Heinkel He 177 Greif

Heinkel Flugzeugwerke
Industry	Aerospace
Founded	1922
Founder	Ernst Heinkel
Headquarters	Rostock, Germany
Products	Aircraft, including Heinkel He 177

Adapted from the English Wikipedia article Heinkel He 177 Greif, available under CC BY-SA 4.0Updated 29 November 202532 sources

Template:Infobox aircraft

The Heinkel He 177 Greif (meaning Griffin) was a long-range heavy bomber operated by the Luftwaffe throughout World War II. Its deployment in combat was considerably postponed due to persistent difficulties with engine development and frequent alterations to its mission profile. Despite these setbacks, it remained the sole long-range heavy bomber to be fully operational within the Luftwaffe during the war. The He 177's combination of payload and range was comparable to that of the four-engine heavy bombers employed by Allied forces on the European front.

Development commenced as a response to the 1936 Bomber A specification issued by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), which called for a dedicated strategic bomber. The initial objective was for the He 177 to conduct sustained bombing operations targeting Soviet industrial centers deep within the Russian interior.

Despite its significant bomb load and expansive 30 metres (98 ft) wingspan, the design mandated only two exceptionally powerful engines. To meet performance demands, engines producing at least 2,000 horsepower (1,500 kW) were required—technology that was still experimental at that time. The chosen powerplant, the Daimler-Benz DB 606 coupled with its relatively confined nacelle arrangements, led to chronic cooling and maintenance issues. These factors resulted in frequent in-flight engine fires, earning the aircraft notorious nicknames among Luftwaffe crews such as Reichsfeuerzeug ("Reich's lighter") and Luftwaffenfeuerzeug ("Air Force lighter").

The design reached operational maturity too late to significantly influence the conflict’s outcome. Nevertheless, it was produced in notable quantities and deployed primarily on the Eastern Front, where its extended range proved advantageous. The He 177 is particularly recognized for its participation in mass bombing raids over Velikiye Luki in 1944, one of the final major heavy bombing campaigns conducted by the Luftwaffe. Its presence on the Western Front was comparatively limited, although it contributed during Operation Steinbock—the so-called "Baby Blitz"—targeting Britain in 1944.

Background

In the mid-1930s, Generalleutnant Walther Wever, a prominent proponent of strategic bombing, actively pushed the Luftwaffe to create a specialized long-range bomber aimed at targeting industrial facilities in the Ural Mountain region of the Soviet Union. Despite his efforts, many senior Luftwaffe officials met this proposal with considerable doubt. By 1936, the "Ural bomber" initiative had produced two rather lackluster prototypes: the Dornier Do 19 and the Junkers Ju 89.

Wever persisted in advocating for new designs to fulfill this role, leading the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) to issue a fresh specification titled Bomber A on 3 June 1936. This directive demanded a significantly more advanced aircraft featuring enhanced speed, extended range, and greater bomb capacity. Tragically, this same day marked Wever's death in an aviation accident, depriving the project of its most influential supporter.

The Bomber A requirements stipulated that the aircraft must carry a minimum bomb load of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) across 5,000 km (3,100 mi), while achieving a top speed no less than 500 km/h (311 mph) at altitude. These performance targets were designed not only to surpass existing bombers by a wide margin but also to embody the Schnellbomber philosophy—enabling the bomber to outrun any fighter aircraft of that era.

On 2 June 1937, Heinkel Flugzeugwerke was commissioned to construct a full-scale mock-up of its Projekt 1041 Bomber A design. The company's projected specifications for Projekt 1041 included a maximum velocity of 550 km/h (342 mph) at an altitude of 5,500 m (18,050 ft) and a loaded weight around 27,000 kg (59,500 lb). To reach these ambitious goals, chief designer Siegfried Günter integrated several innovative engineering solutions.

Engines

Meeting the performance criteria required the He 177 to be powered by at least two engines delivering approximately 2,000 PS (1,973 hp, 1,471 kW) each. At that time, no single German aviation engine could produce such output. While utilizing four engines like the Daimler-Benz DB 601 was feasible, this arrangement would have increased propeller drag significantly, negatively impacting dive bombing capabilities. Employing only two counter-rotating propellers on a heavy bomber offered distinct benefits: reduced aerodynamic drag, improved stability during dives, and enhanced maneuverability. Consequently, both the eight initial V-series prototypes and numerous A-0 pre-production models of the He 177 demonstrated speeds and agility comparable to many contemporary heavy fighter aircraft.

For propulsion, Günter opted for two complex Daimler-Benz DB 606 "power system" units. These had previously been utilized on the record-setting Heinkel He 119 reconnaissance prototypes. Each power system combined two DB 601 liquid-cooled twelve-cylinder inverted-V inline engines positioned side-by-side within a single nacelle—on the He 119 centrally located behind its extensively glazed cockpit—driving one propeller shaft. When mounted on either side of their shared vertical-plane space-frame engine mount for the He 177, the engines were angled inward by 30°, positioning their inner cylinder banks nearly vertical. The front ends of both crankcases were connected via a common gear housing where dual crankshaft pinions powered one airscrew shaft gear. The outer crankcase sides attached to the nacelle firewall through forged mountings similar to those used in installations for single DB 601 or DB 605 engines. This configuration resulted in a Daimler-Benz "coupled" twin-crankcase "power system" supported by three distinct engine mount points within each nacelle.

The starboard component engine required a mirrored version of its mechanically driven centrifugal supercharger to draw air from that side. Each DB 606 initially delivered approximately 2,600 PS (2,564 hp, 1,912 kW) for takeoff and weighed about 1,515 kg (3,340 lb). Two such DB 606 units powered the He 177. Notably, both the DB 606 and its successor—the Daimler-Benz DB 605-based "DB 610"—were unique among German wartime aviation engines in exceeding power outputs above 2,040 PS (2,010 hp, 1,500 kW), reflecting ongoing challenges faced by German engineers in producing reliable high-performance powerplants suitable for combat operations.

Surface evaporation cooling

To achieve aerodynamic efficiency, Günter planned to eliminate the conventional drag-inducing engine radiators and instead implement a surface evaporative cooling system. This method of surface cooling, utilizing simpler surface radiators, had been employed on British high-speed racing seaplanes as early as 1929. The technique was further developed on the eight prototypes of the Heinkel He 119 high-speed reconnaissance aircraft, which successfully operated from the outset with the twin-crankcase DB 606 "power system" engine. It was also intended for application in the He 100 high-speed fighter prototypes. In this system, the coolant water is pressurized to increase its boiling point to approximately 110 °C (230 °F). As the superheated water exits the engine, it enters an expansion chamber where pressure drops cause it to vaporize into steam. This steam is then cooled by circulating through pipes embedded in the external surfaces of the fuselage and wings. However, before finalizing the He 177 design, it became evident that such a system could not manage the intense heat output from each of the twin DB 601-based engines. Consequently, the evaporative cooling concept was abandoned in favor of traditional annular radiators mounted directly behind each propeller. These radiators were similar but larger in capacity than those installed on the Junkers Ju 88 A bomber, contributing additional weight and drag to the He 177.

