I was on a cross-country flight in an F-111F from Cannon AFB NM to Eglin AFB, Fl with a stop at Ellington Field near Houston, TX. As we shut down engines for refueling a B-17 from the Confederate Air Force taxied and parked right next to us. I went over and got a personal tour from the aircraft commander. I sat in every position and played 12 O’Clock High for thirty minutes. Thank you CAF!
Only a few aircraft got it as a field upgrade. It wouldn't have been much of a weapon anyway if the pilot had to fly the aeroplane with its tail pointed directly at the enemy while aiming by mirror. Utterly useless in fact.
+Elvino Tomo That's why only a few planes were fitted with it - it's almost useless. Just like the fixed driver's machine gun in the Chinese T 59 tank, which could only be aimed by the driver pointing the tank directly at the target.
From what i can recall the idea for the weapon being placed that way was that it was the blind spot for the He 111 ( it was to act as a ¨ dissuader¨) and in order for the attacking enemy fighter to either turn away or at least stay away from the ¨blind spot¨and hopefully be delt with the ventral or dorsal weapon from the bomber.
Glad I got to see this one and go inside her several times - in case ya'll don't know, it crashed in 2003 and killed both the pilot and co-pilot. Mr. Fraser was not aboard at that time. The plane was based in Mesa, Arizona and was on its way from Midland, Texas to a show in Missoula if I'm not mistaken - the last flying Heinkel has been gone for more than a decade now.
The post-war Spanish version for the He-111 was actually known as CASA 2111 (CASA stands for Construcciones Aeronauticas Sociedad Anónima), and there is at least one more in static display (alongside a He-111B in Spanish civil war markings) at the Spanish air museum.
My grandpa was always in mission with that beautiful bird. Hes still alive in age of 93 and he always tell me about his mission. WoW ! I got his flightbook. Cant get enough of his storys.
MAG-FED-PAINTBALL GERMANY wie blickt er denn selber in die Zeit zurück? Ist er stolz darauf ein echtes 111 Crewmitglied (Pilot?) Gewesen zu sein oder denkt in der Art "das waren wilde Zeiten" oder meint er sogar, dass das nicht gerade etwas ist, worauf man stolz sein kann (also bomben auf Leute runterzuwerfen)? Würde mich mal interessieren weil die B-17 Piloten, die oft einfach nur Zivilisten bombardiert haben sind heute ja die totalen heroes.
Great video! I saw this plane back in 1998 when you people flew the HE-111 and a B-17 up to Camrose, Alberta. The thing that went through my mind while going through both planes was that they are not nearly so spacious as they appear in the movies. Very sobering to imagine what it would have been like for the crew when flak was exploding around them or when enemy fighters appeared.
My 2nd cousin Oblt / Hampt Wolfgang Luhrs flew 400 missions between 1939-45 both in France and Russia. He is a Knights Cross holder. And flew with a handful of different squadrons but mainly belonged as a member of the famed Legion Condor KG53 2nd squadron.
From Wikipedia: “One modified Spanish 2.111D served as a transport for Spanish VIPs, including General Francisco Franco, before being purchased in England by the Commemorative Air Force in 1977. It remained the last He 111 in flyable condition until 10 July 2003, when it was destroyed in a fatal crash landing. The aircraft was attempting a landing at the Cheyenne Municipal Airport, near Cheyenne, Wyoming, while en route from Midland, Texas to an air show in Missoula, Montana. Eyewitness reports indicate the aircraft lost power to one engine on final approach and ploughed through a chain link fence before colliding with a building under construction. Killed were CAF pilot Neil R. Stamp and co-pilot Charles S. Bates.”
My dad took me to this airshow, and I remember what a big deal it was that this plane was there. So sad to hear about it crashing only a few years later.
My Grandpa was a Pilot from a HE 111 (1940 - 1943) and the Group was closed middle 1943 and than he flyed the Stuka and have a fight with a P-51 and is landing of the american side. I come from Germany and i am a very big WWII fan. good movie :-)
I truly believe the Heinkel to be an under-appreciated, under utilized and under estimated design, as revolutionary and effective as some of the more lauded aircraft of the time. The semi elliptical wing is a masterpiece and despite several performance shortcomings the design could have been developed into something devastating - this however was a Casa 111 quite different to the original German operational He111
I had the good fortune to see this beauty do a flyover at Werner Seitz' memorial service. It was truly an impressive moment and a memory I shall cherish always.
Thank you for putting that together Clint. Even if it's not an original He111, it's still mighty interesting to see it. It's curious how interest in ww2 seems to grow, not shrink, with time. I was born in London immediately after the end of the war. People didn't have much interest in military tech back then. I guess they were just glad to have survived. And, interest in anything German was strongly disapproved of (altho' people furtively bought the excellent electronics, tech and household goods made in W. Germany). Sorry to learn that this aircraft crashed tragically.
This particular CASA 2.111 was the last of its type that could still fly. On July 10th 2003, it was involved in a crash landing that ended fatally. This tragedy of a landing happened while attempting to land at Cheyenne Municipal Airport after flying from Midland, Texas. It was en-route to an air show in Missoula, Montana when the accident occurred. Eyewitness accounts state the aircraft appeared to lose power in one engine while on its final approach to the airstrip and crashed through a chain fence. Following this, it then collided with a building (a school bus-washing business) that was undergoing construction. Sadly in this collision, the pilot and co-pilot were fatally injured (Neil R. Stamp and Charles S. Bates).
The CASAs also have galvonic corrosion in the steel and aluminum wing spar construction which may prevent another survivor from getting in the air without major replacement work, though it would be possible to do it. There are some projects out there, but nothing close to flying any time soon.
tzilivak Glad I got the tour of this plane before the crash. I am just now finding out it went down, very sad to know it's gone and the pilots died. When I got the tour, I was told some idiot people were complaining about the swastika on the tail. very sad she's gone.
Thank god for Spain in this respect, these planes were put to use in movies like "Patton," and "Battle of Britain" which were made with the cooperation of the Spanish Air Force. They had license-built bf-109s as well. Thanks for the post.
My father flew the HE 111 during WWII he was in the KG200 squadron. He love his plane and dad was very lucky that he never dropped any bombs.He manly flew spy missions.
Historians and authors would love to have any stories or memories that you may have of his service if he is or was willing to share. There are archives and also living history videos collected from veterans to tell their stories.
A couple of things: The Original ones had 3 Gunners/Radio Operators in the Tail, one for the upper gun, one for Radio and Waist guns and one in the Bath Tub and 2 Guys in the Cockpit, one Pilot and a Bombardier/Gunner. Late in the War they were equipped with the fearsome 3000 Round per Minute MG81Z (8mm) and 950 Round Per Minute MG131 (13mm) with HE-T and HEI-T rounds. It was definetly not an easy target and comparable to the B-25 in defensive Capability. Flexible Front Mounted 20mm Guns were also Common for Strafing. Pretty much all German Wartime Bombers were equipped with a Formation Ready Autopilot, so you wouldn't have to fly manually all the time. It could carry up to 8000lbs of Bombs externally. And the original ones only had the Overhead Panel, not the one they have installed in this one. It's noisy because the engines aren't original. The actual He-111 had Inverted V JuMo 211s with much lower mounted exhausts which were far less loud. That's all.
Agreed but it still had an all-glass nose. That made it more vulnerable when confronted by a head-on attack I presume. And if an Allied AA shell exploded in the vicinity, much more chance of incapacitating the crew, including the pilot.
Why would they? Counter Rotating Props make sense for High Performance Aircraft, but on an Aircraft as slow and underpowered as any 2, 3 or 4 engined Bomber the Difference is Marginal and doesn't justify the Strain on the War Economy. No Medium or Heavy Bombers used Counter Rotating Props except the He-177, and the only Large Scale Production light Aircraft was the P-38. Otherwise it was never really necessary. Counter Rotating Props are rare because you basically have to build an inverted Engine, different Camshafts, Crankshafts, Ignition Timing etc. and imagine running out of Starboard Engines in the Field. You would basically unnecessairly hinder your ability to replace parts and engines .
MyFabian94 Well, ok. But you can't argue the fact that its bombs configuration was stupidly limited with the vertical, static racks. Even though the Lancaster is a much bigger bomber, its 'dynamic' bomb bay meant that you could vary the loads very much. What other bomber of renown has such peculiar bomb racks like the He-111?
Paint it anyway you like ,it is a CASA, not a Heinkel, it was built to use Merlins, it was never dual control and the instrument panel is was not in front of the pilot as on there, but but across the top of the cabin above the pilots field of vision.
Oh its a totally original Heinkel Bomber , Apart from its built in Spain with British Merlin Engines , Then that would make it a Casa 2.111 , and not a Heinkel
The Commemorative Air Force (CAF), formerly the Confederate Air Force, is a Texas-based non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and showing historical aircraft at airshows primarily throughout the U.S. and Canada.
My dad flew He 111 over Russia in WW2. Ju 88 as well. I sat in this plane and gave them many of my dads wonderful photos. Very clear. They took them back to Mesa Az and put them in the museum
Black cross / Red Star. Vol 5. Has some of my dads photos and quotes from his daily journal of the Air campaign over Stalingrad. Christer Berstrom did a great job with these books. 👍🏻
Date of accident: 10-JUL-2003 | CASA 2.111 (Heinkel He-111)| N72615 | Pilot: Neil R. Stamp | 2 miles SE of Cheyenne airport, WY The airplane, a Spanish-built version of the WW2 Heinkel He-111 bomber, was en route to an air show and was making a refueling stop at Cheyenne. The tower cleared the pilot to land. The airplane was observed on a 3-mile straight-in final approach when it began a left turn. The controller asked the pilot what his intentions were. The pilot replied, "We just lost our left engine." The pilot then reported that he wasn't going to make it to the airport. Witnesses observed the airplane flying "low to the ground and under-speed for [a] good 4 minutes." The right propeller was turning, but the left propeller was not. There was no fire or smoke coming from the left engine. The pilot was "obviously trying to pull up." The airplane "dipped hard left," then struck the ground left wing first. It slid through a chain link fence, struck a parked automobile, and collided with a school bus wash barn. The fire destroyed the airplane, parked car, and wash barn. Disassembly and examination of both engines disclosed no anomalies that would have been causal or contributory to the accident. According to the Airplane Flight Manual, "Maximum power will probably be required to maintain flight with one engine inoperative. Maximum power at slow air speed may cause loss of directional control." A loss of engine power for reasons undetermined, and the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control. Contributing factors were the unsuitable terrain on which to make a forced landing, low airspeed, the fence, automobile, and the school bus wash barn.
