Japanese Heinkel/Aichi-119 Torpedo Bomber

[jcf]

"Unfortunately English, German and Japanese sources differ as to whether there were one or
two prototypes involved and whether they were V2, V4, V7 or V8 (most likely V7 and V8).
Whatever the case, one or two aircraft arrived in Japan by sea during May 1940 for assembly
in Kasumigaura and flight testing at the Kusho (now known as Kugisho) in Yokosuka.
Little has been found on subsequent events other than that an aircraft was lost in a landing
accident and plans to build it in Japan were soon abandoned."
- "Heinkels Over Japan: Part 2" by Peter Starkings,
page 31, Arawasi Magazine, Issue 4, May 2006

[sequoiaranger]

>Little has been found on subsequent events...<

Well, here we are back in the is-it-speculation-or-is-it-fact? conundrum again. If indeed there is "little" to be found, than at least a "little" verifies the existence of the He-119's in Japan. Or does it?

Thanks for the additional source, jon.

[pbhawkin]

HI sequoiaranger ,
I am not 'angry' either and hope that we may actually find something new on this matter between us! Or at worse agree to disagree!
Please see the two below threads for further information ofn these planes (also great website if you are unaware of them).

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1673
and
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1812&st=0&p=10369&#entry10369
Apparently expert on Heinkels is Volker Koos and in one of the links above is this quote from Stih Jarvelik

"may I just point out that as far as I am aware, nothing has been published or found which refutes Volker Koos deductions in his Heinkel Vol 2 book published in 2003."

Anyway, you said: 

"but I would appreciate what "contrary evidence" you have that refutes William Green's assertions other than lack of records to support it."

Below quote is the reverse of your position in that he suggests that prove for their existance needs to be found and not just accept it because W.Green said so.

"What he list still stands and anyone believing more than four He 119 were built and that any other airframes than the V-2 and V-4 were exported to Japan, has to my mind quote some new found documents saying otherwise. To quote Japanese sources written in the early 1970's etc is not productive. It is like checking William Green's books and/or articles from the 1960's and 1970's. Good at the time they have been superseeded since both once and twice."

Now I am not saying he is right or wrong but I am seriously thinking about getting these books about Heinkel (if for no other reason than interest and to add to my collection about seaplanes and flyingboats) although they are in German only (although it is easily translated). I am about to write to him to see if he can provide an English transcript of his work and the references he used.

regards
Peter
PS have you started your build at all?

[sequoiaranger]

>What he list still stands and anyone believing more than four He 119 were built and that any other airframes than the V-2 and V-4 were exported to Japan, has to my mind quote some new found documents saying otherwise. To quote Japanese sources written in the early 1970's etc is not productive.<

Well now, I can't be too dismissive of "60's and '70's sources". At that time, as opposed to now, most of the people closely involved with the assembly, flight testing, maintenance, etc., were ALIVE and could be questioned without too much overlying personal history or faded memory. That is, there were FIRST PERSON sources to be found and questioned, AND it wasn't all that long (20 years) since the incidents in question. Next year it will be SEVENTY years since 1940, and who the heck would still be alive or in a good, reliable mental state to be asked? Why would we need "new-found documents", especially if the documentation had been destroyed in the war?

I am all for "correcting" wrong history, so I am eager to learn any information that might refute or support the question of the He-119's appearance in Japan. I believe there are Japanese sources heretofore untapped due to language barriers. I am a friend of Jon Parschall, author of "Shatterd Sword", whose meticulous research using heretofore untapped Japanese sources exposed the long-held American "myth" that the Japanese carriers at Midway had their decks full of attack aircraft waiting to take off when the US dive bombers took them out (JUST in the nick of time, say breathless believers of the myth). Truth is the decks were EMPTY, or at most had a few CAP Zeroes on them.

So it can happen that long-held historical accounts that have persisted may in fact be false. But like Parschall's work, the burden of proof is on the REVISER of history, really, not the "accepted" history. I really feel that the "He-119's ordered, delivered, and flown in Japan" paradigm is the "accepted" history and needs to be proven wrong. What "we" have found out so far does indeed cast doubt on Green's and others' hypotheses, but has not "proven" them wrong....yet.

To me, the question still is....Did William Green just make that s**t up, or did he have reasonable justification for his reasonably-detailed "allegations"?

