunate for us, the Allies that was the case.  While the He177 wouldn't have won the war for the Nazis it would have prolonged it, allowing them to strike at targets considerably further away and have complicated the defence against them.

  Greg- Love the AEW profiles. If you don't mind, I'm going to borrow the concept for another manufacturer...

Quote from: Doc Yo on March 18, 2011, 07:02:09 AM
  Greg- Love the AEW profiles. If you don't mind, I'm going to borrow the concept for another manufacturer...

Go for it!

Regards,

Greg

Another one thrown together:

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FHe177-TP.gif&hash=42f5e87e1af39320f9c96bab631cc1d66c5403f1)

Regards,

Greg

Greg,

  Nice one ... like the engines  :thumbsup:

Gary F

Whoa!  :thumbsup:

Quote from: GTX on March 12, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
Hi folks,

  To kick off here's one I'm toying with - a post war, unarmed He-277 Maritime Patrol aircraft:

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FHe277MP.gif&hash=60169c9940e28ca1c6268ec1d7dbff249152ea69)

What other ideas do you have?

Regards,

Greg

I just picked up the Revell kit at a yard sale for the tremendous sum of 7$ CDN. My first thought was Maritime Patrol (Neptunesqe )

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjproc.ca%2Frrp%2Frrp3%2Fneptune_24101a_afterpaint.jpg&hash=f1ccbc2a4f9bb71c792a8e9477c38ae4ae840c51)

radar a little farther forward and perhaps some observation windows behind the wing...

a slight variation... Twin Greif
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234965223-heinkel-he-177z-a6r5/

or jet Greif
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234952210-a-whiffie-heinkel-he-177z-a2-anti-shipping-version/page-2

or twin Grief XL
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/ATF_Third_Anniversary_GB_Gallery_about13587.html

or D-Day Greif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:He_177A-5_during_RAF_tests_c1945.jpg
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.wp.scn.ru%2Fcamms%2Far%2F446%2Fpics%2F9_1_b2.jpg&hash=3b3347fb3c35b428c4cff01e5a1673345b02fde2)

French Grief
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modellversium.de%2Fgalerie%2Fbilder%2F3%2F4%2F1%2F2341-32015.jpg&hash=ecf509f99309ab7d87811ad91cb61b43308a9286)

Canadian HE-177 (according to GOOGLE)
(https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/is2013-1009-01-1.jpg?w=620)

American Grief (via FFAF)
(https://sites.google.com/site/heinkel277/home/he-177-story/He-177A%20GP+RY.jpg)

Captured Greif's
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plastic-hobby.com%2Fimage%2Fproduct%2F800%3A600%2Fjpg%2F81094%2F1-48-heinkel-he-177a-5-greif-captured-bird.jpg&hash=c8bbcf7e9c2f0e6adc5ea5c9b109d0f86f86c23e)

Meng Kids Greif
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.amiami.jp%2Fimages%2Fproduct%2Freview%2F152%2F%2FTOY-SCL2-48104_01.jpg&hash=b04d526cd5ee16fc39c050564654205d0946c246)

Good grief, an EGGGREIF!  :o

I'd put the new Meng kits more in the Japanese 'Super-Deformed' model tradition than the eggplane category.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplajapan.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F10035343a2.jpg&hash=916ec4051ff58c3819c687ccaf07c1eda5d38f8a)

There was a jet Greif - the Junkers Ju 287 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287).

It had the fuselage of a He 177 with new wings and fixed undercarriage (the nose wheels of which was from downed B-24s!).

But the 287 was not intended as a jet version of the 177. They just used the fuselage instead of constructing one from scratch for the prototype.

Wow...glad this thread was revived/ found ! Some great stuff in there. I've got a Greif that's been giving me, well.....grief, and these are some great ideas !

:cheers:

Quote from: Bill TGH on August 30, 2015, 12:46:41 PM

Captured Greif's
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plastic-hobby.com%2Fimage%2Fproduct%2F800%3A600%2Fjpg%2F81094%2F1-48-heinkel-he-177a-5-greif-captured-bird.jpg&hash=c8bbcf7e9c2f0e6adc5ea5c9b109d0f86f86c23e)

What kit / decal set is that from ? :unsure: ?

Quote from: Bill TGH on August 30, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
a slight variation... Twin Greif
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234965223-heinkel-he-177z-a6r5/
or twin Grief XL
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/ATF_Third_Anniversary_GB_Gallery_about13587.html
Meng Kids Greif

Thanks for the twin-fuselage and egg ones!
(the twin-Greif was here at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,39541.0.html ) :wub:

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on September 03, 2015, 06:19:59 AM
But the 287 was not intended as a jet version of the 177. They just used the fuselage instead of constructing one from scratch for the prototype.

True.

But the version linked by Bill wouldn't have been either.