+Henrik Kongsgaard Jakobsen HISTORY OF FLIGHT On July 10, 2003, approximately 1310 mountain daylight time, N72615, a CASA 2.111, registered to and operated by the American Airpower Heritage Fly Museum, was destroyed when it collided with a building 2 miles southeast of the Cheyenne Municipal Airport, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The airline transport certificated pilot and copilot were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for the cross-country flight being conducted under Title 14 CFR Part 91. The flight originated at Midland, Texas, approximately 1030, and was en route to Missoula, Montana, for an air show. According to control tower personnel, the tower controller cleared the pilot to land on runway 26. The airplane was on a 3-mile straight-in final approach when controllers saw it turning left. When they asked the pilot what his intentions were, he replied: "We just lost our left engine." The pilot then reported that he wasn't going to make it to the airport. Several witnesses observed the airplane flying "low to the ground and under-speed for [a] good 4 minutes." The right propeller was turning, but the left propeller was not turning. They saw no smoke or fire coming from the left engine. One witness said the pilot was "obviously trying to pull up. The plane dipped hard left," then struck the ground with its left wing. It traveled through a chain link fence, struck a parked automobile, and slid into a school bus wash barn. The ensuing fire destroyed the airplane, parked car, and wash barn. One witness observed the "tail cartwheel above the roof [of the wash barn] and then shower[ed] debris into another building in [the] rear of [the] bus barn." CREW INFORMATION The pilot, 56, held an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane multiengine land rating, type ratings in the Boeing 757 and 767, and commercial privileges for airplane single-engine land, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument-helicopter ratings. He held a flight instructor certificate with airplane single/multiengine ratings. He also held a ground instructor certificate with a basic rating. His first class airman medical certificate, dated February 21, 2003, contained the limitation, "Must have available glasses for near and intermediate vision." On February 20, 2003, he successfully completed an American Airpower Heritage Fly Museum proficiency check, and was designated pilot-in-command in the HE-111 on March 5, 2003. He was a captain with America West Airlines. The copilot, 54, held an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane multiengine land rating, type ratings in the Airbus A320, Boeing 737, and Sikorsky S70, and commercial privileges for airplane single-engine land, glider, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument-helicopter ratings. He held a flight instructor certificate with airplane single/multiengine, instrument-airplane, and rotorcraft-helicopter ratings. The pilot also held a mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings. His first class airman medical certificate, dated May 19, 2003, contained the limitation, "Must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision." On October 4, 2001, he successfully completed an American Airpower Heritage Fly Museum proficiency check, and was designated copilot in the HE-111 on November 1, 2001. He was a captain with U.S. Air. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The Spanish manufacturer, CASA, manufactured the airplane, a model 2.111 (s/n T8-B-124), in 1952. The airplane was a replica of the Heinkel HE-111, a World War II German Air Force bomber. The airplane was powered by two Rolls-Royce Merlin 500 V-12, liquid-cooled engines (s/n 45-306915, left; 307205, right), each rated at 1,200 horsepower, driving two 3-bladed, hydraulically-controlled, constant speed, full-feathering propellers. The airplane was maintained under an FAA-approved continuous inspection program. The last airframe and engine inspections were conducted on April 18, 2003, and August 20, 2001, respectively, when the airframe had accrued 1,895.1 and 1,834.6 hours, respectively. The last pitot-static system and transponder checks were done on March 14, 2003. . METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION At the time of the accident, the current METAR (routine meteorological report) for Cheyenne Municipal Airport was as follows: Wind, 010 degrees at 12 knots, gusting to 15 knots; visibility, 10 statute miles (or greater); sky condition, clear; temperature, 29 degrees Celsius; dew point, 1 degree Celsius; altimeter setting, 30.31 inches of mercury. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION A ground scar in the dirt contained pieces of the left wing. The scar led up to a portion of a chain link fence that had been torn down. The airplane then struck a parked automobile and a school bus wash barn. The ensuing post-impact fire destroyed the automobile and heavily damaged the school bus wash barn. With the exception of the outboard portion of the right wing and both engines, fire consumed the airplane. MEDICAL & PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION On July 11, 2003, the Laramie County Coroner's Office conducted an autopsies on the pilot-in-command and copilot. FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) performed toxicological tests on specimens taken from the pilot and copilot. According to CAMI's reports (#200300208001 and #200300208002), all tests were negative. TESTS AND RESEARCH The left engine was disassembled and examined on August 12, 2003. Before disassembly, however, engine rotation was accomplished. When viewed from the rear, the "A" magneto is on the left side and the "B" magneto is on the right side of the engine. The exhaust manifold, camshafts, and rockers; the "A" and "B" bank flame traps, pistons, and cylinder walls, and the crankshaft were unremarkable. The "A" bank spark plugs were oil-fouled, and the "B" bank spark plugs were clean. The oil filter contained normal amounts of metal deposits. Although the magnetos and fuel pump were burned, no discrepancies were noted. The right engine was disassembled and examined on September 9, 2003. No discrepancies were noted. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following are excerpts from the Airplane Flight Manual. The airplane has a fuel capacity of 930 gallons. Each engine consumes approximately 60 gallons per hour, giving the airplane a 7 hour, 45 minute endurance. The engines are equipped with float-type carburetors that are sensitive to deck angle (or pitch attitude) and high fuel pressures. The engines may lose power if the deck angle exceeds 15 degrees or if the fuel pressure exceeds 9 psi. There is an engine-driven fuel pump on each engine, and there is an electric boost pump between each engine and the fuel tank valves. The boost pumps should be on "any time the aircraft is flown within 1,000 feet of the surface." The boost pumps provide adequate backup fuel pressure to prevent an engine power loss if an engine-driven fuel pump should fail. Maximum power will probably be required to maintain flight if an engine should lose power. Maximum power at slow airspeed may cause a loss of directional control. Other than the Federal Aviation Administration, there were no designated parties to this investigation. The wreckage was released to the insurance company on August 13, 2003.
A similar accident happened in Madrid-Cuatro Vientos: during an air show in 2013, a Spanish made HA-200 Saeta training airplane, designed by Willy Messerschmitt, with two Turbomeca designed 450 kg thrust turbines, lost all power and crashed into a house, killing the pilot. Don't know why, but this reminded me a psychic terrorist, escaping from gen. Videla, who used in 1980 a fake registration number 220988, the date of 'Space Odyssey' Oil drilling rig fire. The name of this is: 'black magic', 'witchcraft', 'the will', or 'Spooky action at a distance', aka: 'Quantum entanglement'. Beware of the dog, be good to your neighbour, and pray!
@@hkja99 Being from Phoenix, I had the privilege of touring this aircraft many times in the late 90's and early 2000's. A few months after the crash I was talking to one of the CAF's Arizona wing staff members about the crash. He told me that the cause of the crash was determined to be fuel starvation. He said that the plane had to take off using the inner fuel tanks in the wing, then after take off switch to the outer tanks and use them up before switching back to the inner wing tanks. If the inner fuel tanks were exhausted first then the fuel in the outer tanks could not be accessed. Apparently on this last flight after taking off using the inner fuel tanks the crew did not switch to the outer tanks. Not realizing the mistake they used all the fuel in the inner tanks and then could not utilize the fuel in the outer tanks and thus ran out of fuel. A sad loss of crew and aircraft.
When I visited there in the 1990s I got to get inside this German bomber before much restoration was done to it...glad to see all the work you put into it...a rare bird indeed!
This is NOT a Heinkel He-111 It is a spanish C.A.S.A., (lots of differences)! They have Merlin, R.R., engines, and a totally diferent cockpit, with two control columns, (only one in the original for the pilot), and the instrument panel, on the original, is overhang from the ceiling, for a much better wiew haed, and when the pilot flyes with the cockpit roof panel open, elevates a small windshield, rises the seat and control column, then he has the instrument panel in front of the hook!!!
@Dexter Banks He clearly explains exactly what is. Nobody cares about a CASA, but a lot of people appreciate what was the only flying representation of what was an important aircraft.
@Dexter Banks You're an idiot. This is a true Heinkel airplane. Varients were built under license by different manufacturers and different countries. The man said they used Rolls Royce Merlin engines because it was impossible to obtain the original German engines. Grumman TBM Avengers were also built by Ford but they were still the exact same airplane.
Good job, they said it at the beginning. But you realize it’s 90% German design correct? It’s a Heinkel built by the Spanish with RR engines. Take your nose out of your ass you aren’t that smart.
I've got several complaints. The guy is either a bad interviewee or a better pilot than historian. Or both. First he says the He 111 "lacked armament to protect the crew", while showing machine guns sticking out everywhere, and immediately contradicting himself by saying how the machine guns were too small. Perhaps he meant "armor", but that's also incorrect. The He 111 had an armored seat for the pilot, and some armor protecting areas of the engines and the oil tanks, but it has armor. I also don't like how he suggests that this aircraft looks just He 111's did in German service. There are a number of differences, both internal and external. He also suggests that the radio operator had to fire three guns; his own, and the waist guns. No one had to fire three guns. The radio operator fired *one* gun, the dorsal gun. He sat in a sling seat underneath the plexiglass windscreen, and fired to the rear (also, note that most HE 111's had their windscreen open at the rear, basically an open cockpit with a long windscreen mounted on slides over it. When firing, the windscreen was slid forward, exposing most of the opening to the air and allowing the gunner to shoot more to the sides. Even when "closed", the rear was still open, and the gunner could still fire in a limited area to the rear. The enclosed canopy seen here is only seen on the post-war Spanish version). The waist gunner fired *two* guns, one on each side. He then suggests that the ventral gunner fires "both front and rear" guns in the ventral "bathtub" (gondola). Almost all He 111's had only a rear-firing ventral gun; how many attacks come from the lower front? Some versions modified for anti-shipping had a 20mm MG FF in the forward part of the gondola, used for suppressing AA fire from surface vessels while on a bombing/torpedo run. This was operated by the ventral gunner, but the odds of needing to use both guns at the same time are slim. If the ships are shooting at you, no enemy fighter is likely to be flying into that area to attack you, and on a torpedo run, it's almost impossible to attack an aircraft from below. The bomb-aimer had either one or two machine guns mounted in the nose glazing (although I've heard of variants with 15mm or 20mm cannon mounted instead). As for the inside of the aircraft, there are many more differences besides the fuselage door being installed. First, the original radio equipment he shows is only one unit out of many originally installed. As I said, the radio operator sat under the plexiglas windscreen in a canvas chair, his head at about roof level. Around him in a half circle were three or four radio units, within easy reach, so he could watch for enemy fighters, man the gun, and use the radio at the same time (or without getting out of his seat, at least). If the other gunners wanted to go to the forward section of the aircraft, they'd have to duck underneath him. Second, there were no seats like the ones shown; those are passenger seats. The men in the rear fuselage had jump seats to sit on during takeoff and transit (although some variants were modified to take passengers). Third, this machine has two extra windows on each side. The most important changes, however, are too the cockpit. This shows it with two control columns and yokes, and a normal instrument panel. In a real He 111, there is only one control column, mounted in the center. At the top, there is a swinging arm with a yoke mounted on it. Normally, this is positioned in front of the pilot, looking something like an upside down letter "L", but the whole arm and yoke can be swung over in front of the bomb-aimer, in case the pilot gets wounded or killed. The yoke is designed to stay at the same angle regardless of how the arm is swung (they show a similar feature in the film "The Aviator", when he lets Hepburn fly a seaplane, and swings the controls over to her, but in that case, the whole column swings like a lever. The Japanese Ki-49 bomber also had a single pivoting control column between two pilots, although they could and did fly with only one pilot on board). The way the cockpit is set up in this aircraft, it would be impossible for the bomb-aimer to get into the nose of the aircraft to man the bomb-sight or guns. Next, in a real He 111, the instrument panel is mounted about two feet higher, attached to the glazing frames, and the pilots' view is forward and DOWN, and he has to glance upwards to view the instruments. This leaves the area in front of the navigator open, so he can crawl into the front. British aircraft had conventional instruments, but the area under the right-side panel is open so crew can crawl forwards into the nose compartment. With a second control column in the way, this would be impossible (part of the reason the Ki-49 uses a swinging column, to allow the passage to remain open unless the controls are swung over to the co-pilot, who sits slightly lower and further back than the captain. I am also curious about how he says that "only one window can be opened". A standard design feature on the He 111 was that the panel over the pilots head could be slid back, the small rectangular panel ahead of it flipped up to create a small windscreen, and the pilots seat raised up so he was flying with his head outside the cockpit, essentially converting it into an open-cockpit aircraft (this was included in case the nose glazing became fogged or condensation formed, and prevented the pilot from seeing the runway while landing. Many aircraft have a similar feature where one or two of the windscreen panels can be opened, called "direct vision", or "clear vision" panels. The He 111 used this more complex method because the glazing is so far away from the pilots' eyes, that a single small opening would give a very limited-angle view outside. In any case, the opening seem quite large enough to cool down the cockpit, even if the pilot ops to keep his head inside the aircfsfaft; There are images on this page of the sliding panel and windscreen, as well as the racks of radio equipment on the first page. www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234956585-148-monogram-he-111h-2/page- A minor point, but he seems to describe this "lubber line" in front of the pilot as simply a visual reference to help keep the craft flying straight. It is in fact a component of the bomb sight system; it directs the pilot if he needs to turn at all to line up on the target, and keeps him from deviating from a straight path on the bomb run. If he accidentally turns a little left, the line will move to the right, showing him he must turn slightly right again. It's something like following the needle on a radio locator device. Bombers began using this technology some time before WWII started, although sophistication varied greatly. The US used a needle in a gauge to direct their pilots, until they decided to simply plug the bombsight right into the autopilot system, which automatically flew itself onto the correct heading and maintained it. After all that, I also didn't like how he calls it simply "the aircraft that bombed Britian", and that it "just dumped bombs on Britian at night". It did a lot more than that! It served with the Luftwaffe on all fronts and in many capacities throughout the war, as a bomber torpedo bomber, cargo transport, paratrooper transport, medevac, passenger plane, mail plane, patrol, glide bomb and cruise missile platform, EW platform, even night fighter (without much success, granted). Just because the Battle of Britain is the best known to the average person, doesn't mean it was the most important duty the He 111 fulfilled. The He 111 probably had a much greater impact on the Eastern Front than the Blitz, but you just don't hear about that. Lastly, I'm curious why he says that Jumo engines "can't be rebuilt". Every engine can be rebuilt, as far as I know. Perhaps he means that *Spain* couldn't even obtain enough spare parts to rebuild any engines they could get?