Defensive armament

Günter initially envisioned equipping the He 177 with three cockpit-operated remote-controlled gun turrets, two of which were to be adapted from the Junkers Ju 288 program, leaving a single manned turret at the tail.^[1] Compared to manned positions, remotely operated turret systems offered reduced size, weight, and drag at the expense of increased technical complexity. Moreover, they allowed gunners to be positioned in protected locations with optimal visibility and minimized risk of being blinded by muzzle flashes. Although Germany had made considerable advancements in remote defensive systems by the late 1930s, development lagged behind the demands posed by the He 177's design. As a result, heavier manned turrets had to be incorporated, such as the rear dorsal turret commonly installed on most Greif variants, armed with a 13 mm MG 131 machine gun. This necessitated reinforcing several fuselage sections structurally. Later production models typically featured a remote forward dorsal turret known as the Fernbedienbare Drehlafette ("remotely operated rotating gun mount," abbreviated "FDL") 131Z. Armed with twin MG 131 machine guns, this turret was positioned above the wing root's leading edge on the fuselage. Its hemispherical rotating sighting dome was located slightly forward and offset starboard behind the forward cockpit area.

For rearward protection, a compact tail gunner position was equipped with a single MG 131 machine gun; however, its streamlined glazing required the gunner to lie prone, limiting comfort during extended missions. From the He 177A-3 model onward, an updated tail gun position with bulged upper glazing allowed gunners to sit upright but required trimming of the lower rudder surface for clearance. Typically, this MG 131 armament was replaced by a 20 mm MG 151 cannon or occasionally by an experimental twin MG 131Z mount featuring two stacked 13 mm guns at the rear of the bulged glazing enclosure. A flexible-mounted 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun was usually placed in the upper starboard section of the cockpit nose glazing for frontal defense. The ventral undernose inverted-casemate Bola gondola, spanning full fuselage width beneath the forward cabin area, commonly housed a flexibly mounted drum-fed 20 mm MG FF cannon at its front for additional forward firepower and an MG 81 machine gun at its rear for ventral defense on early He 177A-1 variants. Later production aircraft replaced the forward MG FF cannon with an MG 151 cannon and typically substituted an MG 131 for rear ventral defense instead of the MG 81.

Wing

The He 177 was equipped with Fowler-type extendable trailing edge flaps that spanned the entire trailing edge of the wing, including areas beneath the ailerons. Each aileron was divided into upper and lower sections; the lower part slid backward as the flaps extended, while the upper segment continued to provide lateral control during takeoff and landing phases. The initial wing design underestimated the stress imposed by the operation of these Fowler flaps. According to a Rechlin report dated 9 October 1942:

"Inspection revealed that the wing strength of the He 177 was approximately one-third less than Heinkel's original calculations. This discrepancy arose from inconsistent rigidity among structural components, resulting in deformation under load. Heinkel failed to identify this issue promptly, as strength testing was conducted too late considering the structure's size."

Testing conducted on the 40th production A-1 model in September 1942 uncovered significant damage to outer wing panel components after roughly 20 flights, caused by aerodynamic stresses during dive attack maneuvers. Addressing this issue required extensive and costly reinforcement measures that notably increased the aircraft’s overall weight. From later iterations of the He 177A-3 onward, Fowler flaps were removed from the outboard wing sections, and a reinforced wing structure was introduced with the He 177A-5 variant.

Dive bombing

The lack of precision in horizontal bombing during the Ural bomber initiative exposed deficiencies in German bombsight technology and cast doubt on the effectiveness of level bombing against industrial targets. While Wever championed the Ural Bomber concept, other factions within the Luftwaffe increasingly favored dive bombing tactics.^[2]

Executing a dive attack significantly enhances bombing accuracy, enabling precise strikes on small targets such as bridges and ships. Data indicated that Stuka dive bombers achieved superior target destruction compared to Dornier Do 17s or Heinkel He 111s. Experience gained by the Condor Legion in Spain reinforced this view, encouraging belief in dive bombing’s precision. Ernst Udet emerged as a prominent advocate for this approach.^[2]

For larger targets like factories, steep dive angles characteristic of Stuka attacks were unnecessary; instead, shallower "glide bombing" angles sufficed. Glide bombing improved accuracy enough that a single aircraft could realistically hit a factory target, reducing reliance on massed bomb drops hoping for hits. Consequently, Udet and others began to perceive bombers less as strategic weapons—as Wever had envisioned—and more as extended-range Stuka dive bombers.^[2]

The mock-up aircraft was finalized in November 1937 and assigned RLM airframe type number "8-177" on November 5 of that year. On that same day, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OKL) mandated that the design must be structurally robust enough to perform medium-angle dive attacks. When Udet visited the Heinkel facility that day and mentioned this requirement, Heinkel expressed skepticism about the aircraft’s ability to meet it.

Despite these reservations, modifications were made to accommodate glide bombing, necessitating structural reinforcements to withstand pull-out forces from dives. Subsequently, requirements escalated to permit dives up to 60°, demanding further strengthening and causing substantial weight increases.

These evolving demands were never fully resolved due to continual weight growth. Even with reinforced airframes, overstressing during dive-bombing remained possible. Although early German bombsights were inadequate, later versions of the Lotfernrohr 7 matched American Norden bombsight performance. The Lotfe 7 offered an accuracy margin of approximately 20–30 metres (66–98 ft) from release altitudes between 3,000–4,000 metres (9,800–13,100 ft)^[3] Following Hermann Göring's cancellation of dive-attack requirements on September 15, 1942,^[4] barred-gate style dive brakes installed on the lower wing surfaces just ahead of each outboard Fowler flap panel were omitted on all He 177A models built after the initial A-0 pre-production series. A photograph of one of twelve heavily armed "destroyer" He 177A-1/U2 test aircraft showed a retracted dive brake panel still present beneath the outer starboard wing.^[5]

Undercarriage

As development progressed, the He 177's expected weight rose substantially, making it challenging to design a main undercarriage capable of supporting the 32 metric tons (35 short tons) maximum takeoff weight. The engine nacelles and wing structures offered limited space for the main gear components, which had to be extended longer than usual to provide adequate clearance for the large diameter four-blade counter-rotating propellers. After evaluating numerous intricate configurations early on, an innovative solution was implemented. Rather than fitting a single wheel strut beneath each engine nacelle, two wheel legs were mounted on the main spar at each nacelle: the outboard legs retracted upward and outward into shallow wing wells, while the inboard legs swung upward and inward into similar compartments within the wing roots. All units were enclosed by flush-fitting doors that nearly met beneath each nacelle when fully deployed. During retraction, the forward-facing lever-action lower gear struts—on which the wheels were mounted—pivoted backward from a 120° angle (fully extended) to 90°, enabling the wheels to align properly within the wheel wells as they folded sideways.^[6] The two prototypes of the He 274 built—one during wartime and one postwar in France—utilized a conventional rearward-retracting single-leg twin-wheel main gear design, heavily influenced by components from the He 219. By February 1943, drawings existed for a tricycle gear setup intended for the four BMW 801E radial engine-powered Amerikabomber variant of the proposed He 277, which also featured single main gear struts with twin wheels.^[7] For maintenance on the He 177A’s landing gear, replacing a main wheel tire demanded approximately two hours using specialized Heinkel-designed jacks and blocks rated at 12 metric tons (13 short tons) capacity.^[8]

Prototypes

The inaugural flight of the first prototype, He 177 V1, took place on 9 November 1939 with Dipl. Ing. Leutnant Carl Francke—then chief of Rechlin’s central flight test center—at the controls. This maiden flight lasted only twelve minutes before being cut short due to overheating engines. Francke commended the aircraft’s overall handling and landing qualities but noted vibrations in the airscrew shafts, insufficient tail surface area under certain conditions, and flutter affecting the elevators during vigorous control inputs.^[9] Shortly thereafter, the He 177 V2 completed its first flight.