[Jschmus]

A source from the horse's mouth (as they say), or at least that of EADS:

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/history/airhist/1930_1939/heinkel_he119_1936.html

Officials, however, did not show any kind of interest and called for an export license of the last two prototypes to Japan. The Japanese government purchased the license for the record-breaking He 119 prototype. In 1940, prototypes number seven and eight together with chief pilot Gerhard Nitschke, went onboard an Italian warship to Japan. They were tested by the Imperial Japanese Navy, but a license agreement failed. Only the construction principle was used on the Yokosuka R2Y-1 Keiun, finalized in 1945.

[pbhawkin]

HI Jschmus,
Thanks for the reply.
I am aware of Eads, But they give NO references, don't even give an author of the article, and mislabel the picture of V-3 (on floats) as V-5.

A source from the horse's mouth (as they say), or at least that of EADS:

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/history/airhist/1930_1939/heinkel_he119_1936.html

Officials, however, did not show any kind of interest and called for an export license of the last two prototypes to Japan. The Japanese government purchased the license for the record-breaking He 119 prototype. In 1940, prototypes number seven and eight together with chief pilot Gerhard Nitschke, went onboard an Italian warship to Japan. They were tested by the Imperial Japanese Navy, but a license agreement failed. Only the construction principle was used on the Yokosuka R2Y-1 Keiun, finalized in 1945.

Craig, I will have to re-read W.Green but he also doesn't quote refernces does he?
Yes, I agree there is an onus to disprove something, But likewise I am not sure I accept that just because it is published (with no references) and generally accepted as 'truth' that it is so. However, a single record or photo of the planes existance in Japan would 'prove' it. It is just interesting that they made a big show of displaying the other German aircraft to the public (there are numerous photos of German planes in Japan) but there are none for the He119.
If the BA/MA records in Germany become available to the public, after they finish their restoration work, they may show that the planes were sent (or not) by U-boat as opposed to what we have now where we 'think' they were sent in May 1940. Of course Japanese sources may reveal something and you are right about the difficulties due to Language. Interesting I also subscribe to Arawasi and must have a look at the article

Heinkels Over Japan: Part 2" by Peter Starkings,
page 31, Arawasi Magazine, Issue 4, May 2006

. Maybe. we can contact Mr Peter Starkings to see what his sources are?
I will certainly keep you informed if I get anything from Mr Koos.

Regards
Peter

Added: I have found Mr P. Starkings email and sent off a query to him.

[sequoiaranger]

>PS have you started your build at all?<

Nothing has been glued together. I have "researched" my project thoroughly. Markings and camo, ordnance, crew, radiator and exhaust modifications, and gunner's position have all been considered. I am wanting to "engineer" a motorized propeller with tiny, removable batteries, but have not "solved" the problems, yet.

Currently I am in the "Group build" with an amphibian Hellcat/Duck. The "Aichi 119" is just one of many worthwhile projects in my head (see my gallery). I may do a couple of simpler whifs before tackling the Aichi 119, but....I never know!

Re: the "Japanese He-119's"--Part of "our" problem may be the almost adversarial relationship between Heinkel and the RLM. He "hid" many of his projects, and/or changed the names, designations, etc. to suit his purpose. Perhaps V7 and V8 were actually V1 and V2 re-designated, etc.  Maybe the upper V machines never had civil reg. because Heinkel kept them under wraps. Who knows?

[noxioux]

Please, don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good whiff!

I get a gut feeling that the floaty version would be cool deployed out of something like an I-400 submarine (another whiff possibility).

[jcf]

Please, don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good whiff!

I get a gut feeling that the floaty version would be cool deployed out of something like an I-400 submarine (another whiff possibility).

Err, um..the floats of the He 119 were big enough to be a submarine. 





The He 119 was quite a bit larger than the Seirans carried by the I-400 submarine,
so you'd need something bigger. Maybe a twin-hulled sub?, two I-400 joined together?

Jon

[pbhawkin]

Craig,
Peter Starkings got back to be very quickly.
Below is from his email to me:

Now to the He 119 which is a can of worms! The following sentence in my article says it all, viz: "Unfortunately English, German and Japaneses sources differ as to whether there were one or two prototypes involved and whether they were V2, V4, V7 or V8 (most likely V7 and V8)."

The following websites give a good history of the 8 prototypes and similar details are contained in other He 119 websites, although they could have all come from the same undisclosed erroneous source!