The He111 had about 5-7 7.7 mgs, but they were pretty piss poor defence. That said at the RAF museum in hendon ,there is a windscreen of a spitfire shattered by a bullet from an He 111, - (the bullet is lodged in it anyway), very - very lucky shot on the gunners part. Some got a 20mm in the nose later, but its fairing arc was pretty limited,
Really... So what typically happened when WW2 fighters intercepted unescorted WW2 bombers then? The losses were about equal'? or was it usually a fucking turkey shoot for the fighters? Remind me again? You make it sound like Bombers fought fighters on near equal terms - in which case, what was point of fighter escorts then? Yes caliber of weapons makes a difference, but you do realize (Even with best training the Luftwaffe could offer) - just how damn hard it was for gunners to hit something with a single mounted MG while moving at about 200 mph or more? You realize that for waist and rear facing guns it drastically reduces accuracy and bullet velocity right? Not to mention the late 1930's bombers lack of agility and speed (Bar a diving JU88) and all the fucking blind spots in their already outdated defense. Please tell me you understand these basic factors. YAWN! Yes Luftwaffe fighters had 20mm and even some of their bombers got one mounted in the nose or gondola, whoopty fucking do, lets re-write history over that! They still lost, not because of their machines, air men or personell, but because their wonderful Reich had a crazy over emotional idiot with 'mummy issues' at its helm. while the luftwaffe got pushed around by a respected WW1 ace turned pompous fat shit who was more interested in stealing paintings than running his fucking airforce. if someone like Donitz or Rommell had been commanding the Luftwaffe, it might have been different.
+vonkaunaz a spitfire would have more fire power than the he 111 because the would have 8 forward wing mounted .303 guns with convergence while only one or two of the German guns would have a shot. the he 111 and even the 110 had to have fighter escorts all the time because the Fast and maneuverable spitfires and hurricanes would shoot them out of the sky.
+justforever96 Despite how i like how he 111 looks i can imagine what a nightmare was it to fly on mission. In its time it was too slow and armament was also insufficient. I can only imagine how bad rear gunner must felt with that bb gun in his hand and no protection against engaging Spitfires but being in that glass covered cocpit must have been even worse. Just compare he 111 to b17 big heavy much faster four engines and multiple heavy machinegunes in each direction and they still have little chance against fighters. Respect for those who flight in those machines for their bravery.
The main problem with the Heinkel HE-111 and why they were shot out of the sky left and right during WWII was the fact the aircraft was designed in the mid 30's. It was originally a very fast aircraft and could outrun just about anything anyone had on the planet. That quality quickly went away as It offered very little protection from a frontal assault from a Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, P-38, or Mosquito which were now much more maneuverable and faster than the HE-111 which was now five years old and technology had progressed rapidly in five years. Much more rapidly than the Nazi's perceived. One two second burst from a Mosquito equipped with one of the large bore auto cannons in the later models was enough to literally shred an HE-111 to small pieces. They usually just exploded. The British fighter pilots quickly figured out that a full speed frontal attack from a high position coming out of the sun in a steep dive at very high speed then leveling off and going full speed "head-on" with the HE-111 firing everything they had including machine guns, auto cannons of various bores, and even rockets later in the war. This was an absolute nightmare for the HE-111 pilots and bombarbiers. They knew if an enemy aircraft got them into the correct position in a frontal assault, they were dead. Some crews bailed out immediately when under attack, wanting to take their chances surviving a parachute drop to the ground over a frontal assault from an allied aircraft, as they immediately assumed they would be killed in the frontal assault as the "glass nose" or perspex cockpit and bombardier stations offered no protection from the onslaught of hell they were about to receive from an allied fighter or even medium bomber such as the B-25 which have some ships equipped with 18 machine guns. While normally a ground attack or bomber aircraft, some of the more skilled B-25 "Destroyer" pilots with experience could use the B-25 in air to air combat. The Pilot of the B-25 equipped with the 18 guns had a switch he could flip on from the yoke and take immediate control of all 18 (even if the other gunners were engaged in combat against other aircraft at their stations), the pilot could take full control immediately and hit the switch, causing the guns to disengage from the gunner ability to use and then to hydraulicly and automatically rotate to the full forward firing position through a rudimentary computer system of sorts that turned all 18 guns into the forward position at the same time giving the B-25 pilot the ultimate medium bomber/destroyer type aircraft which could unleash a hellfire of bullets into the fuselage in less than 1 second, usually causing the aircraft to explode instantly into pieces. Sometimes the enemy would be taken out trying to shoot down a Heinkel or any aircraft for that matter. They shoot too close and the debris or the enemy aircraft itself collides with the British or Allied pilot and either making them force land, or getting themselves killed from being to close during an attack. German Ace Hauptman Manfred Meurer was such a case. He was flying his brand new Heinkel HE-219 night fighter (a very advanced and capable aircraft of that era) when he accidentally collided with an allied aircraft during an attack and was killed instantly. Meurer was too close to the other aircraft during the assault and either pieces of the aircraft or the aircraft itself collided with Meurer. Meurer was a leaded night fighter ace of WWII and was used an a propaganda tool for the Reich (like many Pilots) as one of the Luftwaffe's "Golden Boys", an elite group of fighter and bomber "aces" whom the Luftwaffe liked to parade around Germany as a representative of how Germany was (in their minds) winning the war.. Meurer was a skilled pilot but many a skilled pilot was killed in air to air combat on both sides of the conflict. Meurer was most likely using his upward firing 30mm cannon and was underneath the bomber he was attempting to take down. After flying up underneath the bomber, Meurer gave the bomber a burst from his upward firing 30mm auto cannon and the bomber broke up after the cannon burst and fell directly onto the top of Meurer's aircraft immediately destroying both aircraft. Tracially, both crews were killed in the encounter. Many Pilots throughout WWII were tragically killed colliding with other aircraft, either enemy or even their own flight-mates by accident. A very large number of pilots (or better termed, "rookie trainee pilots"), were killed in practice training either attempting to qualify as a pilot in the initial stages, or during their flight qualifications, and even during practice qualifications after they were already a seasoned pilot. Many mistakes happened during training during WWII (on both the German side and the Allied side). The Russians were VERY poorly trained and some pilots had barely enough training to even start the aircraft, let alone fly it in combat. This was common in Russia at that time due to their political system at that time. It was more important to Stalin and the Russian hierarchy at that time including the military commanders to get pilots into the cockpit as soon as humanly possible, even if it meant bypassing certain aspects of combat pilot training. Some Russian pilots were barely trained. Young boys were giving the chance to pilot a brand new Ilyushin Il2 Sturmovik Ground Attack aircraft with minimal training. Enough to start the aircraft, get it airborne, and then into a dive so they could unleash their machine gun fine on the German ground troops and tanks. A main goal of Russia in stopping the German advance. They wanted as many Sturmovik aircraft in the air as possible, as quickly as possible. If this meant by-passing critical "air to air" combat flight skills, then so be it in Stalin's eyes as long as they could perform ground attack missions as quickly as humanly possible. Even a few weeks was enough "basic" training in the very early years of the conflict, especially during the onslaught of Stalingrad. If the Rookie pilot completed their missions and survived, all the better. If they didn't, Russia (and probably other allied nations) wanted replacement pilots back in the cockpit as soon as possible. This wasn't so much the case with the USA who kept strict standards and training curriculums for combat pilots of any type which proved brilliant in the long run as the US and other Allied nation pilots dominated the sky's over Europe, Russia, The Baltics, Skandinavia, the Mediterranean and North Africa. The US, British, and Allied Nation pilots were much more skilled than the German's by the point who could not keep up with pilot attrition. The German's were literally putting a pilot into the sky's into air to air combat with 1/3 of the training of what a normal Pilot would have received before Hitler started WWII. These unskilled pilots were unfortunately "easy pickin's" for the US and Allied pilots and they were quickly shot down by the more skilled pilots. Germany trained approximately 20,000 pilots before and during WWII. They secretly training many pilots (ironically in Russia) for many years in secret before Hitler revealed that Germany did in fact have a mightily air force. It was in fact, the most powerful airforce in the entire world at that point in history. This terrified the US, Britain, and France who quickly started to reevaluate their own Air Forces in the event that a war were to break out with Germany, who now had an Air Force that could inflict unknown amounts of damage in a conflict. The Heinkel HE-111 was the premier bomber and "backbone" of the German Luftwaffe when it was revealed by Hitler. The Heinkel was considered "fast" for that time in history (Mid 30's) . Pilots could be seen actually piloting the aircraft and working the rutter pedals, yoke, and controls through the fully exposed circular "Glass" or "Perspex" (Similar to LUCITE), cockpit which encompassed the entire forward nose section of the fuselage. This almost made the fuselage look like a bullet of sorts and it had a very modern and even futuristic look for 1935.
Dankeschön für das tolle Intro und die detaillierte Info. Thanks for taking me with you ,for a walk around "our" Heinkel . Greets from GermanAustria 🙋🏻♂️🇦🇹🇩🇪🎗🇺🇸🇺🇸✌
Some how another one of these needs to be constructed for future use. These are workable history pieces and if only 1 exist,then we need another. This one someday will die. Great video.
I see that this aircraft crashed in 2003. A great pity as it was quite unique as it was I think the only flying He 111 in the world. There is a lovely one with original Junkers Jumo engines in the RAF Museum at Hendon, in the UK, which I saw in 2000.
My god, it has the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon! The location of the yoke sticks, the instrument panel horizon, and canopy framing are very similar. I was immediately struck by that in the "preview" image link on UA-cam...
Thanks for the tour of the plane. I am not going to criticize like some other commenters below have done - I think you gave a good description in the time allotted. I will just make a couple of points. First, many commenters act as if there was one He 111. In fact, my study of the Luftwaffe has shown that the models that flew throughout the war were constantly upgraded. Thus, saying the He 111 had this or that equipment is silly - different variations had vastly different equipment. For instance, much is made in some comments of its .792 mm defensive armament, which of course is true - on the earlier wartime versions. By 1942, the He 111 had a 13 mm gun on top and upgrades in other positions as well. Again, I'm not criticizing your explanation, simply observing that a little knowledge by some of the commenters criticizing you is a dangerous thing. My second point is a little more prosaic. Having only one hatch in the bathtub for entry and exit must have made for some interesting moments for the crew after the plane was hit and in its death dive! Must have been some mad scrambles for the hatch. Oh, and that noise from the engines you mention? Maybe it has something to do with using Merilns and not the original powerplants. Anyway, I appreciated your pilot's perspective.
Sad that the pilots and plane were lost. I read somewhere that the off set nose was designed to counteract the torque and drift since the engines weren't counter rotating.
Hundreds of cockpits modeled, yet they can't do bombers and some heavy fighters. I'm so happy we have it for the Mosquitos, but I wish we could get it the Beaufighters.
No, the addition of the waist guns meant additional crew - the original four being raised to five or six, dependent on whether one or two gunners were carried. It was common for the bomb-aimer (bombardier) to man the nose guns.
I was able to see the inside of this plane as a young teenager back in the late 90s at an airshow in El Paso, TX. Pity the plane crashed so tragically.
Great video, and if anyone wants to build a model of this aircraft,I would suggest the Monogram 1/48 scale kit,very good kit and one of my favourite models on my shelf.
I saw this flying over Mesa, AZ back in 1999/2000 when it was based there by coincidence. I saw a plane at a far distance and the vertical fin was much larger than anything I'd seen before and I thought "I know what that is!" :)
They weren't, not any worse than the average bomber from mid-war. In fact, they were a lot better off than most contemporary bombers. Try flying combat in a B-18, or a Blenheim, or a Hampden. Then get back to me on how awful it was to fly combat in an He 111. Of course, no WWII bombers were exactly a picnic to fly in.