Following these initial tests, modifications were made to V1 based on pilot feedback, including a 20% enlargement of tail surfaces. However, these adjustments were not applied to V2 before conducting dive tests with another pilot; during one such dive, severe control flutter caused V2 to disintegrate midair. Consequently, prototypes V3, V4, and V5 received tail surface enhancements similar to those on V1. The He 177 V3 was dedicated primarily to powerplant development. Prototypes V1 through V3 were outfitted with two counterclockwise rotating DB 606 A engines; starting with V4 and continuing through all A-series production models, a DB 606 A or DB 610 A engine was installed on the starboard wing paired with a clockwise rotating B-version engine on the port wing so that propellers rotated away from each other at their upper arcs.^[10] The He 177 V4 remained at Heinkel’s Rostock-Schmarl test field (then Rostock-Marienehe) for dive testing but crashed into the Baltic Sea near Ribnitz after failing to recover from a moderate dive; investigation revealed a malfunction in the controllable pitch propeller mechanism.

On 17 November 1938—prior to beginning construction of prototypes V3 and V4—Ernst Heinkel personally requested that the RLM allocate these airframes for trials installing four independent Junkers Jumo 211^[11]^[12] engines as an alternative powerplant configuration intended to address concerns raised by RLM technical director Ernst Udet and Heinkel over dive-bombing capabilities of the He 177A; however, this request was denied.

The fifth prototype (V5) incorporated several updates mainly focused on defensive armament arrangements. In early 1941, during a simulated low-level attack exercise, both DB 606 engines caught fire simultaneously causing the aircraft to crash and explode upon impact. The sixth prototype (V6) marked the introduction of production-standard DB 606 A/B engines instead of earlier pre-production models; these offered an incremental boost in takeoff power by approximately 100 PS (2700 PS total; equivalent to roughly 2,663 hp or 1,986 kW). The seventh prototype (V7) featured a redesigned nose section that maintained general contours seen in earlier versions but was structurally reinforced with fewer glazed panels. In September 1941, prototype V8—the last with a distinct bullet-shaped cockpit differing from production He 177A models—was allocated for engine testing; however, due to pressing development priorities it was returned after only forty days without completing airborne engine trials until February 1942. Notably, prototypes V1 through V8 along with A-0 pre-production aircraft employed broad-bladed four-blade propellers resembling those used on Junkers Ju 88 bombers; these were not fitted on subsequent production He 177A variants.

Photographic records of prototypes one through eight reveal a predominantly circular fuselage cross-section forward of the wing root; by contrast, A-0 series aircraft exhibited flatter sides as well as dorsal and ventral surfaces characteristic of main A-series production models. The selection of what was designated as "Cabin 3" cockpit design on September 20, 1939,^[13] introduced a well-framed hemispherical "fishbowl" nose canopy on the He 177A-0 series that featured a continuous "stepless cockpit" without separate windshields for pilot and co-pilot—a design lineage tracing back to Heinkel’s own He 111 P bomber—and consistent across all eight bullet-nosed prototypes. The front glazing of this "stepless" cockpit contained characteristic framing arranged in orthogonal directions resembling parallels and meridians on a globe. Each side of the upper cockpit included two sets of four nearly square windows arranged in a grid pattern behind the fishbowl’s rear edge providing lateral visibility for crew members. Differences can be observed between side window designs produced by Heinkel’s primary plants near Rostock ("Heinkel-Nord") and Vienna ("Heinkel-Süd") versus those manufactured by subcontractor Arado Flugzeugwerke located near Rostock (“Arado-Warnemünde”). Frequently, lower rows of fishbowl windows were rendered opaque either by painting or metal panel replacement except for the bombardier’s offset bombsight window located starboard in the lower nose glazing area.

Production

A total of eight prototypes were manufactured initially, followed by 35 He 177A-0 pre-production units constructed by both Arado and Heinkel, and subsequently 130 He 177A-1 models produced exclusively by Arado. The initial aircraft from this series served primarily for additional testing purposes. After a short and problematic operational introduction, the remaining planes were withdrawn from active duty. Beginning in late 1942, these were superseded by the He 177A-3 variants. From August 1943 onward, all delivered He 177s featured an extended rear fuselage—lengthened by approximately 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in)—to enhance stability for improved bombing precision (refer to the Airworthiness and handling section). This modification also compensated for the slightly lengthened engine nacelles, which were stretched by about 20 cm (7.9 in), causing a shift in the center of gravity. Most short-fuselage A-3 models underwent conversion to this longer fuselage standard at Eger Flugzeugwerke GmbH.

He 177 production figures up to 30 November 1944
Model	EHF	HWO	ArB	Total	Production dates
Prototypes	8			8
He 177A-0	15	15	5	35
He 177A-1			130	130	January 1942 – January 1943
He 177A-3 (short fuselage)		88	159	247	November 1942 – July 1943
He 177A-3 (long fuselage)		217	148	365	August 1943 – June 1944
He 177A-5		71	279	350	December 1943 – August 1944
Total	23	391	721	1,135

Note – Prior to July 1944, one A-0, one A-3, and two A-5 airframes were converted into He 177B prototypes.