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/history/airhist/1930_1939/heinkel_he119_1936.html

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he119.html

Going on from there, this source confirms V7 and V8 imports:  "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft Vol. 6, Nozawa (Ed), Publ.1972 (Japanese text)"

This source confirms two aircraft: RLM Files"Lieferungen von Flugzeugen, Flugmoteren und Bomben an das verbundete und neutrale Ausland" (Supplying of Aircraft, Aircraft Engines and Bombs to the Allied and Neutral Nations); Supplied and delivered to Japan: 2 He 119 in 1940.

The registrations you quote with your model are as shown in the German civil register. A German book I have on Heinkel aircraft quotes AUTE as V4 (not V1) and ADPQ as V5 (not V3); confused? So am I!

I have not found any other He-119 registrations in the German civil register; it is possible, of course, that V4 and V5 were V1 and V2 airframes reused whilst V6, V7 and V8 would not have had civil registrations as they were pre-production types, two of which were (possibly!) exported! You can find the German civil register at:

http://www.goldenyears.ukf.net/home.htm (click on Register there, then Registrations by Country, then Germany, then D- letters.

I will leave you to digest that little lot in conjunction with your own researches as I certainly don't regard my own conclusions as definitive. I have been studying Japanese imported foreign aircraft for the last 15 years and I have been most surprised at the amount of conflicting information about most types, especially on imports after 1940. I suppose it is a specialist niche interest and so other researchers considering the main associated subject (e.g. the R2Y in the case of the He 119) have not looked too deeply into the history of any other aircraft secondary to it. Not only that, there always seems to have been a reticence in some sources (especially American) in even mentioning that an example of a particular pre-war aircraft could have gone to Japan, instanced by the fact I have established beyond all reasonable doubt that they imported at least 195 different foreign types, both civil and miliyary up to 1945.

Happy musing!

So to my mind it is still up in the air and can be read either way.

One day we may really find out!

Peter H

[sequoiaranger]

pbhawkin--thanks for the Starkings e-mail. Maybe we can agree to call it "confusing" and "uncertain". Actually, I am pleased with Starkings "concession" that the issue is not solved to anyone's historical satisfaction. Before, it almost sounded like Starkings was saying that "MY research is right, and YOUR research is wrong", but there is no "wrong", just conflicting, confusing, and incomplete information. Still fascinating.

And of course, since my interest is a "whif" model anyway, it is all irrelevant. I don't have to lose any sleep thinking I might have modeled an INCORRECT (Heaven forbid!) subject and shamefully lost credibility. 

[jcf]

pbhawkin--thanks for the Starkings e-mail. Maybe we can agree to call it "confusing" and "uncertain". Actually, I am pleased with Starkings "concession" that the issue is not solved to anyone's historical satisfaction. Before, it almost sounded like Starkings was saying that "MY research is right, and YOUR research is wrong", but there is no "wrong", just conflicting, confusing, and incomplete information. Still fascinating.

And of course, since my interest is a "whif" model anyway, it is all irrelevant. I don't have to lose any sleep thinking I might have modeled an INCORRECT (Heaven forbid!) subject and shamefully lost credibility. 

Hi Craig,
Peter Starkings made no 'concession', his email simply repeats the conclusions from his Arawasi article, that I quoted:
"Unfortunately English, German and Japaneses sources differ as to whether there were one or two prototypes
involved and whether they were V2, V4, V7 or V8 (most likely V7 and V8)."

The emphatic statements that Peter H. quoted in an earlier post were not from Peter Starkings,
rather they are evidently from one Stig Jarlevik posting on the Luftwaffe Experten Message Board,
who is basing his statements on writings by Volker Koos.

Peter Starkings was for many years the head of the IPMS-UK Japanese Aviation SIG and editor/publisher
of the SIG quarterly 'JAS Jottings'.

Jon

[noxioux]

Err, um..the floats of the He 119 were big enough to be a submarine. 

Hence "something like".  It's just a sideline, but perhaps some quick modular assembly by the crew would help.  Store the floats in pressure-proof containers between the pressure hull and the decking, slide the bird forward, clip on the floats and away she goes. . .

[Sauragnmon]

Nox, that would actually be much like the Seirans actually were designed - their floats were removed for storage in the hangar, and attatched once it was out and the wings were folded out.

Craig, Looking forward to it, should be interesting!

[sequoiaranger]

>Err, um..the floats of the He 119 were big enough to be a submarine.<

Yeah. Here's a picture of two "U-119 class mini-subs" cruising on the surface!