People had Balls of steal back then, 5 hour runs once or twice a day had to be completely fatiguing let alone mentally stressful.. Remember German pilots didn't have 20 missions and go home, you went till you fell physically or mentally to pieces, severely injured or killed. My Dad was a PT boat engineer in WWII Pacific theater during Island hopping. He told me a few scary stories, that if it went the opposite direction I wouldn't be typing this.
Judging from the paintjob I would guess this was one of the CASAs they used in the BoB-movie from the 60s? The changed engine cowls to fit the Merlins never bothered me that much on this plane. What really takes me out of the movie every time I watch it (and I've watched it *a lot*) are those hideous looking "109s". They did a good job re-building their wings to resemble the older E-model, but they couldn't change those completely messed up looking engine cowls and spinners on the Bfs.
I was LUCKY enough to sit in one of these at the then Woolco castle lane near BOURNEMOUTH just before the battle of Britain film was launched.she was transported on a lorry to the car park and re assembled I DONT Care WhAT people say,WHAT A PLANE From a famous company who also built bubble cars as for the film itself my late father a mosquito pilot said to me these were quite difficult to shoot down because of their heavy bodies and they didn't fall out of the skies as every one says.so there you have it from the son of a mosquito pilot yes they did lose a lot of them but they were a HELL of a job trying to bring one down.
While Daimler was working out bugs in their DB601 engine on the Bf-109 in the 1930's, it flew with an engine licensed from Rolls Royce. Now, do the CASA-111's actually have British Rolls Royce Merlins or are those license-built Packard Merlins?
+Dana Sutton: BMW owns Rolls-Royce Motor Cars. Rolls-Royce Holdings plc owns Rolls-Royce aircraft engine and power systems business and is a British multinational public limited company listed at the London Stock Exchange in the FTSE 100 Index.
So sad to watch this. I had the good fortune to tour this aircraft at the last Madera Gathering of Warbirds in 1994. At the conclusion of the event, we took off together (I was crewing for a Beech SNB-1) and I got some great air-to-air photos of this great aircraft. They did a great job of restoring it further... only to lose it in a crash in 2003.
Visited the Battle of Britain museum this weekend at Hawkinge in Kent, they have just acquired a Heinkel Bomber, it’s on display outside & just looked awesome. Well worth a visit.
I was so lucky to have been able to go inside this aircraft,when it was on display at Chino Air Museum ,just a few months later it crashed killing its pilot.
I hate to say it, but it is not a He 111 - it's a CASA 2.111. "Same thing" - no, it's not the same thing. Different engines and other internal differences.
I missed seeing this Heinkel 111 when it flew into the Rocky Mountain airport in Broomfield, Co. I wish I would have taken the time to see it before it crashed.
One of the great failures of the pre-war Luftwaffe planning was failing to build a 4-engine heavy strategic bomber. These medium Heinkel and Dornier bombers were completely inadequate. Strategic bombing in the East could have been game changer.
The "strategic bombing" of German cities was fairly ineffective, with industrial production levels soaring under Albert Speer's guidance while the bomber fleets overhead got larger. Also, the Germans would have had to reduce other parts of the Wehrmacht if allocating many resources to building and supplying those strategic bombers. It is about a 1300 mile / 2200 km flight, ONE WAY, from Kiev to Perm, site of some of Russia's relocated factories. London to the industrialized Ruhr Valley was a 370 mile / 600 km flight, one way. What kind of strategic bombers were the Germans supposed to build? How many bombs could they carry along with enough fuel for a 2600 mile round trip? They would have had to develop something comparable to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. That project took many years and cost the USA $3 billion during the war. The Manhattan Project was the second costliest American weapon system at just $2 billion. I am quite certain the Soviet factories in the Urals would have had little trouble coping with German strategic bombers.
Hitler was a traitor, an agent of the Brits. He was a marionette of the international bankers. Borman was an agent of the Soviets. The war would have ended, if he had allowed the german army to kill or capture the 330.000 british and french soldiers. But his order was to extend the war. So he let them escape. Hitler prevented to expand the submarine weapon. Later on the Allied knew about every single step of the Germans. Cracking of Enigma code, and also by treason (the old german problem). German military officers wanted a heavy bomber with 4 motors, which are generally able to reach the big military industry complexes in USA and Russia. There was a time, Stalin feared to lose the war. Without american, british and canadian help (lend-lease weapons), the Soviets would have not been able to win. It would have been necessary to bomb and destroy american and russian industry complexes. Hitler prevented this. The german army was also supported by USA. Look at Ford and Opel during the war. Or Standard Oil (Rockefeller). These military plants were never bombed by the Allies. And Krupp also supported the Allied with german parts of military technology. Our soldiers were never enemies. Our nations were displayed against each other by those, who control the medias and the money. And who is it?! After the Soviets redeployed troops from Polar Sea to Charkow-Kursk in 1943, the harbor of Murmansk could have been destroyed by german (Lapland army) and finnish infantry troops. Previous trials failed by sabotage. Later on Finland changed the sides. Like the gutless and opportunistic Italians (who also had many traitors among the Generals). Disgusting! Also the Heereswaffenamt and it's traitors, using sabotage against the own people. They fell in the back of the german front soldier. And don't forget Gibraltar! The naive traitor Admiral Canaris prevented a conquest of this very important strategic area. The war would also have been over. That USA was able to build such a big military industry complex was only possible by their illegal FED bank, which can press as much paper money as it wants and enormous debts. Today this country is - as before WWII - bankrupt again and needs one war after another. And for the war of a few greedy, corrupt and godless people, soldiers are willing to kill others and risk their own human lives. So stupid. Nobody ought to go to the front but the banksters and politicians themselves. There is an official history and an unofficial history, called secret politics.
Allied strategic bombing was pretty useless. The Luftwaffe destroyed cities with what they had (Stalingrad) and it still didnt help. The Soviets moved their industry to the Urals out of range and it would have been suicide to attack them with strategic bombers.
@@Internetbutthurt Actually, bombing Stalingrad proved to be a mistake, because all the rubble limited the use of tanks and they had to resort to urban warfare which was a nightmare, street fighting over street fighting, exhausting and shit
Well there was the He177 which was a 6 ton bomber, the Do217, a 3 ton bomber, the Fw200 which was a 5.5 ton bomber, and the Junkers 188/388 which were 3 ton bombers also. So, the Germans certainly had the technology, plus a dozen other heavy prototypes. However, their philosophy was deliberately directed towards high speed bombers that could evade interception easier, the same philosophy behind the DH Mosquito. Compare to the American B17, which was so bristling with armour, weapons and crew, that it could only carry a 3.5 ton bombload.
12 plus years ago took pictures of my little nephew inside the Heinkel bomber back in Mesa Az. as it was being maintained while we were on the way to tour the B17 stationed there the same day...I casually mentioned to a service person the fact that "it seem very small'..he responded..The crew compartment is quite reduced in there...here.! take a look..so we walked inside the fuselage, except the pilot's cabin ( a very short little private tour indeed)...and yes..!! the space was very reduced and it felt hard to breathe in there......my nephew now 18 , I invited him again to re-take a new set of photos inside the same plane, just to learn that it does not exist anymore....very sad and more sad for the crew who lost their lives in that accident...
Thanks for the tour of the He-111. Lots of interesting details. My dad, who was a child at that time in Soviet Ukraine, told that German bombers had very distinct sound, not steady noise of the engines, but almost pulsating noise, Wou-Wou-Wou..., that they as a kids can figure out that german bombers coming by the sound of engines, not sure though how true it is....
Interesting view of an iconic aircraft. One thing I noticed was the wide instrument panel in the cockpit. It has been decades since I as a kid climbed into a 111 P-1 model that was being restored for static display (5J+CN Werknummer 1526) but my fractured memory tells me the panel in that aircraft was about half the width of this panel. Faulty memory or were there differences between the original (P-1 model at least) and the Spanish build, or has the panel been upgraded to meet modern standards and regulations?
The first ones hade a steped cockpit and were originally designed to be high speed mail planes. don’t think the original ones had two pilots positions but I could be wrong. Being a transport the two positions make sense.
![When The Luftwaffe Stuck Two Bombers Together | Heinkel He-111 Zwilling [Aircraft Overview #34]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d1U0h_nAdIk/mqdefault.jpg)
![When The Luftwaffe Stuck Two Bombers Together | Heinkel He-111 Zwilling [Aircraft Overview #34]](/img/tr.png)
I was on a cross-country flight in an F-111F from Cannon AFB NM to Eglin AFB, Fl with a stop at Ellington Field near Houston, TX. As we shut down engines for refueling a B-17 from the Confederate Air Force taxied and parked right next to us. I went over and got a personal tour from the aircraft commander. I sat in every position and played 12 O’Clock High for thirty minutes. Thank you CAF!
Wow, after being a WWII buff for over 25 years, I never realized that the He-111 had a fixed machine gun in the tail... great little video!
+Mr.Clem I think it was a modification.
Only a few aircraft got it as a field upgrade. It wouldn't have been much of a weapon anyway if the pilot had to fly the aeroplane with its tail pointed directly at the enemy while aiming by mirror. Utterly useless in fact.
Why is there a fixed machine gun in the tail anyway, if one can't aim with it properly?
+Elvino Tomo That's why only a few planes were fitted with it - it's almost useless. Just like the fixed driver's machine gun in the Chinese T 59 tank, which could only be aimed by the driver pointing the tank directly at the target.
From what i can recall the idea for the weapon being placed that way was that it was the blind spot for the He 111 ( it was to act as a ¨ dissuader¨) and in order for the attacking enemy fighter to either turn away or at least stay away from the ¨blind spot¨and hopefully be delt with the ventral or dorsal weapon from the bomber.
Glad I got to see this one and go inside her several times - in case ya'll don't know, it crashed in 2003 and killed both the pilot and co-pilot. Mr. Fraser was not aboard at that time. The plane was based in Mesa, Arizona and was on its way from Midland, Texas to a show in Missoula if I'm not mistaken - the last flying Heinkel has been gone for more than a decade now.
The post-war Spanish version for the He-111 was actually known as CASA 2111 (CASA stands for Construcciones Aeronauticas Sociedad Anónima), and there is at least one more in static display (alongside a He-111B in Spanish civil war markings) at the Spanish air museum.
My grandpa was always in mission with that beautiful bird. Hes still alive in age of 93 and he always tell me about his mission. WoW ! I got his flightbook. Cant get enough of his storys.
hört sich interessant an!
wie alt war er als er geflogen ist?
+Davi Lu
Damals war er um die 20 Jahre alt. Und immernoch ist er im kopf mega fit. Und auf den Beinen ist er auch noch, auch wenn mit rollator.
MAG-FED-PAINTBALL GERMANY wie blickt er denn selber in die Zeit zurück? Ist er stolz darauf ein echtes 111 Crewmitglied (Pilot?) Gewesen zu sein oder denkt in der Art "das waren wilde Zeiten" oder meint er sogar, dass das nicht gerade etwas ist, worauf man stolz sein kann (also bomben auf Leute runterzuwerfen)? Würde mich mal interessieren weil die B-17 Piloten, die oft einfach nur Zivilisten bombardiert haben sind heute ja die totalen heroes.
your grandfather is a great man
Sehr Geiler Bericht, Danke das Sie so ein Schönes Flugzeug erhalten.
Daumen Hoch und Abo dagelassen.
Greetz from Bawaria Germany 👍😁🇩🇪❤️🇺🇸
I just found out that this plane sadly crashed and burned some time longer than 3 years ago, possibly not long after this video was filmed...
Really?
Wtf? That's sad man. People died probably did they? I don't see them jumping out with parachutes.
Great video! I saw this plane back in 1998 when you people flew the HE-111 and a B-17 up to Camrose, Alberta. The thing that went through my mind while going through both planes was that they are not nearly so spacious as they appear in the movies. Very sobering to imagine what it would have been like for the crew when flak was exploding around them or when enemy fighters appeared.
My 2nd cousin Oblt / Hampt Wolfgang Luhrs flew 400 missions between 1939-45 both in France and Russia. He is a Knights Cross holder. And flew with a handful of different squadrons but mainly belonged as a member of the famed Legion Condor KG53 2nd squadron.
Respekt-Herr Luhrs war ein unermüdlicher Kämpfer gegen den kommunistischen Bolschewismus….
I loved this plane. I saw it at the Gillespie Airshow years ago. The accident was so tragic.