Engine difficulties

The DB 606 "power system" engines, each weighing approximately 1.5 metric tons (1.7 short tons), consisting of twin crankcases, exhibited an escalating propensity for engine fires as testing advanced. Numerous pre-production He 177A-0 aircraft were lost due to accidents or engine-related failures. Initially introduced on the Heinkel He 119 and later deployed on other platforms such as the Messerschmitt Me 261, where they performed satisfactorily, these engines encountered significant issues when installed within the tightly confined cowlings of the He 177A. The most frequent problems involved in-flight engine fires and overheating. Several factors contributed to the flammability risk of the DB 606 units housed in the Greif nacelles. Notably, a shared central exhaust manifold serving all twelve cylinders on the inner banks of the paired DB 601 engines forming each DB 606 would become excessively hot. This heat often ignited accumulated oil and grease collected at the bottom of the cowling. Additionally, when throttling down, mechanical fuel injection pumps on each DB 601 component tended to respond sluggishly, delivering excess fuel beyond engine demands. Fuel pump connections were also prone to leaks. To minimize weight, no firewall was installed between engine compartments; furthermore, the rear two-thirds of each component engine block extended behind the wing's leading edge, placing them very close to the main spar. This arrangement left insufficient room for fuel and oil lines as well as electrical wiring harnesses. Consequently, leaking fluids frequently saturated engine exteriors inside their cowlings. At higher altitudes, a poorly designed oil pump caused oil foaming, diminishing lubrication effectiveness. This inadequate lubrication led to bearing failures in connecting rods that sometimes ruptured crankcases and punctured oil tanks. The resulting oil leaks onto overheated exhaust manifolds often ignited fires. The compact layout and rearward placement of these "power system" engines also hindered maintenance access and ventilation quality. Combined with limited field maintenance practices, these issues caused frequent in-flight engine fires within DB 606-powered He 177s. The complex mechanical coupling between two engines proved challenging to perfect and contributed to numerous complications during service testing of early He 177A-0 and initial A-1 production models.

By early August 1942, Hermann Göring grew frustrated with delays in resolving powerplant difficulties on the He 177A. He reviewed a report from Oberst Edgar Petersen (commander of test facilities), which highlighted problems stemming from compromised design choices regarding DB 606 engine accommodation within the nacelles and poor maintenance accessibility. On August 13, Göring remarked:

"Why has this foolish engine suddenly appeared so idiotically welded together? They told me initially there would be two engines arranged in tandem; instead, this monstrous welded-together assembly appears that cannot be accessed!"

Beginning with the He 177A-3/R2 variant, both engines and nacelles underwent redesigns aimed at eradicating fire hazards. The Daimler-Benz DB 610 "power system" replaced the DB 606; it consisted of two coupled DB 605 engines configured similarly to its predecessor. Alongside this change came multiple enhancements: relocation of the oil tank, redesigned oil flow piping,^[14] upgraded oil coolers,^[14] lengthened engine mounts by approximately 20 cm (8 inches), a completely reworked exhaust system enabling installation of flame dampers for nocturnal operations, and imposed power limitations that increased reliability. These modifications—totaling around fifty-six alterations—successfully eliminated engine fire incidents; however, minor issues persisted involving the transfer gearbox located at the front ends of each twinned-engine "power system" driving their common propeller.

Oberst Petersen together with Major Mons—a former Gruppenkommandeur with II./Kampfgeschwader 40 and part of Petersen's previous bomber wing—throughout their work at Erprobungsstellen facilities championed numerous upgrades to the He 177A following cancellation of its dive-bombing role in September 1942.^[15]

Experimental weapon configurations

Besides carrying a range of bombs, torpedoes, and guided munitions, the He 177 underwent trials with several unconventional armament setups. The earliest known experimental configuration was on twelve He 177A-1/U2 Zerstörer models, which featured a pair of 30 mm MK 101 cannons with limited traverse mounted at the front of an extensively enlarged ventral Bola gondola, positioned ahead of the distinctive hemispherical "fishbowl" nose glazing. This setup was intended primarily for ground assault, train disruption, and potentially extended-range anti-ship missions. These aircraft were also tasked with intercepting Allied long-distance reconnaissance and bomber planes operating over the Atlantic Ocean, which threatened the Kriegsmarine's U-boat operations.

Subsequently, during the winter of 1942 in the Stalingrad area, some He 177A-3s were modified by Luftwaffe forward maintenance teams to carry a 50 mm Bordkanone BK-5 cannon inside the undernose Bola gondola. This cannon had a 21-round magazine and a barrel extending well beyond the glazed "fishbowl" nose section. This variant earned the informal nickname Stalingradtyp. Although plans existed to produce a limited number of He 177A-3/R5 aircraft equipped from the outset with a larger autoloading 75 mm BK 7,5 cannon—based on the PaK 40—installed in the Bola position with a 12-round magazine, structural issues caused by the recoil of this weapon prevented its combat deployment beyond the original BK 5-armed examples.

In January 1944, five He 177A-5s were fitted experimentally with arrays of 33 obliquely mounted 21 cm (8¼ in) rocket mortar tubes, resembling the single BR 21 launchers already employed on single and twin-engine Luftwaffe fighters for bomber interception roles. These rocket systems likely derived components from the Nebelwerfer infantry barrage rockets. The nearly three dozen tubes installed in these Greif fuselages aimed to create a "Grosszerstörer" ("Big Destroyer") airborne battleship designed to disrupt and destroy the compact combat box defensive formations used by USAAF daylight bombers over Germany. To accommodate these spin-stabilized rockets and their launch tubes, both bomb bays and fuselage-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks were removed. The tubes were set to fire upward at a 60° angle from horizontal and slightly offset to starboard. Launching could be conducted individually, all at once, or in two salvos of fifteen and eighteen rockets respectively. Tests against stationary balloon targets demonstrated this system’s potential, leading to limited operational trials against US Eighth Air Force bomber formations.

These aircraft were operated by Erprobungskommando 25 from the Baltic coastal testing site at Tarnewitz (Erprobungstelle). The tactical approach involved the Grosszerstörer He 177s flying beneath enemy bomber formations—similar to Schräge Musik cannon tactics—positioned to port and approximately 2,000 m (6,560 ft) below their targets at attack time. Although several daylight trial missions took place, no engagements with Allied formations occurred. With increasing numbers of escort fighters conducting aggressive "fighter sweeps" ahead of USAAF bomber streams beginning in early 1944 under orders from then Maj. Gen Jimmy Doolittle, this concept was ultimately abandoned.

Defensive ordnance experiments

A limited number of He 177A aircraft were allocated for testing experimental defensive armaments, primarily conducted at the Erprobungstellen test detachments. Among these was a He 177A-1, serial number 15155 with the Stammkennzeichen GI+BP, which featured the inaugural installation of a remote-operated twin-gun "chin turret" mounted on the front section of its Bola undernose gondola. Although the specific gun models installed remain undocumented, the aircraft's retirement following an accident in May 1943 suggests that this experimental turret was developed concurrently with the introduction of the USAAF's "gunship" Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress in May 1943—a bomber that first flew in September 1942 and was notable for pioneering similar forward defensive weaponry on American heavy bombers attacking Germany.

In parallel, the eagerly awaited Hecklafette HL 131V "quadmount" manned tail turret, armed with four 13mm MG 131 machine guns, underwent trials during late spring and summer of 1943 on three A-3 prototypes designated V32 through V34. Despite these efforts, this turret design never advanced beyond engineering mockups and working prototypes developed by Heinkel, Junkers, and others intending to integrate them into their aircraft designs.

Originating from Rheinmetall-Borsig's Borsig division—the manufacturer of the guns themselves—the HL 131V turret demonstrated promising features. It utilized hydraulic mechanisms to elevate its side-mounted gun assemblies through a vertical arc of ±60º relative to level and allowed horizontal rotation of approximately 100º to each side. The turret could achieve a maximum traverse speed of 60º per second.