Quote from: Bill TGH on August 30, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
or jet Greif
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234952210-a-whiffie-heinkel-he-177z-a2-anti-shipping-version/page-2

If you do a biplane version with floats then you end up with a good maritime patrol aircraft that looks surprisingly similar to the spruce moose from the Simpsons :lol:

Quote from: Knightflyer on September 03, 2015, 09:53:09 AM

What kit / decal set is that from ? :unsure: ?
[/quote]

MPM , but it looks hard to acquire...

http://www.specialhobby.eu/en/our-production/1-48-heinkel-he-177a-5-greif-captured-bird.html?cur=2&lang=1&redirected=1

No reason why you could not use the instruction sheet as a guide for using markings in 1/72 from various sources if that is your preferred scale.

Gondor

While this is mostly a model-building and graphic-arts forum: Actual data is quite useful, and it can also lay out the grounds for alternate-history scenarios, and model-building ideas.

That being said, I looked at Wikipedia's entry on the He-177 and I've found some interesting stuff

The DB-606 wasn't inherently flawed

It worked fine on the He-119 It was a detail-related issue that was due to the following

• Cowls were excessively tight: Uncertain why that was so, but it could have been due to the dive-bombing requirement (drag reduction in dives is why two engines were favored over four, and initial proposals called for evaporative cooling), for level cruise-speed, or both.
  
• Nacelle layout caused excessive heating in the central exhaust manifold which caused the typical accumulation of oil, grease, and soot to catch fire
  
• No firewall was present due to the desire to save weight (dive-bomber mission)
  
• The fuel pump connections often leaked
  
• Engine position made it difficult to fit all the fuel/oil-lines, and electrical equipment in a reasonably roomy environment
  
• The oil-pump was bad and sometimes resulted in a tendency for the oil to foam at altitude: This reduced the ability of the oil to lube everything up and resulted in engine disintegrations
  

Personally, I'm of the opinion that a four-engined heavy-bomber is generally better if the option exists simply because large aircraft are often underpowered compared to fighters, and due to long range operations, you can basically lose an engine more easily; if you lose 1 engine, you still have 3 good ones running; if you have two: You now only have 1 good engine working.

Doubts as to the Dive Bombing Capability

QuoteDuring the final inspection of the Projekt 1041 mock-up on 5 November 1937, Ernst Udet mentioned the OKL's new dive-bombing requirement to Ernst Heinkel, who replied that the aircraft would never be capable of it. The He 177 had to be strengthened to support the stresses imposed by the pull-out from a dive; later, the required angle for dive-bombing attacks was increased to 60°, which necessitated further structural strengthening and a big increase in weight.

I'm not sure what the initial dive-angle requirements were, but I'm surprised nobody listened to Heinkel pointing out that the new 60-degree dive requirement would be impossible: It's not like he was an aircraft designer or anything... (frankly, despite being Jewish and having a natural dislike for the Nazi's: I actually find the Nazi's stupidity in some areas to be quite a relief -- every act of stupidity of theirs effectively made the war either easier to win, or winnable at all)

Early Desire for 4-Engined Variants

QuoteDue to continuing problems with the DB 606's configuration, much development work was done in order to rectify engine complications. This included a complete redesign of the original He 177, primarily through newer wing designs and layouts to accommodate them, in conjunction with the A-3 subtype's lengthened rear fuselage, intended to create a four-engined version of the Greif‍ '​s airframe. The first concerns over the coupled-engine vs. four separate engine issue for the He 177 emerged in mid-November 1938, as Ernst Heinkel had requested that two of the requested eight He 177 prototypes to be fitted out with four individual engines in place of the coupled-engine arrangements, eventually specifying that the V3 and V4 airframes get four individual Junkers Jumo 211 engines each in a 17 November in-plant corporate meeting 
.
.
.
Göring was reported as stating in late August 1942, following his earlier complaints to Oberst Petersen on the 13th of the month: "I had told Udet from the start that I wanted this beast with four engines. This crate must have had four engines at some time! Nobody had told me anything about this hocus-pocus with welded-together engines."

The Design Had a Potential to be Workable

I also remember a documentary on the He-177 Greif on Youtube sometime ago and I remember something to the effect of the aircraft's baseline fuselage having no inherent fatal-flaws for the purposes of high altitude level-bombing, and had the Germans devoted a greater effort to fixing the problems, they'd have had a rival to the RAF's Lancasters, the USAAF's B-17's, B-24's, and to an extent, our B-29's.

The Me 261 V1 also had little problem with the DB606 (I believe the V2 and V3 had the DB610, or maybe just the V3).

Makes you wonder why the DB606/610 wasn't selected for the Me 264.

The Me 264 was designed around the 1,750hp DB603A, but due to their late arrival the V1 used the 1,300hp Jumo 211.

For my point of view, the 1,750hp engines were probably not powerful enough either. The DB606 was rated at ~2,700hp, so would have been a useful increase in power.