From Wikipedia:
“One modified Spanish 2.111D served as a transport for Spanish VIPs, including General Francisco Franco, before being purchased in England by the Commemorative Air Force in 1977. It remained the last He 111 in flyable condition until 10 July 2003, when it was destroyed in a fatal crash landing. The aircraft was attempting a landing at the Cheyenne Municipal Airport, near Cheyenne, Wyoming, while en route from Midland, Texas to an air show in Missoula, Montana. Eyewitness reports indicate the aircraft lost power to one engine on final approach and ploughed through a chain link fence before colliding with a building under construction. Killed were CAF pilot Neil R. Stamp and co-pilot Charles S. Bates.”
My dad took me to this airshow, and I remember what a big deal it was that this plane was there. So sad to hear about it crashing only a few years later.
My Grandpa was a Pilot from a HE 111 (1940 - 1943) and the Group was closed middle 1943 and than he flyed the Stuka and have a fight with a P-51 and is landing of the american side. I come from Germany and i am a very big WWII fan. good movie :-)
I truly believe the Heinkel to be an under-appreciated, under utilized and under estimated design, as revolutionary and effective as some of the more lauded aircraft of the time. The semi elliptical wing is a masterpiece and despite several performance shortcomings the design could have been developed into something devastating - this however was a Casa 111 quite different to the original German operational He111
Do you have an example of what they could have made out of the he 111? I mean what do you think of when you say "developed into something devestating"
I always liked the look of that airplane. It's one of my favorite looking airplanes from WWII.
Same here!
I had the good fortune to see this beauty do a flyover at Werner Seitz' memorial service. It was truly an impressive moment and a memory I shall cherish always.
Thank you for putting that together Clint. Even if it's not an original He111, it's still mighty interesting to see it.
It's curious how interest in ww2 seems to grow, not shrink, with time. I was born in London immediately after the end of the war. People didn't have much interest in military tech back then. I guess they were just glad to have survived. And, interest in anything German was strongly disapproved of (altho' people furtively bought the excellent electronics, tech and household goods made in W. Germany).
Sorry to learn that this aircraft crashed tragically.
This particular CASA 2.111 was the last of its type that could still fly. On July 10th 2003, it was involved in a crash landing that ended fatally. This tragedy of a landing happened while attempting to land at Cheyenne Municipal Airport after flying from Midland, Texas. It was en-route to an air show in Missoula, Montana when the accident occurred.
Eyewitness accounts state the aircraft appeared to lose power in one engine while on its final approach to the airstrip and crashed through a chain fence. Following this, it then collided with a building (a school bus-washing business) that was undergoing construction. Sadly in this collision, the pilot and co-pilot were fatally injured (Neil R. Stamp and Charles S. Bates).
Thank you for sharing.
The CASAs also have galvonic corrosion in the steel and aluminum wing spar construction which may prevent another survivor from getting in the air without major replacement work, though it would be possible to do it. There are some projects out there, but nothing close to flying any time soon.
tzilivak Glad I got the tour of this plane before the crash. I am just now finding out it went down, very sad to know it's gone and the pilots died. When I got the tour, I was told some idiot people were complaining about the swastika on the tail. very sad she's gone.
Eric Bitzer i
I've been in a Lancaster
Thank god for Spain in this respect, these planes were put to use in movies like "Patton," and "Battle of Britain" which were made with the cooperation of the Spanish Air Force. They had license-built bf-109s as well.
Thanks for the post.
My father flew the HE 111 during WWII he was in the KG200 squadron. He love his plane and dad was very lucky that he never dropped any bombs.He manly flew spy missions.
Historians and authors would love to have any stories or memories that you may have of his service if he is or was willing to share. There are archives and also living history videos collected from veterans to tell their stories.
I could stay for hours listening to your father's war stories...
They also flew captured Allied planes, in search of weak spots, or simply for joining an Allied attack formation before opening fire.
Yeah... right... Like most of the German soldiers during WWII. Most of them were just playing in military bands or working in the kitchen ;)
malco76 👏makes me wonder how they managed to fight at all, seeing as how they *all* were anti Nazi.....hmmm,mmm🤔
A couple of things: The Original ones had 3 Gunners/Radio Operators in the Tail, one for the upper gun, one for Radio and Waist guns and one in the Bath Tub and 2 Guys in the Cockpit, one Pilot and a Bombardier/Gunner.
Late in the War they were equipped with the fearsome 3000 Round per Minute MG81Z (8mm) and 950 Round Per Minute MG131 (13mm) with HE-T and HEI-T rounds. It was definetly not an easy target and comparable to the B-25 in defensive Capability.
Flexible Front Mounted 20mm Guns were also Common for Strafing.
Pretty much all German Wartime Bombers were equipped with a Formation Ready Autopilot, so you wouldn't have to fly manually all the time.
It could carry up to 8000lbs of Bombs externally.
And the original ones only had the Overhead Panel, not the one they have installed in this one.
It's noisy because the engines aren't original. The actual He-111 had Inverted V JuMo 211s with much lower mounted exhausts which were far less loud.
That's all.
Agreed but it still had an all-glass nose. That made it more vulnerable when confronted by a head-on attack I presume. And if an Allied AA shell exploded in the vicinity, much more chance of incapacitating the crew, including the pilot.
Thin Aluminium Skinning wasn't much better against Shrapnel.
MyFabian94 Then there's the engine configuration. Did they really place them *not* contra-rotating?
Why would they? Counter Rotating Props make sense for High Performance Aircraft, but on an Aircraft as slow and underpowered as any 2, 3 or 4 engined Bomber the Difference is Marginal and doesn't justify the Strain on the War Economy. No Medium or Heavy Bombers used Counter Rotating Props except the He-177, and the only Large Scale Production light Aircraft was the P-38. Otherwise it was never really necessary.
Counter Rotating Props are rare because you basically have to build an inverted Engine, different Camshafts, Crankshafts, Ignition Timing etc. and imagine running out of Starboard Engines in the Field. You would basically unnecessairly hinder your ability to replace parts and engines .
MyFabian94 Well, ok. But you can't argue the fact that its bombs configuration was stupidly limited with the vertical, static racks. Even though the Lancaster is a much bigger bomber, its 'dynamic' bomb bay meant that you could vary the loads very much. What other bomber of renown has such peculiar bomb racks like the He-111?
This is probably one of the He-111s used in the film "The Battle of Britain".
Green screen?
They were also just model airplanes for the he111 as there were not many avalible
@@poopiepickle55214 What happened to the remainder of the Spanish HE 111 after the filming ?
@@monstergamerl3795 No, actual flying. Also the Stukas were half scale radio control actual fling as well.
it is so sad that this aircraft crashed
due to pilot error, as per usual.
That's not the version I heard. Maybe you should do some more research? The reported cause was engine failure, if I remember correctly.
@Gappie Al Kebabi it was the american flying it that killed it
paul hunter we Americans preserved it after the war no one else did. So your welcome for the 50 odd years as opposed to none from any other country
@Gappie Al Kebabi That's funny because it was that piece of British engineering that made the Luftwaffe a spent force after the Battle of Britain.
Paint it anyway you like ,it is a CASA, not a Heinkel, it was built to use Merlins, it was never dual control and the instrument panel is was not in front of the pilot as on there, but but across the top of the cabin above the pilots field of vision.
Oh its a totally original Heinkel Bomber , Apart from its built in Spain with British Merlin Engines , Then that would make it a Casa 2.111 , and not a Heinkel
well, yes, but it's still 90% a German design
You damn right!
Ryan C Well bravo.
Ryan C it's a Triggers Broom scenario. Same broom for 16 years. "14 new brusheads and 6 new handles"
lol. well the plane doesn't exist anymore, they crashed it in 03 and it's gone
It is crazy to see this plane in real life! I have only seen digital representations of this bomber and seeing this is amazing!
The Commemorative Air Force (CAF), formerly the Confederate Air Force, is a Texas-based non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and showing historical aircraft at airshows primarily throughout the U.S. and Canada.
My dad flew He 111 over Russia in WW2. Ju 88 as well. I sat in this plane and gave them many of my dads wonderful photos. Very clear. They took them back to Mesa Az and put them in the museum
Kg 53 Legion Condor
Ha ha ha nice Fake story
Sure buddy . Look it up asshole 🖕🏻
I have his pictures and flightbook he was Martin Erich Vollmer Kg 53 operation Barbarossa
Black cross / Red Star. Vol 5. Has some of my dads photos and quotes from his daily journal of the Air campaign over Stalingrad. Christer Berstrom did a great job with these books. 👍🏻
A heinkel that sounds like a Spitfire :-P
Peter Bezemer ... Because the engines are british!
u mean mosikto
Two RR Merlin engines.
The Spanish 109s also had Merlins. Its pretty ungly on a 109 too.
@@manifestman132 ya theyre not good looking.
Holy cow what a great tour with fascinating details. Give that man a raise.
Date of accident: 10-JUL-2003 | CASA 2.111 (Heinkel He-111)| N72615 | Pilot: Neil R. Stamp | 2 miles SE of Cheyenne airport, WY The airplane, a Spanish-built version of the WW2 Heinkel He-111 bomber, was en route to an air show and was making a refueling stop at Cheyenne. The tower cleared the pilot to land. The airplane was observed on a 3-mile straight-in final approach when it began a left turn. The controller asked the pilot what his intentions were. The pilot replied, "We just lost our left engine." The pilot then reported that he wasn't going to make it to the airport. Witnesses observed the airplane flying "low to the ground and under-speed for [a] good 4 minutes." The right propeller was turning, but the left propeller was not. There was no fire or smoke coming from the left engine. The pilot was "obviously trying to pull up." The airplane "dipped hard left," then struck the ground left wing first. It slid through a chain link fence, struck a parked automobile, and collided with a school bus wash barn. The fire destroyed the airplane, parked car, and wash barn. Disassembly and examination of both engines disclosed no anomalies that would have been causal or contributory to the accident. According to the Airplane Flight Manual, "Maximum power will probably be required to maintain flight with one engine inoperative. Maximum power at slow air speed may cause loss of directional control." A loss of engine power for reasons undetermined, and the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control. Contributing factors were the unsuitable terrain on which to make a forced landing, low airspeed, the fence, automobile, and the school bus wash barn.
+Henrik Kongsgaard Jakobsen HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On July 10, 2003, approximately 1310 mountain daylight time, N72615, a CASA 2.111, registered to and operated by the American Airpower Heritage Fly Museum, was destroyed when it collided with a building 2 miles southeast of the Cheyenne Municipal Airport, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The airline transport certificated pilot and copilot were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for the cross-country flight being conducted under Title 14 CFR Part 91. The flight originated at Midland, Texas, approximately 1030, and was en route to Missoula, Montana, for an air show.
According to control tower personnel, the tower controller cleared the pilot to land on runway 26. The airplane was on a 3-mile straight-in final approach when controllers saw it turning left. When they asked the pilot what his intentions were, he replied: "We just lost our left engine." The pilot then reported that he wasn't going to make it to the airport. Several witnesses observed the airplane flying "low to the ground and under-speed for [a] good 4 minutes." The right propeller was turning, but the left propeller was not turning. They saw no smoke or fire coming from the left engine. One witness said the pilot was "obviously trying to pull up. The plane dipped hard left," then struck the ground with its left wing. It traveled through a chain link fence, struck a parked automobile, and slid into a school bus wash barn. The ensuing fire destroyed the airplane, parked car, and wash barn. One witness observed the "tail cartwheel above the roof [of the wash barn] and then shower[ed] debris into another building in [the] rear of [the] bus barn."
CREW INFORMATION
The pilot, 56, held an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane multiengine land rating, type ratings in the Boeing 757 and 767, and commercial privileges for airplane single-engine land, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument-helicopter ratings. He held a flight instructor certificate with airplane single/multiengine ratings. He also held a ground instructor certificate with a basic rating. His first class airman medical certificate, dated February 21, 2003, contained the limitation, "Must have available glasses for near and intermediate vision." On February 20, 2003, he successfully completed an American Airpower Heritage Fly Museum proficiency check, and was designated pilot-in-command in the HE-111 on March 5, 2003. He was a captain with America West Airlines.