During 1943, plans emerged to adapt the earlier Hecklafette quadmount gun elevation units into a forward "chin turret" configuration named the Bugstandlafette BL 131V, intended for placement at the front end of the He 177A’s Bola undernose gondola. However, engineering evaluations revealed that installing this quadmount chin turret on later He 177A variants and the He 177 V104 prototype would reduce airspeed by nearly 30 km/h (19 mph) and decrease bombload capacity by approximately one tonne. These drawbacks rendered the BL 131V concept impractical, leading to consideration of a chin-turret version of the FDL 151Z twin-cannon remote turret for use on the B-series He 177Bs powered by four DB 603 engines—an approach reminiscent of the early 1943 GI+BP installation.

Despite its incompatibility with the He 177A airframe, the BL 131V quadmount nose turret was developed as a prototype for armament testing at Erprobungsstelle Tarnewitz, targeting potential integration on the He 177B V104 prototype. By mid-July 1944, these trials had been completed.

Airworthiness and Handling

Flight evaluations conducted in late summer 1942 exposed significant instability in the He 177 around both the yaw and pitch axes. This instability severely compromised bombing precision when employing the Lotfe 7 bombsight. The primary cause was identified as the aircraft’s tendency to drift during flight, attributed to its relatively short and cylindrical fuselage.^[16] Soon after these trials, the third production A-1 unit (factory serial number 15153, bearing the Stammkennzeichen GI + BN) underwent a modification that extended its fuselage by 160 cm (63 in) immediately behind the wing’s trailing edge. This alteration increased the "tail moment" length, resulting in a noticeable enhancement in stability along both yaw and pitch axes. The improvement was substantial enough to justify implementing this longer fuselage design on the He 177A-3 and all succeeding He 177A variants.^[17]

In early September 1944, the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) received orders to provide aircrew for an He 177 that French Maquis forces had seized at an airfield in Blagnac, near Toulouse. This location housed elements of both KG 4 and KG 100 bomber wings equipped with He 177A aircraft. An RAE transport plane accompanied by two escort fighters flew to deliver Chief Test Pilot Roland Falk and a flight engineer to join the commando unit. On 10 September, as Operation Dragoon concluded in southeastern France, Falk piloted the captured He 177 back to Britain. Shortly thereafter, Captain Eric Brown, a Royal Navy pilot assigned as a test pilot at the RAE, conducted a flight with the He 177.^[18] Brown described the flight characteristics of the He 177A-5 as "...positive about all axes, but the controls were all remarkably light for such a large aircraft. Indeed I had the feeling that the elevator was dangerously light and I was all too aware of the intelligence reports of He 177s breaking up in the air so I decided to treat this control very gently...The aircraft had an automatic pull-out device and an acceleration warning apparatus fitted, but it really was nailbiting to have to treat a giant like this immense Heinkel bomber as if it were made of glass. The stalling characteristics with flaps and undercarriage lowered, the aircraft buffeted violently at 140 km/h (87 mph) before the nose dropped at 135 km/h (84 mph). The buffet experienced was so violent that I had some concerns over structural damage. Somehow the He 177 always conveyed an impression of fragility despite its size."^[19] Brown further noted that it was "one of the very few German aircraft of the period that I tested that I did not enjoy flying".^[20]

Further evolution: the Heinkel He 177B

Persistent difficulties linked to the DB 606 engine arrangement and its integration within the airframe necessitated extensive efforts to resolve these mechanical challenges. This led to a comprehensive overhaul of the initial He 177 design, focusing mainly on innovative wing structures and configurations aimed at enhancing engine installation. These modifications were coupled with the elongated rear fuselage featured in the A-3 variant, all intended to facilitate a four-engine adaptation of the Greif airframe. The debate over utilizing coupled engines versus four separate powerplants for the He 177 surfaced as early as mid-November 1938, when Ernst Heinkel requested that two of the eight prototype airframes under construction be equipped with four individual engines instead of the conventional coupled setup. Specifically, he designated that the V3 and V4 prototypes be outfitted with four standalone Junkers Jumo 211 engines during an internal company meeting on 17 November—these were identical in type and quantity to those powering Messerschmitt’s Amerikabomber contender, the Me 264 V1 tested in late December 1942. Prior to the war, Ernst Udet had expressed skepticism regarding the choice of the coupled DB 606 powerplant for the He 177, a sentiment echoed by Göring, who voiced frustration over the persistent engine issues delaying the He 177A’s operational deployment. In late August 1942, following earlier complaints addressed to Oberst Petersen on August 13, Göring reportedly remarked: "From the outset I told Udet I wanted this beast equipped with four engines. At some point, this crate must have had four engines! No one informed me about this trickery involving welded-together engines!"

Nearly four years after Heinkel’s initial unsuccessful appeal for fitting the V3 and V4 prototypes with individual powerplants, Göring officially rescinded the Reich Air Ministry’s (RLM) mandate requiring the He 177 to execute dive bombing maneuvers in September 1942. This decision allowed Heinkel to advance his design efforts on what became known as the A-8 and A-10 variants, collectively rebranded as the He 177B in August 1943. These models were intended to be powered by four separate Daimler-Benz DB 603 engines mounted on newly designed wings with extended spans. Each liquid-cooled DB 603 was equipped with an annular radiator positioned just aft of its propeller—similar in concept to that used on the Heinkel He 219—probably employing a proprietary unitized engine installation perfected during the He 219's development phase. This radiator type was consistent across all four DB 603 units installed on these aircraft, matching those employed on standard He 177 models.

By August of that year, significant progress had been made toward finalizing details for the He 177B series. Enthusiastically endorsing this development, Erhard Milch authorized construction of three prototypes designated as He 177 V101 through V103. On August 10, he declared: "Production of the He 177A-4 and A-5 will continue as before. The He 177B-5 project will be pursued vigorously and put into series production promptly."

The inaugural prototype of the He 177B-5 series, known as He 177 V101, was converted from a mid-production He 177A-3 airframe (serial number 535 550, bearing Stammkennzeichen NN + QQ). The V102 originated from the eighth production prototype of the He 177A-0 (which incorporated lengthened aft fuselage per A-3 specifications), while V103 was adapted from an early production He 177A-5 frame. Initially, all three retained the single vertical tail fin characteristic of earlier A-series models. Although no photographic evidence confirms their installation, engineering drawings for V101—marked with a "B-5" subtype label—illustrate plans for fitting small-area pivoting "drag rudders" arranged in pairs near each horizontal stabilizer tip inline with inner engine nacelles. These rudders were designed symmetrically above and below the stabilizer plane to simulate asymmetric thrust conditions during engine failure.

Flight tests revealed that V101’s single-tail configuration suffered from worsening stability issues at higher speeds. Consequently, V102 became the first flying He 177B prototype on December 20, 1943, featuring four DB 603 engines combined with a novel twin-tail empennage installed earlier that autumn. While initially flying with retained A-series wings and powerplants pending delivery of B-series wings, this twin vertical tail arrangement significantly improved handling characteristics compared to V101's original tail assembly—except during landing approaches when Fowler flaps were extended during initial flights in November.

