text:
ITV Granada

ITV Granada, formerly known as Granada Television, is the ITV franchisee for the North West of England and Isle of Man. From 1956 to 1968 it broadcast to both the north west and Yorkshire on weekdays only, as ABC Weekend Television was its weekend counterpart. Granada's parent company Granada plc later bought several other regional ITV stations and, in 2004, merged with Carlton Communications to form ITV plc.

Granada Television was particularly noted by critics for the distinctive northern and "social realism" character of many of its network programmes, as well as the high quality of its drama and documentaries. In its prime as an independent franchisee, prior to its parent company merging with Carlton Communications to form ITV plc, it was the largest Independent Television producer in the UK, accounting for 25% of the total broadcasting output of the ITV network.

Granada Television was founded by Sidney Bernstein at Granada Studios on Quay Street in Manchester and is the only surviving franchisee of the original four Independent Television Authority franchisees from 1954. It covers Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, and parts of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cumbria, and North Yorkshire. In 2009, the Isle of Man was transferred to Granada from ITV Border.

Broadcasting by Granada Television began on 3 May 1956 under the North of England weekday franchise, the fifth franchise to go to air. It was marked by a distinctive northern identity and used a stylised letter "G" logo forming an arrow pointing north, often with the tagline "Granada: from the North". Granada plc merged with Carlton Communications to form ITV plc in 2004 after a duopoly had developed over the previous decade. The Granada name, as with those of the other former regional licence holders, is only referenced onscreen during regional news bulletins and the weeknight regional news magazine; ITV Broadcasting Limited operates the service with national ITV branding and continuity.

The North West region is regarded as ITV's most successful franchise. Nine Granada programmes were listed in the BFI TV 100 in 2000. Some of its most notable programmes include Sherlock Holmes, Coronation Street, Seven Up!, The Royle Family, The Jewel in the Crown, Brideshead Revisited, World in Action, University Challenge and The Krypton Factor. Notable employees have included Paul Greengrass, Michael Apted, Mike Newell, Jeremy Isaacs, Andy Harries, Russell T Davies, Leslie Woodhead, Tony Wilson, Roland Joffe, Derek Granger, Gordon McDougall and Dan Walker.

Origins
Granada originated as Granada Theatres Ltd, which owned cinemas in the south of England. It was founded in Dover in 1930 by Sidney Bernstein and his brother Cecil; it was named after the Spanish city of Granada, which Sidney had visited on a holiday. The company was incorporated as Granada Ltd in 1934 and listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1935; Granada Theatres Ltd became a subsidiary of the new company.

In the 1950s, the Bernsteins became involved in commercial television, a competitor to the cinema chains, through the launch of ITV. Bernstein bid for the North of England franchise, which he believed would not affect the company's largely southern-based cinema chain. In 1954, the Independent Television Authority (ITA) awarded Granada the North of England contract for Monday to Friday, with ABC Weekend TV serving the same area on weekends. The companies used the ITA's Winter Hill and Emley Moor transmitters, covering Lancashire and the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire, including the major conurbations around Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, York and Doncaster.

"The north and London were the two biggest regions. Granada preferred the north because of its tradition of home-grown culture, and because it offered a chance to start a new creative industry away from the metropolitan atmosphere of London … the north is a closely knit, indigenous, industrial society; a homogeneous cultural group with a good record for music, theatre, literature and newspapers, not found elsewhere in this island, except perhaps in Scotland. Compare this with London and its suburbs — full of displaced persons. And, of course, if you look at a map of the concentration of population in the north and a rainfall map, you will see that the north is an ideal place for television'."

Bernstein selected a base from Leeds and Manchester. Granada executive Victor Peers believed Manchester was the preferred choice even before executives toured the region to find a suitable site. Granada Studios, designed by architect Ralph Tubbs, was built on a site on Quay Street in Manchester city centre belonging to Manchester City Council, which the company bought for £82,000.

The opening night featured Meet The People hosted by Quentin Reynolds and comedian Arthur Askey. Reynolds became inebriated before the broadcast and had to sober up.

Granada Television was broadcast by the ITA on VHF Channel 9 (405 lines, monochrome) from the Winter Hill transmitter starting on 3 May 1956, and from 3 November 1956 on VHF channel 10 (405 lines, monochrome) from the Emley Moor transmitter. The weekend programme service was provided by ABC Television covering both the North and Midlands regions. Following the 1968 franchise awards, Granada Television provided the programme service from Winter Hill for all seven days of the week but lost the seven-day service from Emley Moor to Yorkshire Television. With the national launch of the UHF 625 line colour television service for both BBC1 and ITV on 15 November 1969, the ITA commenced broadcasts of Granada Television on UHF channel 59 from Winter Hill, with high power relays subsequently put into service at Pendle Forest (channel 25 on 2 August 1971, the first UHF relay service to be operated by the ITA), Lancaster (channel 24 on 26 June 1972), Storeton (channel 25 in September 1979), and Saddleworth (channel 49 on 28 June 1984).