The copilot, 54, held an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane multiengine land rating, type ratings in the Airbus A320, Boeing 737, and Sikorsky S70, and commercial privileges for airplane single-engine land, glider, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument-helicopter ratings. He held a flight instructor certificate with airplane single/multiengine, instrument-airplane, and rotorcraft-helicopter ratings. The pilot also held a mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings. His first class airman medical certificate, dated May 19, 2003, contained the limitation, "Must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision." On October 4, 2001, he successfully completed an American Airpower Heritage Fly Museum proficiency check, and was designated copilot in the HE-111 on November 1, 2001. He was a captain with U.S. Air.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The Spanish manufacturer, CASA, manufactured the airplane, a model 2.111 (s/n T8-B-124), in 1952. The airplane was a replica of the Heinkel HE-111, a World War II German Air Force bomber. The airplane was powered by two Rolls-Royce Merlin 500 V-12, liquid-cooled engines (s/n 45-306915, left; 307205, right), each rated at 1,200 horsepower, driving two 3-bladed, hydraulically-controlled, constant speed, full-feathering propellers.
The airplane was maintained under an FAA-approved continuous inspection program. The last airframe and engine inspections were conducted on April 18, 2003, and August 20, 2001, respectively, when the airframe had accrued 1,895.1 and 1,834.6 hours, respectively. The last pitot-static system and transponder checks were done on March 14, 2003.
.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
At the time of the accident, the current METAR (routine meteorological report) for Cheyenne Municipal Airport was as follows: Wind, 010 degrees at 12 knots, gusting to 15 knots; visibility, 10 statute miles (or greater); sky condition, clear; temperature, 29 degrees Celsius; dew point, 1 degree Celsius; altimeter setting, 30.31 inches of mercury.
WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION
A ground scar in the dirt contained pieces of the left wing. The scar led up to a portion of a chain link fence that had been torn down. The airplane then struck a parked automobile and a school bus wash barn. The ensuing post-impact fire destroyed the automobile and heavily damaged the school bus wash barn. With the exception of the outboard portion of the right wing and both engines, fire consumed the airplane.
MEDICAL & PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
On July 11, 2003, the Laramie County Coroner's Office conducted an autopsies on the pilot-in-command and copilot. FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) performed toxicological tests on specimens taken from the pilot and copilot. According to CAMI's reports (#200300208001 and #200300208002), all tests were negative.
TESTS AND RESEARCH
The left engine was disassembled and examined on August 12, 2003. Before disassembly, however, engine rotation was accomplished. When viewed from the rear, the "A" magneto is on the left side and the "B" magneto is on the right side of the engine. The exhaust manifold, camshafts, and rockers; the "A" and "B" bank flame traps, pistons, and cylinder walls, and the crankshaft were unremarkable. The "A" bank spark plugs were oil-fouled, and the "B" bank spark plugs were clean. The oil filter contained normal amounts of metal deposits. Although the magnetos and fuel pump were burned, no discrepancies were noted.
The right engine was disassembled and examined on September 9, 2003. No discrepancies were noted.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following are excerpts from the Airplane Flight Manual. The airplane has a fuel capacity of 930 gallons. Each engine consumes approximately 60 gallons per hour, giving the airplane a 7 hour, 45 minute endurance. The engines are equipped with float-type carburetors that are sensitive to deck angle (or pitch attitude) and high fuel pressures. The engines may lose power if the deck angle exceeds 15 degrees or if the fuel pressure exceeds 9 psi.
There is an engine-driven fuel pump on each engine, and there is an electric boost pump between each engine and the fuel tank valves. The boost pumps should be on "any time the aircraft is flown within 1,000 feet of the surface." The boost pumps provide adequate backup fuel pressure to prevent an engine power loss if an engine-driven fuel pump should fail.
Maximum power will probably be required to maintain flight if an engine should lose power. Maximum power at slow airspeed may cause a loss of directional control.
Other than the Federal Aviation Administration, there were no designated parties to this investigation.
The wreckage was released to the insurance company on August 13, 2003.
A similar accident happened in Madrid-Cuatro Vientos: during an air show in 2013, a Spanish made HA-200 Saeta training airplane, designed by Willy Messerschmitt, with two Turbomeca designed 450 kg thrust turbines, lost all power and crashed into a house, killing the pilot.
Don't know why, but this reminded me a psychic terrorist, escaping from gen. Videla, who used in 1980 a fake registration number 220988, the date of 'Space Odyssey' Oil drilling rig fire.
The name of this is: 'black magic', 'witchcraft', 'the will', or 'Spooky action at a distance', aka: 'Quantum entanglement'. Beware of the dog, be good to your neighbour, and pray!
@@hkja99 Being from Phoenix, I had the privilege of touring this aircraft many times in the late 90's and early 2000's. A few months after the crash I was talking to one of the CAF's Arizona wing staff members about the crash. He told me that the cause of the crash was determined to be fuel starvation. He said that the plane had to take off using the inner fuel tanks in the wing, then after take off switch to the outer tanks and use them up before switching back to the inner wing tanks. If the inner fuel tanks were exhausted first then the fuel in the outer tanks could not be accessed. Apparently on this last flight after taking off using the inner fuel tanks the crew did not switch to the outer tanks. Not realizing the mistake they used all the fuel in the inner tanks and then could not utilize the fuel in the outer tanks and thus ran out of fuel. A sad loss of crew and aircraft.
When I visited there in the 1990s I got to get inside this German bomber before much restoration was done to it...glad to see all the work you put into it...a rare bird indeed!
+@JEFFREYcjones-xg2cy It was destroyed on 10-July-2003 after losing an engine and crashing on final into Cheyenne, WY. Two fatalities.
I never knew that there was a sneaky machine gun hidden near the tail. lol
This is NOT a Heinkel He-111
It is a spanish C.A.S.A., (lots of differences)!
They have Merlin, R.R., engines, and a totally diferent cockpit, with two control columns, (only one in the original for the pilot), and the instrument panel, on the original, is overhang from the ceiling, for a much better wiew haed, and when the pilot flyes with the cockpit roof panel open, elevates a small windshield, rises the seat and control column, then he has the instrument panel in front of the hook!!!
A Rodrigues That's literally one of the first things they say in the video. Nobody particularly cares.
I Bow to your knowledge.....
@Dexter Banks He clearly explains exactly what is. Nobody cares about a CASA, but a lot of people appreciate what was the only flying representation of what was an important aircraft.
@Dexter Banks You're an idiot. This is a true Heinkel airplane. Varients were built under license by different manufacturers and different countries. The man said they used Rolls Royce Merlin engines because it was impossible to obtain the original German engines. Grumman TBM Avengers were also built by Ford but they were still the exact same airplane.
Good job, they said it at the beginning. But you realize it’s 90% German design correct?
It’s a Heinkel built by the Spanish with RR engines. Take your nose out of your ass you aren’t that smart.
Hi from France. I learnt a lot of things ! Thanks !
Glad you learned from this video!
Awesome to understand how this piece of military history worked!!
I've got several complaints. The guy is either a bad interviewee or a better pilot than historian. Or both. First he says the He 111 "lacked armament to protect the crew", while showing machine guns sticking out everywhere, and immediately contradicting himself by saying how the machine guns were too small. Perhaps he meant "armor", but that's also incorrect. The He 111 had an armored seat for the pilot, and some armor protecting areas of the engines and the oil tanks, but it has armor. I also don't like how he suggests that this aircraft looks just He 111's did in German service. There are a number of differences, both internal and external. He also suggests that the radio operator had to fire three guns; his own, and the waist guns. No one had to fire three guns. The radio operator fired *one* gun, the dorsal gun. He sat in a sling seat underneath the plexiglass windscreen, and fired to the rear (also, note that most HE 111's had their windscreen open at the rear, basically an open cockpit with a long windscreen mounted on slides over it. When firing, the windscreen was slid forward, exposing most of the opening to the air and allowing the gunner to shoot more to the sides. Even when "closed", the rear was still open, and the gunner could still fire in a limited area to the rear. The enclosed canopy seen here is only seen on the post-war Spanish version). The waist gunner fired *two* guns, one on each side. He then suggests that the ventral gunner fires "both front and rear" guns in the ventral "bathtub" (gondola). Almost all He 111's had only a rear-firing ventral gun; how many attacks come from the lower front? Some versions modified for anti-shipping had a 20mm MG FF in the forward part of the gondola, used for suppressing AA fire from surface vessels while on a bombing/torpedo run. This was operated by the ventral gunner, but the odds of needing to use both guns at the same time are slim. If the ships are shooting at you, no enemy fighter is likely to be flying into that area to attack you, and on a torpedo run, it's almost impossible to attack an aircraft from below. The bomb-aimer had either one or two machine guns mounted in the nose glazing (although I've heard of variants with 15mm or 20mm cannon mounted instead).
As for the inside of the aircraft, there are many more differences besides the fuselage door being installed. First, the original radio equipment he shows is only one unit out of many originally installed. As I said, the radio operator sat under the plexiglas windscreen in a canvas chair, his head at about roof level. Around him in a half circle were three or four radio units, within easy reach, so he could watch for enemy fighters, man the gun, and use the radio at the same time (or without getting out of his seat, at least). If the other gunners wanted to go to the forward section of the aircraft, they'd have to duck underneath him. Second, there were no seats like the ones shown; those are passenger seats. The men in the rear fuselage had jump seats to sit on during takeoff and transit (although some variants were modified to take passengers). Third, this machine has two extra windows on each side. The most important changes, however, are too the cockpit. This shows it with two control columns and yokes, and a normal instrument panel. In a real He 111, there is only one control column, mounted in the center. At the top, there is a swinging arm with a yoke mounted on it. Normally, this is positioned in front of the pilot, looking something like an upside down letter "L", but the whole arm and yoke can be swung over in front of the bomb-aimer, in case the pilot gets wounded or killed. The yoke is designed to stay at the same angle regardless of how the arm is swung (they show a similar feature in the film "The Aviator", when he lets Hepburn fly a seaplane, and swings the controls over to her, but in that case, the whole column swings like a lever. The Japanese Ki-49 bomber also had a single pivoting control column between two pilots, although they could and did fly with only one pilot on board). The way the cockpit is set up in this aircraft, it would be impossible for the bomb-aimer to get into the nose of the aircraft to man the bomb-sight or guns.
Next, in a real He 111, the instrument panel is mounted about two feet higher, attached to the glazing frames, and the pilots' view is forward and DOWN, and he has to glance upwards to view the instruments. This leaves the area in front of the navigator open, so he can crawl into the front. British aircraft had conventional instruments, but the area under the right-side panel is open so crew can crawl forwards into the nose compartment. With a second control column in the way, this would be impossible (part of the reason the Ki-49 uses a swinging column, to allow the passage to remain open unless the controls are swung over to the co-pilot, who sits slightly lower and further back than the captain.
I am also curious about how he says that "only one window can be opened". A standard design feature on the He 111 was that the panel over the pilots head could be slid back, the small rectangular panel ahead of it flipped up to create a small windscreen, and the pilots seat raised up so he was flying with his head outside the cockpit, essentially converting it into an open-cockpit aircraft (this was included in case the nose glazing became fogged or condensation formed, and prevented the pilot from seeing the runway while landing. Many aircraft have a similar feature where one or two of the windscreen panels can be opened, called "direct vision", or "clear vision" panels. The He 111 used this more complex method because the glazing is so far away from the pilots' eyes, that a single small opening would give a very limited-angle view outside. In any case, the opening seem quite large enough to cool down the cockpit, even if the pilot ops to keep his head inside the aircfsfaft;
There are images on this page of the sliding panel and windscreen, as well as the racks of radio equipment on the first page.
www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234956585-148-monogram-he-111h-2/page-
A minor point, but he seems to describe this "lubber line" in front of the pilot as simply a visual reference to help keep the craft flying straight. It is in fact a component of the bomb sight system; it directs the pilot if he needs to turn at all to line up on the target, and keeps him from deviating from a straight path on the bomb run. If he accidentally turns a little left, the line will move to the right, showing him he must turn slightly right again. It's something like following the needle on a radio locator device. Bombers began using this technology some time before WWII started, although sophistication varied greatly. The US used a needle in a gauge to direct their pilots, until they decided to simply plug the bombsight right into the autopilot system, which automatically flew itself onto the correct heading and maintained it.