On February 24, 1944—amidst ongoing USAAF Big Week bombing operations targeting northern France's V-weapons facilities—a gathering took place at Wiener Neustadt military airfield (with grass runways). Attendees included Erhard Milch, Oberst Edgar Petersen, and Oberstleutnant Siegfried Knemeyer, Göring’s leading aviation technology expert. Each had an opportunity to pilot the four-engined V102 prototype after it received its B-series wing set. Knemeyer expressed astonishment at how well this heavy bomber handled under flight conditions.

The only confirmed wartime photograph depicting any intact He 177B prototype shows V101 parked outdoors on a foggy German airfield—likely at Heinkel-Sud’s factory airstrip near Schwechat (now Vienna International Airport). Another surviving image purportedly shows a B-series prototype from starboard side featuring an A-series style single vertical tail fin and Stammkennzeichen code NE+OD; however, this photograph does not correspond with any documented records for known B-series prototypes built or flown before war’s end. This aircraft also displays an upgraded upright-seating tail gunner position typical of A-5 subtype variants along with twin dorsal turret armament standard for that model.

The proposed design enhancements for the He 177B included a slightly larger and more streamlined fully glazed nose assembly reminiscent in profile to that found on British Airspeed Horsa troop gliders. Originally intended for introduction on production A-7 models, this nose could accommodate a remotely operated powered chin turret mounted at the front of its Bola undernose gondola for forward ventral defense—armed either with dual MG 131 machine guns or MG 151 cannons mirroring those fitted in existing FDL 131Z forward dorsal turrets on A-series aircraft. However, this new nose configuration was only trialed on prototype V15 (converted from an A-3 frame serial number 355001) without chin turret installation and never appeared on any B-series prototypes which continued using traditional "Cabin 3" framed noses from earlier models. No wartime photographs survive depicting this revised nose; only archival drawings remain as evidence since V15 was lost in a crash on June 24, 1944.

Defensive armament layouts for B-series designs largely mirrored those of their A-series predecessors—particularly retaining twin dorsal turrets on B-5 variants—with planned deletion of aft manned dorsal turrets on B-7 models (as also done on A-7) to save weight. Additionally planned was a fully powered manned tail turret known as Hecklafette HL 131V equipped with four MG131 machine guns intended for prototype installation. While mockups and working prototypes existed for this system—including documented fitting of three tail turret units onto A-series DB610-powered prototypes V32 through V34—it never reached production standardization.

The B-series prototypes preserved use of A-series style main landing gear featuring complex four-strut assemblies designed originally for clearance beneath large four-bladed propellers; no modifications were made despite changes in engine nacelle positioning where DB603 inner nacelles aligned directly over main gear struts’ centerline across all four B-series prototypes.

Initial test flights of B-series aircraft began near Vienna-Schwechat airfield at Heinkel-Süd facilities between late December 1943 and early January 1944 starting with V102’s maiden sortie on December 20. Another prototype designated V104 was under conversion from an early production A-5 frame intended as final pre-production model for B-5 series featuring twin tails like V102.

However, sustained bombing raids by US Fifteenth Air Force from April through July 1944 severely impacted these efforts; notably an attack on July 8 destroyed both flight-ready V103 and incomplete V104 at Zwölfaxing factory airstrip within Heinkel-Süd complex—delaying any plans for serial production of B-5 variants. Meanwhile subcontractor Arado Flugzeugwerke remained fully engaged producing their own advanced Arado Ar 234 turbojet reconnaissance-bomber and could not meet anticipated demands for B-5 manufacturing until November.

Last official records place surviving prototypes V101 and damaged-but-repairable V102 still located at Schwechat airfield near Vienna as late as February 1945; damage sustained by V102 during evasive landing amid April USAAF raids prevented relocation northward to Luftwaffe test center at Rechlin.

Ultimately, introduction of the Emergency Fighter Program in July 1944 marked termination of all ongoing Heinkel heavy bomber projects except for production approval granted exclusively to jet fighter design Heinkel He162 Spatz.

Operational history

The He 177 experienced a challenging operational career, largely due to numerous technical complications during its development phase. The aircraft's design was burdened by ambitious demands, including long-range capability, high speed, heavy bomb load, and the initially mandated dive bombing function, which together intensified its issues. Although introduced into service in 1942, the He 177 was far from fully combat-ready. On 9 April 1942, the newly formed Erprobungsstaffel 177 evaluated the bomber, noting its favorable flight characteristics but highlighting serious engine malfunctions and structural weaknesses in the airframe. As a stopgap solution, planes from Kampfgeschwader 50^[21] were deployed to support the encircled 6th Armee at Stalingrad. However, these aircraft proved inadequate for transport duties, carrying only marginally more cargo than the smaller and more dependable Heinkel He 111, and were ineffective in evacuating wounded personnel.^[22] Consequently, the He 177s reverted to bombing and anti-flak operations around Stalingrad. Over thirteen sorties flown in this role, seven bombers were lost due to fires unrelated to enemy action.

As hostilities continued, operational effectiveness of the He 177 declined significantly. Shortages of fuel and trained crew compounded problems, with many aircraft grounded across European airfields awaiting replacement engines or engine-related repairs. During Operation Steinbock, of the fourteen He 177A-3s (the main variant deployed)^[23] dispatched, one suffered tire failure while eight returned with overheated or burning engines. Only four managed to reach London; one was lost to night fighter interception. These planes were newly delivered just a week prior to the mission and had not been fully broken in due to relocation of their unit to a new base with insufficient maintenance support. Persistent attacks on Luftwaffe long-range units stationed in France further hindered consistent operations.

Despite Steinbock’s overall failure, the He 177 did register some achievements during the campaign. Typically, crews carried two bombs weighing 1,800 kg (3,970 lb) each alongside two bombs of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). The bombers ascended to approximately 7,000 m (22,965 ft) while still over German territory before approaching targets in a gentle dive with throttled-back engines. Pilots maneuvered their aircraft into a gliding descent to cross the bomb release point at about 4,500 m (14,760 ft). After deploying their payloads, throttle settings were increased again but descent continued at roughly 200 m (656 ft) per minute. Returning to German airspace typically occurred at around 750 m (2,460 ft), from where they headed home. This technique allowed speeds near 600 to 700 km/h (370 to 430 mph) during withdrawal phases. The combination of elevated velocity and variable altitude complicated interception attempts and enhanced survivability but compromised bombing precision and concentration.^[24] While bomber loss rates averaged around 60% during Operation Steinbock for other types, losses below 10% made the He 177 comparatively resilient.