The other options that were possibly not considered were the DB604 X24 (2,600hp at take-off rating) and the Jumo 222 (2,000hp for early versions, 2,500hp for later versions). The DB604 was cancelled in favour of continued development on the bread and butter V12 DBs, while the Jumo 222 had a multitude of issues that delayed its introduction - the Junkers Ju 288 replaced its Jumo 222s with DB 606s.

The interesting thing about the DB606 and 610 was that it was literally two separate engines which, unlike the Allison V-3420, could be perated independently, each half having its own supercharge and accessories.

wuzak

QuoteMakes you wonder why the DB606/610 wasn't selected for the Me 264.

You mean 4 x DB606/DB610?

QuoteThe DB606 was rated at ~2,700hp, so would have been a useful increase in power.

I made some estimates for power-loading for the Me-264 (at least the Amerika Bomber versions), and I get around 0.066 hp/lbs in a loaded configuration (105380 lbs based on the listed OEW, fuel, oil, and stuff, I'm probably off by 2000 pounds armament and all), and full weight (123459 lbs) power-loading of a little under 0.0567 lbs/hp

That's actually worse than the B-29, who's power-loadings were as follows

• 0.0733 lbs/hp @ 120,000 lbs
  
• 0.0652 lbs/hp @ 135,000 lbs
  

And it was considered underpowered...

The DB606 would yield, for the Me-264 the following weights

• 105380 lbs: 0.0973-0.1025 lbs/hp
  
• 123459 lbs: 0.0831-0.0874 lbs/hp
  

The DB610 would yield at the following weights

• 105380 lbs: 0.1085 lbs/hp
  
• 123459 lbs: 0.0925 lbs/hp
  

QuoteThe interesting thing about the DB606 and 610 was that it was literally two separate engines which, unlike the Allison V-3420, could be perated independently, each half having its own supercharge and accessories.

This honestly makes it seem more practical to have just used 4-engines...

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 13, 2015, 06:51:31 PM

QuoteThe interesting thing about the DB606 and 610 was that it was literally two separate engines which, unlike the Allison V-3420, could be perated independently, each half having its own supercharge and accessories.

This honestly makes it seem more practical to have just used 4-engines...

Yes and no.

The twin engine installation offered a drag advantage, while still having 4 engines. Having 4 engines in separate nacelles would have offered a simpler solution, each engine requiring a smaller prop than the DB606 did.

wuzak

QuoteYes and no.

The twin engine installation offered a drag advantage, while still having 4 engines.

Correct, and as I said: Had they designed the nacelle and cowling right, they would not have had problems (though it might have been slower).

QuoteHaving 4 engines in separate nacelles would have offered a simpler solution, each engine requiring a smaller prop than the DB606 did.

Generally, I prefer a simpler solution over a complicated one.  Especially when one considers the dive-bombing capability was largely unnecessary.


BTW: I'm curious as to whether the B-29's could have done descending bombing approach similar to the He-177's in Steinbock (except starting out at 31,500): The plane could go at least 405 mph (XB-39), not sure how much faster.

Airliner derivative of He-177along with her ancestor.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FHe-177_liner.jpg&hash=1e59d7536466b3cddbcb81ee5495573d56bf5f56) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/He-177_liner.jpg.html)

The nacelles were mounted fairly far back inside the wing and this caused problems with the DB606 because of the fact that this meant that fuel-lines, electrical harnesses, were basically all positioned around the engine: Why were they mounted as far back as they were?

Instinctively, I assume this was for drag-reduction: I'm curious if it was actually necessary to meet the requirements dictated by the RLM?

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 06:14:39 PM
The nacelles were mounted fairly far back inside the wing and this caused problems with the DB606 because of the fact that this meant that fuel-lines, electrical harnesses, were basically all positioned around the engine: Why were they mounted as far back as they were?

Instinctively, I assume this was for drag-reduction: I'm curious if it was actually necessary to meet the requirements dictated by the RLM?

It was just as likely structural considerations. The DB 606 was a rather heavy beast.

He-277 liner derivative.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FHe-277_liner.jpg&hash=c066f54d43515009892fce3aee294b4f953e7768) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/He-277_liner.jpg.html)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_274

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 18, 2016, 07:54:47 PM
ysi_maniac

I'm looking at the drawings shown of the He-277 and He-274 and both of them seem to have their engines recessed close to the wing.  For the most part, I'm largely curious why the plane would need to have the engines recessed so back.

Is it strengthening, streamlining, or both?

Is this keeping you awake at night?

This may help you:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2f/ae/8d/2fae8d59778eae741842b13628f8b4ec.jpg

Schnelltransport, staff or cargo, extra tankage under cabin, based on He-177

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/SchnellTransportHe177_6fX2FZ8tgcXwJPYEKRXugz.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/SchnellTransportHe177_6fX2FZ8tgcXwJPYEKRXugz.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")

That's neat  :thumbsup:

Variations on He-177 theme (first one is RW)

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/he177_various.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/he177_various.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")

I like those Carlos  :thumbsup: , but then I've always liked the 177 and its derivatives.