After all that, I also didn't like how he calls it simply "the aircraft that bombed Britian", and that it "just dumped bombs on Britian at night". It did a lot more than that! It served with the Luftwaffe on all fronts and in many capacities throughout the war, as a bomber torpedo bomber, cargo transport, paratrooper transport, medevac, passenger plane, mail plane, patrol, glide bomb and cruise missile platform, EW platform, even night fighter (without much success, granted). Just because the Battle of Britain is the best known to the average person, doesn't mean it was the most important duty the He 111 fulfilled. The He 111 probably had a much greater impact on the Eastern Front than the Blitz, but you just don't hear about that.
Lastly, I'm curious why he says that Jumo engines "can't be rebuilt". Every engine can be rebuilt, as far as I know. Perhaps he means that *Spain* couldn't even obtain enough spare parts to rebuild any engines they could get?
The He111 had about 5-7 7.7 mgs, but they were pretty piss poor defence. That said at the RAF museum in hendon ,there is a windscreen of a spitfire shattered by a bullet from an He 111, - (the bullet is lodged in it anyway), very - very lucky shot on the gunners part. Some got a 20mm in the nose later, but its fairing arc was pretty limited,
Really... So what typically happened when WW2 fighters intercepted unescorted WW2 bombers then? The losses were about equal'? or was it usually a fucking turkey shoot for the fighters? Remind me again?
You make it sound like Bombers fought fighters on near equal terms - in which case, what was point of fighter escorts then?
Yes caliber of weapons makes a difference, but you do realize (Even with best training the Luftwaffe could offer) - just how damn hard it was for gunners to hit something with a single mounted MG while moving at about 200 mph or more? You realize that for waist and rear facing guns it drastically reduces accuracy and bullet velocity right? Not to mention the late 1930's bombers lack of agility and speed (Bar a diving JU88) and all the fucking blind spots in their already outdated defense. Please tell me you understand these basic factors. YAWN!
Yes Luftwaffe fighters had 20mm and even some of their bombers got one mounted in the nose or gondola, whoopty fucking do, lets re-write history over that! They still lost, not because of their machines, air men or personell, but because their wonderful Reich had a crazy over emotional idiot with 'mummy issues' at its helm. while the luftwaffe got pushed around by a respected WW1 ace turned pompous fat shit who was more interested in stealing paintings than running his fucking airforce.
if someone like Donitz or Rommell had been commanding the Luftwaffe, it might have been different.
+vonkaunaz a spitfire
would have more fire power than the he 111 because the would have 8 forward wing mounted .303 guns with convergence while only one or two of the German guns would have a shot.
the he 111 and even the 110 had to have fighter escorts all the time because the Fast and maneuverable spitfires and hurricanes would shoot them out of the sky.
+justforever96 Despite how i like how he 111 looks i can imagine what a nightmare was it to fly on mission. In its time it was too slow and armament was also insufficient. I can only imagine how bad rear gunner must felt with that bb gun in his hand and no protection against engaging Spitfires but being in that glass covered cocpit must have been even worse. Just compare he 111 to b17 big heavy much faster four engines and multiple heavy machinegunes in each direction and they still have little chance against fighters. Respect for those who flight in those machines for their bravery.
Those light 7,92mm guns were pretty poor for defence, unlike russian and american 12,7mm guns. But still better than nothing.
How have I missed this gem? Thanks for sharing, I've always wanted to crawl through an HE 111. Amazing video. She's beautiful!
WOW ! Thanks to Spain, that they conserved this Beauty.
this one crashed years ago, back in 2003, killing both the pilot & co-pilot
www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/close-heinkel-111.html
The main problem with the Heinkel HE-111 and why they were shot out of the sky left and right during WWII was the fact the aircraft was designed in the mid 30's. It was originally a very fast aircraft and could outrun just about anything anyone had on the planet. That quality quickly went away as It offered very little protection from a frontal assault from a Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, P-38, or Mosquito which were now much more maneuverable and faster than the HE-111 which was now five years old and technology had progressed rapidly in five years. Much more rapidly than the Nazi's perceived. One two second burst from a Mosquito equipped with one of the large bore auto cannons in the later models was enough to literally shred an HE-111 to small pieces. They usually just exploded. The British fighter pilots quickly figured out that a full speed frontal attack from a high position coming out of the sun in a steep dive at very high speed then leveling off and going full speed "head-on" with the HE-111 firing everything they had including machine guns, auto cannons of various bores, and even rockets later in the war. This was an absolute nightmare for the HE-111 pilots and bombarbiers. They knew if an enemy aircraft got them into the correct position in a frontal assault, they were dead. Some crews bailed out immediately when under attack, wanting to take their chances surviving a parachute drop to the ground over a frontal assault from an allied aircraft, as they immediately assumed they would be killed in the frontal assault as the "glass nose" or perspex cockpit and bombardier stations offered no protection from the onslaught of hell they were about to receive from an allied fighter or even medium bomber such as the B-25 which have some ships equipped with 18 machine guns. While normally a ground attack or bomber aircraft, some of the more skilled B-25 "Destroyer" pilots with experience could use the B-25 in air to air combat. The Pilot of the B-25 equipped with the 18 guns had a switch he could flip on from the yoke and take immediate control of all 18 (even if the other gunners were engaged in combat against other aircraft at their stations), the pilot could take full control immediately and hit the switch, causing the guns to disengage from the gunner ability to use and then to hydraulicly and automatically rotate to the full forward firing position through a rudimentary computer system of sorts that turned all 18 guns into the forward position at the same time giving the B-25 pilot the ultimate medium bomber/destroyer type aircraft which could unleash a hellfire of bullets into the fuselage in less than 1 second, usually causing the aircraft to explode instantly into pieces. Sometimes the enemy would be taken out trying to shoot down a Heinkel or any aircraft for that matter. They shoot too close and the debris or the enemy aircraft itself collides with the British or Allied pilot and either making them force land, or getting themselves killed from being to close during an attack. German Ace Hauptman Manfred Meurer was such a case. He was flying his brand new Heinkel HE-219 night fighter (a very advanced and capable aircraft of that era) when he accidentally collided with an allied aircraft during an attack and was killed instantly. Meurer was too close to the other aircraft during the assault and either pieces of the aircraft or the aircraft itself collided with Meurer. Meurer was a leaded night fighter ace of WWII and was used an a propaganda tool for the Reich (like many Pilots) as one of the Luftwaffe's "Golden Boys", an elite group of fighter and bomber "aces" whom the Luftwaffe liked to parade around Germany as a representative of how Germany was (in their minds) winning the war.. Meurer was a skilled pilot but many a skilled pilot was killed in air to air combat on both sides of the conflict. Meurer was most likely using his upward firing 30mm cannon and was underneath the bomber he was attempting to take down. After flying up underneath the bomber, Meurer gave the bomber a burst from his upward firing 30mm auto cannon and the bomber broke up after the cannon burst and fell directly onto the top of Meurer's aircraft immediately destroying both aircraft. Tracially, both crews were killed in the encounter. Many Pilots throughout WWII were tragically killed colliding with other aircraft, either enemy or even their own flight-mates by accident. A very large number of pilots (or better termed, "rookie trainee pilots"), were killed in practice training either attempting to qualify as a pilot in the initial stages, or during their flight qualifications, and even during practice qualifications after they were already a seasoned pilot. Many mistakes happened during training during WWII (on both the German side and the Allied side). The Russians were VERY poorly trained and some pilots had barely enough training to even start the aircraft, let alone fly it in combat. This was common in Russia at that time due to their political system at that time. It was more important to Stalin and the Russian hierarchy at that time including the military commanders to get pilots into the cockpit as soon as humanly possible, even if it meant bypassing certain aspects of combat pilot training. Some Russian pilots were barely trained. Young boys were giving the chance to pilot a brand new Ilyushin Il2 Sturmovik Ground Attack aircraft with minimal training. Enough to start the aircraft, get it airborne, and then into a dive so they could unleash their machine gun fine on the German ground troops and tanks. A main goal of Russia in stopping the German advance. They wanted as many Sturmovik aircraft in the air as possible, as quickly as possible. If this meant by-passing critical "air to air" combat flight skills, then so be it in Stalin's eyes as long as they could perform ground attack missions as quickly as humanly possible. Even a few weeks was enough "basic" training in the very early years of the conflict, especially during the onslaught of Stalingrad. If the Rookie pilot completed their missions and survived, all the better. If they didn't, Russia (and probably other allied nations) wanted replacement pilots back in the cockpit as soon as possible. This wasn't so much the case with the USA who kept strict standards and training curriculums for combat pilots of any type which proved brilliant in the long run as the US and other Allied nation pilots dominated the sky's over Europe, Russia, The Baltics, Skandinavia, the Mediterranean and North Africa. The US, British, and Allied Nation pilots were much more skilled than the German's by the point who could not keep up with pilot attrition. The German's were literally putting a pilot into the sky's into air to air combat with 1/3 of the training of what a normal Pilot would have received before Hitler started WWII. These unskilled pilots were unfortunately "easy pickin's" for the US and Allied pilots and they were quickly shot down by the more skilled pilots. Germany trained approximately 20,000 pilots before and during WWII. They secretly training many pilots (ironically in Russia) for many years in secret before Hitler revealed that Germany did in fact have a mightily air force. It was in fact, the most powerful airforce in the entire world at that point in history. This terrified the US, Britain, and France who quickly started to reevaluate their own Air Forces in the event that a war were to break out with Germany, who now had an Air Force that could inflict unknown amounts of damage in a conflict. The Heinkel HE-111 was the premier bomber and "backbone" of the German Luftwaffe when it was revealed by Hitler. The Heinkel was considered "fast" for that time in history (Mid 30's) . Pilots could be seen actually piloting the aircraft and working the rutter pedals, yoke, and controls through the fully exposed circular "Glass" or "Perspex" (Similar to LUCITE), cockpit which encompassed the entire forward nose section of the fuselage. This almost made the fuselage look like a bullet of sorts and it had a very modern and even futuristic look for 1935.
Cool. Never seen the inside of a He-111 before
Very cool detail about the tail gun. I had no idea that was even there but it makes total sense!!
Hey !!! - CSA !!!!
Greetiungs from Germany
I got to tour it while it was at the Greeley Weld County Airport some time before it went to Cheyenne.
god those merlins sound great. currently working on restoring a mosquito fb for display. love the merlin.
Dankeschön für das tolle Intro und die detaillierte Info. Thanks for taking me with you ,for a walk around "our" Heinkel .
Greets from GermanAustria 🙋🏻♂️🇦🇹🇩🇪🎗🇺🇸🇺🇸✌
Top Video. Thanks. Greets from NorthEastGermany...
Some how another one of these needs to be constructed for future use. These are workable history pieces and if only 1 exist,then we need another. This one someday will die. Great video.
I see that this aircraft crashed in 2003. A great pity as it was quite unique as it was I think the only flying He 111 in the world. There is a lovely one with original Junkers Jumo engines in the RAF Museum at Hendon, in the UK, which I saw in 2000.
the pilots died
There is also a beautifully cared for unit at Toowoomba Airport, Queensland, Australia. Lives amongst a vast collection o WWII Axis aircraft.
My god, it has the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon! The location of the yoke sticks, the instrument panel horizon, and canopy framing are very similar. I was immediately struck by that in the "preview" image link on UA-cam...
You are right, I see it...no one else has made that connection. :-)
3:20 wait what... I thought there was only 1 pilot and the other seat was for a gunner
This now is my favorite video of all time!
Thanks for the tour of the plane. I am not going to criticize like some other commenters below have done - I think you gave a good description in the time allotted.
I will just make a couple of points. First, many commenters act as if there was one He 111. In fact, my study of the Luftwaffe has shown that the models that flew throughout the war were constantly upgraded. Thus, saying the He 111 had this or that equipment is silly - different variations had vastly different equipment. For instance, much is made in some comments of its .792 mm defensive armament, which of course is true - on the earlier wartime versions. By 1942, the He 111 had a 13 mm gun on top and upgrades in other positions as well. Again, I'm not criticizing your explanation, simply observing that a little knowledge by some of the commenters criticizing you is a dangerous thing.
My second point is a little more prosaic. Having only one hatch in the bathtub for entry and exit must have made for some interesting moments for the crew after the plane was hit and in its death dive! Must have been some mad scrambles for the hatch.
Oh, and that noise from the engines you mention? Maybe it has something to do with using Merilns and not the original powerplants. Anyway, I appreciated your pilot's perspective.