In February 1944, coinciding with Steinbock operations, He 177s alongside Dornier Do 217s equipped with Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs targeted Allied shipping near the Anzio beachhead.^[25]

On the Eastern Front, one of the most significant missions involving the He 177 was a large-scale raid on rail infrastructure near Velikiye Luki, approximately 450 km (280 mi) west of Moscow, conducted on 19 July 1944. Around eighty-seven bombers participated in three substantial attack formations of roughly thirty aircraft each. These bombers carried either four bombs weighing 250 kg (551 lb) or two bombs of 500 kg (1,102 lb).^[26] The daylight operation took place above altitudes exceeding 6,000 m (19,690 ft), resulting in relatively low losses as Soviet fighters—primarily designed for low-level interception and ground attack—were largely ineffective against these high-flying bombers.^[27]^[28]

Like many piston-engine German bombers of its era, the Heinkel He 177 was grounded from mid-1944 onward following the initiation of the Emergency Fighter Program combined with intensified Allied bombing campaigns targeting German fuel production facilities during World War II’s oil campaign.

Variants

He 177 V1 to V8: The initial eight prototype models of the He 177 series. V1 through V3 were equipped with DB 606 A engines, while the He 177 V4 and later prototypes utilized DB 606 A/B powerplants.
He 177A-0: A pre-production batch consisting of 35 units. This series introduced the "Cabin 3" cockpit featuring a "fishbowl" framed glazed nose, which was also adopted in the subsequent A-series production models.
He 177A-1: The first mass-produced variant, with 130 aircraft completed. Armament included a single MG 81 mounted in the nose, one MG FF/M cannon positioned at the front of the Bola ventral gondola, a remote-controlled dorsal turret initially armed with a single MG 131 that was later upgraded to twin MG 131s, and a solitary tail-mounted MG 131.

He 177A-1/R1: Fitted with two rear-firing MG 81Z machine guns installed at the aft section of the Bola ventral gondola.

He 177A-1/R2: An experimental variant featuring a sighting station located at the back of the Bola ventral gondola for controlling a remote ventral turret armed with a single MG 131.

He 177A-1/R4: Equipped with an additional rear-firing MG 131 mounted at the rear of the Bola ventral gondola along with a manned dorsal turret at the back armed with an MG 131.

He 177A-1/U2: A heavy fighter variant known as Zerstörer, mounting two limited-traverse 30 mm MK 101 cannons in an enlarged Bola lower nose mount; only twelve conversions were completed.
He 177A-2: A proposed four-man pressurized version featuring reduced defensive armament consisting of six MG 81s and one MG 131; this model was never constructed.
He 177A-3: The second production batch, totaling 170 units, featured a fuselage extended by 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in). From the sixteenth aircraft onward, DB 610 A/B engines powered these planes.

He 177A-3/R1: Fifteen units powered by two Daimler-Benz DB 606 A/B engines.

He 177A-3/R2: Incorporated an upgraded electrical system. The MG FF cannon in the Bola ventral gondola was replaced by an MG 151 cannon. Powered by DB 610 engines, this variant featured a redesigned tail position with upright seating. The tail-mounted MG 131 was replaced by an MG 151 cannon. It was also the first model equipped with Kutonase cable-cutting apparatus.

He 177A-3/R3: Designed for anti-shipping roles, capable of deploying Henschel Hs 293 guided missiles and fitted with FuG 203-series Kehl I control equipment typically installed in the rear fuselage.

He 177A-3/R4: The aft section of the Bola ventral gondola was extended by 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) to accommodate FuG 203b Kehl III missile-control systems instead of mounting them at the rear fuselage.

He 177A-3/R5: A planned but unbuilt Stalingradtyp variant armed with a ventrally mounted 75 mm Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon derived from the 7.5 cm PaK 40, based on field modifications using the BK-5 cannon which itself was based on the 5 cm KwK 39.

He 177A-3/R7: A torpedo bomber variant that was abandoned in favor of developing the He 177A-5; only three examples were produced.
He 177A-4: A proposed high-altitude pressurized model that was never built under this designation and later evolved into the Heinkel He 274.
He 177A-5: The principal production version with a total output of 826 aircraft. It standardized features from the A-3 including a lengthened rear fuselage, reinforced wings, shortened undercarriage oleo struts, ETC 2000/XII wing racks, and enhanced maximum external payload capacity.

He 177A-5/R1: Optimized for deployment of Fritz X and Hs 293 guided bombs and equipped with Kehl control systems.

He 177A-5/R2: Armament comprised one MG 81 in the nose, an MG 151 cannon at the front of the Bola ventral gondola, an MG 131 at its rear end, twin MG 131s in an FDL 131Z remote forward dorsal turret, one MG131 in a manned aft dorsal turret, and an MG151 cannon mounted on the tail.

He 177A-5/R4: Featured simplified bomb rack arrangements along with installation of Kehl control equipment.

He 177A-5/R5: Tested with an additional pair of MG131s installed in an FDL131Z aft ventral remote turret behind the rear bomb bay; only one unit was built.

He 177A-5/R6: The forward and central bomb bays were replaced by enlarged fuel tanks extending through full fuselage depth.

He 177A-5/R7: A study involving a pressurized cockpit aimed at achieving operational ceiling around15,200 m (49,869 ft), accompanied by reduced defensive armament similar to that of He177 A-2.

He177 A-5/R8: Fitted with FDL-series remote gun turrets but abandoned due to technical challenges associated with turret operation; only one prototype built.

He177 A-5 Grosszerstörer: An anti-bomber configuration derived from He177 A-5 featuring up to thirty-three obliquely mounted spin-stabilized rockets of21 cm (8¼ inch) caliber replacing bomb bays and auxiliary fuel tanks. These rockets were likely based on components from the 21 cm Nebelwerfer42 infantry barrage rocket system. Five units were delivered for operational trials in January1944 but discontinued owing to increasing Allied air superiority fighter presence such as the P-51 Mustang.
He177 A-6: Intended as a long-range bomber weighing approximately32 metric tons loaded—an advancement over A-5—this variant eliminated the rear manned dorsal turret while retaining a single flexibleMG151 cannon at the front of the Bola, an MG81 ball mount in the "fishbowl" nose glazing, and standard A-series FDL131Z remote forward dorsal turret. It introduced for the first time standardized rear armament featuring Borsig-designed manned HL131V quadmount turret armed with fourMG131 machine guns named Hecklafette. Production did not proceed due to extensive design efforts focused on He177 B-series four-engine aircraft.^[29]

He177 A-6/R1: Conversion involving replacement of forward and central bomb bays with full-depth fuselage fuel tanks (similar to A-5/R6), plus addition of external bomb racks beneath new fuel tanks capable of carrying one2,500 kg (5,511 lb) bomb or Fritz X/Hs293 guided weapons alongside rear bomb bay loads comprising either four250 kg (551 lb) or two500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs if equipped with Kehl control gear. Six test conversions were made from existing A-5 airframes.

He177 A-6/R2: Featured redesigned aerodynamic nose abandoning earlier "Cabin3" cockpit design; this new nose resembled that intended for He177 A-7 and all He177 B development variants. Armament included FDL131 remote forward dorsal turret, one flexible-mountMG131 at rear of Bola, twinMG151/20 cannons in remotely controlled FDL151Z "chin" turret at front of Bola, plus manned hydraulic-drive HL131V "quadmount" tail turret armed with fourMG131s. Bomb load and range comparable to A6/R1. Only one test airframe converted from an He177 A-3 as He177 V15; no known photographs survive and it was destroyed in an accident late July1944.