Excellent video thankyou - We had a few of these fly over our house nearly 80 years ago on a couple of nights in December - luckily they missed
Sad that the pilots and plane were lost.
I read somewhere that the off set nose was designed to counteract the torque and drift since the engines weren't counter rotating.
It was offset for the pilot better field of view.
Saw this plane along with a B17G (Sentimental Journey) in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in the 90's.
Me as well
Thought that sounded like two Spits in formation... ;)
That's beacuse it uses rolls royce merlins like the spitfire
Excellent! Thank you very much. I've just read that this actual aircraft was lost in 2003,though. Sad for all concerned.
Very sad
And Warthunder still doesn't have the cockpit modeled SMH
Hundreds of cockpits modeled, yet they can't do bombers and some heavy fighters. I'm so happy we have it for the Mosquitos, but I wish we could get it the Beaufighters.
Good news now
you're not kidding :)
Arda Onen they do lol
Raptor A The comment is from over a year ago
Fascinating to see the inside of such a historic warbird. I've always wondered what the cockpit view was like.
I love the term bathtub. I'm borrowing it.
Fantastic narrative about this plane. It really was a mid 1930s plane that was largely obsolete by 43
"in the bathtub"
never heard that phrase before...I like it
Better than "death bed", as the Germans nicknamed it.
No, the addition of the waist guns meant additional crew - the original four being raised to five or six, dependent on whether one or two gunners were carried. It was common for the bomb-aimer (bombardier) to man the nose guns.
I was able to see the inside of this plane as a young teenager back in the late 90s at an airshow in El Paso, TX. Pity the plane crashed so tragically.
Possibly one of the He 111 used in the 1960's film,Battle of Britain? a few Spanish air force planes were used in that film too.
Great video, and if anyone wants to build a model of this aircraft,I would suggest the Monogram 1/48 scale kit,very good kit and one of my favourite models on my shelf.
I saw this flying over Mesa, AZ back in 1999/2000 when it was based there by coincidence. I saw a plane at a far distance and the vertical fin was much larger than anything I'd seen before and I thought "I know what that is!" :)
wow, great vid/info - never realized before just how disadvantaged the pilot/crew were with the 111.
Randy Alberts they werent he doesnt know the history
They weren't, not any worse than the average bomber from mid-war. In fact, they were a lot better off than most contemporary bombers. Try flying combat in a B-18, or a Blenheim, or a Hampden. Then get back to me on how awful it was to fly combat in an He 111. Of course, no WWII bombers were exactly a picnic to fly in.
Wow never new about this plane was so difficult to fly thanks for sharing.
People had Balls of steal back then, 5 hour runs once or twice a day had to be completely fatiguing let alone mentally stressful..
Remember German pilots didn't have 20 missions and go home, you went till you fell physically or mentally to pieces, severely injured or killed.
My Dad was a PT boat engineer in WWII Pacific theater during Island hopping.
He told me a few scary stories, that if it went the opposite direction I wouldn't be typing this.
Thanks for sharing
He knows the plane very well!
Also the door or defensive guns were not meant to shot the planes but keep them away tho.
Judging from the paintjob I would guess this was one of the CASAs they used in the BoB-movie from the 60s?
The changed engine cowls to fit the Merlins never bothered me that much on this plane. What really takes me out of the movie every time I watch it (and I've watched it *a lot*) are those hideous looking "109s". They did a good job re-building their wings to resemble the older E-model, but they couldn't change those completely messed up looking engine cowls and spinners on the Bfs.
Going to the Wanaka Airshow, NewZealand, next year; would love to see one of these! Still, plenty of other Warbirds to enjoy.
I was LUCKY enough to sit in one of these at the then Woolco castle lane near BOURNEMOUTH just before the battle of Britain film was launched.she was transported on a lorry to the car park and re assembled I DONT Care WhAT people say,WHAT A PLANE From a famous company who also built bubble cars as for the film itself my late father a mosquito pilot said to me these were quite difficult to shoot down because of their heavy bodies and they didn't fall out of the skies as every one says.so there you have it from the son of a mosquito pilot yes they did lose a lot of them but they were a HELL of a job trying to bring one down.
So was fortunate to have been able to crawl around this acft before it's destruction. Quite interesting in design
Donald Parlett jr I was too. I just found out now it crashed. So sad. I got the tour of it at a relatively small airport and she was gorgeous.
It's got Merlin engines! The Irony is just incredible!!!
For another layer of irony check out who owns Rolls Royce these days: it's a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW
While Daimler was working out bugs in their DB601 engine on the Bf-109 in the 1930's, it flew with an engine licensed from Rolls Royce. Now, do the CASA-111's actually have British Rolls Royce Merlins or are those license-built Packard Merlins?
+Dana Sutton: BMW owns Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc owns Rolls-Royce aircraft engine and power systems business and is a British multinational public limited company listed at the London Stock Exchange in the FTSE 100 Index.
For the sake of the crew, I hope those are Packard-built Merlins. Much more reliable than RR Merlins.
Kev Maverick what's more ironic is that the first Israeli air force had to fly Me 109 copies and wore German flight suits into combat.
So sad to watch this. I had the good fortune to tour this aircraft at the last Madera Gathering of Warbirds in 1994. At the conclusion of the event, we took off together (I was crewing for a Beech SNB-1) and I got some great air-to-air photos of this great aircraft. They did a great job of restoring it further... only to lose it in a crash in 2003.
Visited the Battle of Britain museum this weekend at Hawkinge in Kent, they have just acquired a Heinkel Bomber, it’s on display outside & just looked awesome. Well worth a visit.
I was so lucky to have been able to go inside this aircraft,when it was on display at Chino Air Museum ,just a few months later it crashed killing its pilot.
I hate to say it, but it is not a He 111 - it's a CASA 2.111. "Same thing" - no, it's not the same thing. Different engines and other internal differences.
I missed seeing this Heinkel 111 when it flew into the Rocky Mountain airport in Broomfield, Co. I wish I would have taken the time to see it before it crashed.
One of the great failures of the pre-war Luftwaffe planning was failing to build a 4-engine heavy strategic bomber. These medium Heinkel and Dornier bombers were completely inadequate. Strategic bombing in the East could have been game changer.
I'm talking about strategic bombing, the sort of bombing that the UK and the US did to major German cities.
The "strategic bombing" of German cities was fairly ineffective, with industrial production levels soaring under Albert Speer's guidance while the bomber fleets overhead got larger. Also, the Germans would have had to reduce other parts of the Wehrmacht if allocating many resources to building and supplying those strategic bombers. It is about a 1300 mile / 2200 km flight, ONE WAY, from Kiev to Perm, site of some of Russia's relocated factories. London to the industrialized Ruhr Valley was a 370 mile / 600 km flight, one way. What kind of strategic bombers were the Germans supposed to build? How many bombs could they carry along with enough fuel for a 2600 mile round trip? They would have had to develop something comparable to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. That project took many years and cost the USA $3 billion during the war. The Manhattan Project was the second costliest American weapon system at just $2 billion. I am quite certain the Soviet factories in the Urals would have had little trouble coping with German strategic bombers.
Hitler was a traitor, an agent of the Brits. He was a marionette of the international bankers. Borman was an agent of the Soviets. The war would have ended, if he had allowed the german army to kill or capture the 330.000 british and french soldiers. But his order was to extend the war. So he let them escape. Hitler prevented to expand the submarine weapon. Later on the Allied knew about every single step of the Germans. Cracking of Enigma code, and also by treason (the old german problem). German military officers wanted a heavy bomber with 4 motors, which are generally able to reach the big military industry complexes in USA and Russia. There was a time, Stalin feared to lose the war. Without american, british and canadian help (lend-lease weapons), the Soviets would have not been able to win. It would have been necessary to bomb and destroy american and russian industry complexes. Hitler prevented this. The german army was also supported by USA. Look at Ford and Opel during the war. Or Standard Oil (Rockefeller). These military plants were never bombed by the Allies. And Krupp also supported the Allied with german parts of military technology. Our soldiers were never enemies. Our nations were displayed against each other by those, who control the medias and the money. And who is it?! After the Soviets redeployed troops from Polar Sea to Charkow-Kursk in 1943, the harbor of Murmansk could have been destroyed by german (Lapland army) and finnish infantry troops. Previous trials failed by sabotage. Later on Finland changed the sides. Like the gutless and opportunistic Italians (who also had many traitors among the Generals). Disgusting! Also the Heereswaffenamt and it's traitors, using sabotage against the own people. They fell in the back of the german front soldier. And don't forget Gibraltar! The naive traitor Admiral Canaris prevented a conquest of this very important strategic area. The war would also have been over. That USA was able to build such a big military industry complex was only possible by their illegal FED bank, which can press as much paper money as it wants and enormous debts. Today this country is - as before WWII - bankrupt again and needs one war after another. And for the war of a few greedy, corrupt and godless people, soldiers are willing to kill others and risk their own human lives. So stupid. Nobody ought to go to the front but the banksters and politicians themselves. There is an official history and an unofficial history, called secret politics.
Allied strategic bombing was pretty useless. The Luftwaffe destroyed cities with what they had (Stalingrad) and it still didnt help. The Soviets moved their industry to the Urals out of range and it would have been suicide to attack them with strategic bombers.
@@Internetbutthurt
Actually, bombing Stalingrad proved to be a mistake, because all the rubble limited the use of tanks and they had to resort to urban warfare which was a nightmare, street fighting over street fighting, exhausting and shit
I've read that in 1946, surplus Merlin engines (Packard) were being sold in the US for $500.
This is my most favorite German bomber
Cool airplane! Thanks for the tour.
Well there was the He177 which was a 6 ton bomber, the Do217, a 3 ton bomber, the Fw200 which was a 5.5 ton bomber, and the Junkers 188/388 which were 3 ton bombers also. So, the Germans certainly had the technology, plus a dozen other heavy prototypes. However, their philosophy was deliberately directed towards high speed bombers that could evade interception easier, the same philosophy behind the DH Mosquito.
Compare to the American B17, which was so bristling with armour, weapons and crew, that it could only carry a 3.5 ton bombload.
12 plus years ago took pictures of my little nephew inside the Heinkel bomber back in Mesa Az. as it was being maintained while we were on the way to tour the B17 stationed there the same day...I casually mentioned to a service person the fact that "it seem very small'..he responded..The crew compartment is quite reduced in there...here.! take a look..so we walked inside the fuselage, except the pilot's cabin ( a very short little private tour indeed)...and yes..!! the space was very reduced and it felt hard to breathe in there......my nephew now 18 , I invited him again to re-take a new set of photos inside the same plane, just to learn that it does not exist anymore....very sad and more sad for the crew who lost their lives in that accident...
Sounds like a spitfire!
love it saw a million outside looking in never inside looking out. Great
This aircraft crashed in 2003 killing two on airfield approach
+Michael Jackson So sad
+Michael Jackson RIP
+Michael Jackson Damn...
I took my wife to see it not knowing that it had been destroyed - was told that the pilot failed to switch fuel tanks - I guess starving the engines.
Yes the last one that was flying
Thx from Germany for that video
sacrilege having twin merlins on a heinkel... sounds like a mozzy, not the lumbering drone of the DBs
Thanks for the tour of the He-111. Lots of interesting details. My dad, who was a child at that time in Soviet Ukraine, told that German bombers had very distinct sound, not steady noise of the engines, but almost pulsating noise, Wou-Wou-Wou..., that they as a kids can figure out that german bombers coming by the sound of engines, not sure though how true it is....
Very cool!
Thankyou for the great video
Thank you, I did find the story finally. Thanks again.
NEVER would have guessed it was difficult to fly!
Interesting view of an iconic aircraft. One thing I noticed was the wide instrument panel in the cockpit. It has been decades since I as a kid climbed into a 111 P-1 model that was being restored for static display (5J+CN Werknummer 1526) but my fractured memory tells me the panel in that aircraft was about half the width of this panel. Faulty memory or were there differences between the original (P-1 model at least) and the Spanish build, or has the panel been upgraded to meet modern standards and regulations?
Bombsight makes me think of Battle of Britain film, “LOS!”
The first ones hade a steped cockpit and were originally designed to be high speed mail planes. don’t think the original ones had two pilots positions but I could be wrong. Being a transport the two positions make sense.