File:Bundesarchiv Bild146-1972-065-68, Flugzeug Heinkel He177 A7.jpg

Wk.Nr.550256, He177 A7 prototype after World War II.

He177 A-7: A high-altitude bomber variant featuring extended wingspan of36 m (118 ft1⅓ in), powered exclusively by DB610 A/B engines instead of planned DB613 "power systems" rated at3,800 PS (3,748 hp,2,795 kW) which never completed testing. These power systems consisted of paired twin DB603 engines per unit. Six examples converted from He177 A-5 airframes for wing testing purposes but never fitted with intended advanced cockpit used on He177 B-series variants. One converted example (Wk.Nr.550256) was captured by U.S forces postwar and scrapped; it is believed buried beneath Chicago’s O'Hare International Airport grounds.
He177 A-8: The first proposed He177 design featuring four separate engines using either A-3 or A-5 fuselage combined with new wing designs. Engine options included Daimler-Benz DB603 engines as tested on prototypes (V101 through V103 during1943–44) or Junkers Jumo213 engines (proposal only). The design incorporated annular radiators similar to those used on Heinkel He219 for unitized DB603 powerplants employed on He219. This remained solely a paper project before being redesignated as "He177 B–5" by August1943.^[30]
He177 A–10: A proposed four-engine configuration similar to He177 A–8 but based on definitive production fuselage from He177 A–7 without a manned rear dorsal gun turret; redesignated as "He177 B–7" in August1943.^[30]
He177 B: Conceived as a direct four-engine development diverging from coupled-engine powered He177 A-series models. Four prototypes ordered (V101 to V104), three completed and flown using DB603 engines. Initially misrepresented postwar as being a cover designation for unproduced paper-only He277 Amerikabomber competitor canceled April1944.^[31]
He177 H: Initial project code assigned to what became Heinkel He274.
He179: A proposed1939 design variant featuring four separate piston engines; this model never reached production.^[32]

Special variants

He177 V38

An A–5 airframe (Werknummer550002 bearing Stammkennzeichen KM+TB) documented as test platform for FuG200 Hohentwiel airborne maritime radar combined with flexible MG131Z nose gun mount. Speculation exists that it served as testbed for enlarged bomb bay installations intended for use on Junkers Ju287. Popular myths wrongly claim V38 was prototype for German nuclear-capable bomber designed to carry fission devices as drop weapons. Remnants discovered at Prague’s Ruzyne field on Victory in Europe Day (V-E Day).

Operators

Germany

Luftwaffe
- Fernkampfgeschwader 50
- Kampfgeschwader 1
- Kampfgeschwader 4
- Kampfgeschwader 10
- Kampfgeschwader 40
- Kampfgeschwader 100
- Kampfgeschwader 200
- Flugzeugführerschule (B) 15
- Flugzeugführerschule (B) 16
- Flugzeugführerschule (B) 31
- Wekusta/OBdL

Template:FRA

The French Air Force operated a minimum of two He 177 A-3 aircraft left behind by German forces, which were subsequently refurbished by SNCASE at the Blagnac facility.

Template:UK

Royal Aircraft Establishment:

The He 177 A-5, identified by the Geschwaderkennung code F8 + AP from 6./KG 40, was captured at Toulouse-Blagnac airfield in September 1944. It was then repainted with British markings and assigned the serial number TS439. This aircraft was utilized exclusively for evaluation purposes.

Surviving aircraft

No examples of the He 177 A series remain today. All extant airframes, including the documented He 177 B wreck at Eger Flugzeugwerke GmbH and the two He 274 models completed in France after the war, were scrapped by the late 1950s.

Specifications (He 177 A-5/R2)

Template:Aircraft specs

External links

[GriehlDresselp33-1] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 33.

[GriehlDresselp9-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GriehlDresselp9

[Warplanes_of_the_Third_Reich_p228-3] Green 1990, p. 228.

[keinesturz-4] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 54.

[5] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 109.

[6] "ハインケル177の主脚". www5a.biglobe.ne.jp.

[GriehlDresselp159-195-7] Griehl and Dressel 1998, pp. 159, 195.

[GriehlDresselp218-8] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 218.

[GriehlDresselp17-9] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 17.

[GriehlDresselp22-10] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 22.

[11] "Lexikon der Wehrmacht - Heinkel He 177, He 177B-Reihe (in German)". lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de. Retrieved: 22 April 2012.

[GriehlDresselp14-12] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 14.

[GriehlDresselp16-13] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p.16.

[Griehlp3-14] 14.0 ^14.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Griehlp3

[15] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p.54.

[GriehlDresselp46-16] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GriehlDresselp46

[GriehlDresselp46-54-17] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GriehlDresselp46-54

[Wings_on_my_Sleeve,_pp._82–83-18] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Wings on my Sleeve, pp. 82–83

[19] Brown 1993, pp. 31, 34.

[Wings_on_my_Sleeve,_p._82-20] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Wings on my Sleeve, p. 82

[21] Holm, Michael (2003). "Kampfgeschwader 50". www.ww2.dk : The Luftwaffe, 1933-45. Retrieved 26 July 2024.

[22] March, Lee, & Barraclough 1987, p. 218

[Griehl_and_Dressel_1998,_p.129-23] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p.129.

[Warplanes_of_the_Third_Reich_p346-24] Green 1990, p. 346.

[25] March, Lee, & Barraclough 1987, p. 267

[GriehlDresselp87-26] Griehl and Dressel 1998, p. 87.

[Heinkel_He_177_Heinkel's_Strategic_bomber_p144-27] Smith 2008, p. 144.

[Heinkel_He_177_Greif_(Griffon)_Aircraft_in_Profile_Vol_11p284-28] Price 1972, p. 284.

[GriehlDresselp102-29] Griehl and Dressel1998, p.102.

[GriehlDresselp160–161-30] 30.0 ^30.1 Griehl and Dressel1998, pp.160–161.

[31] Postwar aviation sources

[32] Dan Sharp2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

Heinkel He 177 Greif

Background

Engines

Surface evaporation cooling

Defensive armament

Wing

Dive bombing

Undercarriage

Prototypes

Production

Engine difficulties

Experimental weapon configurations

Defensive ordnance experiments

Airworthiness and Handling

Further evolution: the Heinkel He 177B

Operational history

Variants

Operators

Surviving aircraft

Specifications (He 177 A-5/R2)

See also

Citations

Bibliography

External links

Background

Engines

Surface evaporation cooling

Defensive armament

Wing

Dive bombing

Undercarriage

Prototypes

Production

Engine difficulties

Experimental weapon configurations

Defensive ordnance experiments

Airworthiness and Handling

Further evolution: the Heinkel He 177B

Operational history

Variants

Operators

Surviving aircraft

Specifications (He 177 A-5/R2)

See also

Citations

Bibliography

External links

Related profiles