Early years
Most ITV franchisees viewed their territories as stopgaps before winning a coveted London franchise. In contrast, Granada determined to develop a strong northern identity – northern voices, northern programmes, northern idents with phrases such as Granada from the north, From the north — Granada and Granadaland. Bernstein refused to employ anyone not prepared to live in or travel to Manchester and Jeremy Isaacs called him a "genial tyrant" as a result.

"I think that what Manchester sees today, London will see eventually."

Bernstein decided to build new studios rather than hiring space or converting old buildings, an approach favoured by the other ITV companies and by the BBC at its original Manchester studios. The investment in new studios in 1954 contributed to Granada struggling financially, and the company was close to insolvency by late 1956. All four ITA franchisees were expected to make losses in the first few years of operation, but Granada's was a significant sum of £175,000 (nearly £3.5m in 2011). When it first became profitable, it had the lowest profits of the quartet.

Granada sought the help of Associated-Rediffusion, the London weekday station, which agreed to underwrite Granada's debts in exchange for a percentage of its profits, without the consent of the ITA, who would have blocked it. Granada accepted the deal, but the popularity of ITV increased and profitability followed. Analysts questioned how Associated-Rediffusion, ABC and ATV were making annual profits of up to £2.7m by 1959 and yet Granada's profits were under £1m. With the increase in income, Granada tried to renegotiate the contract; Associated-Rediffusion refused, souring relations for many years. The deal was worth over £8m to Rediffusion. By the early 1960s Granada was established and its soap opera Coronation Street quickly became popular, as did inexpensive game shows such as Criss Cross Quiz and University Challenge.

Franchise changes
In the 1968 franchise round, Granada's contract was changed from weekdays across the northern England region to the whole week in the North West from Winter Hill transmitting station. Yorkshire was defined as a separate region and the contract awarded to Yorkshire Television, broadcasting from Emley Moor transmitting station; its transmissions could be received in parts of North Lincolnshire. Bernstein was angered by the decision to split "Granadaland", and claimed he would appeal to the United Nations. Granada Television was received in what is now Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside and Cheshire, the south of what is now Cumbria (then Lancashire, and smaller parts of Westmorland and Yorkshire) around Barrow-in-Furness, the High Peak district of Derbyshire (Glossop, Buxton), the Staffordshire Moorlands district of Staffordshire (Biddulph and Leek) and the Isle of Man. Parts of North Wales can receive only the Winter Hill transmissions (i.e. Granada) rather than HTV.

Granada retained its franchise in the 1980 franchise review, and invested in multimillion-pound dramatic serial productions such as The Jewel in the Crown and Brideshead Revisited. By the late 1990s the UK commercial broadcasters were considered too small to compete in the global market, and the ITV franchises began to consolidate with the aim of creating a single company with a larger budget.

The Broadcasting Act of 1990 instigated the 1991 franchise auction round, in which companies had to bid for the regions. Mersey Television, a company producing the Channel 4 soap opera Brookside, bid £35m compared to Granada's £9m but Granada won as Mersey's package did not meet the 'quality threshold' applied by the Independent Television Commission. This requirement disadvantaged companies with no previous franchise experience. Granada owned popular television series such as Coronation Street, which it threatened to sell to satellite TV if the franchise was lost. The government responded by relaxing the regulatory regime, so that ITV contractors could take over other companies, and Granada bought several companies. Some at the company considered ITV could survive only as a single merged entity to have sufficient resources to produce big-budget programmes, a concern that increased when BSkyB began to take ITV's viewing share, leading to less advertising revenue, the source of ITV's income.

David Plowright, who had worked at Granada since 1957, resigned in 1992, citing the arrival of Gerry Robinson, who had tightened departmental budgets with an uncompromising business approach. Plowright had been the company's driving force, producing programmes such as World in Action and Coronation Street, and promoting the Granada Studios Tour. His departure angered well-known media-industry figures; John Cleese sent Robinson a fax using "vitriolic language" that called him an "upstart caterer" (a reference to his past employment). John Birt, Harold Pinter and Alan Bennett all supported Plowright for his quality programming.

Takeover bids
The so-called "Big Five" ITV franchisees, Thames, LWT, Central, Granada, and Yorkshire were expected to take over the ten smaller franchises. Granada wanted to consolidate with Yorkshire and Tyne Tees to "counter the potential dominance of the south east", and the prospect of being taken over by Thames. Granada made a hostile bid for LWT in December 1993, but LWT believed Granada had "little to offer" despite having three times the market capitalisation; Granada, however, completed the take-over in 1994. Granada continued to expand by acquiring Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television for £652m in 1997 and bought UNM's television assets for £1.75 billion in 2000 – by which it acquired Anglia and Meridian and some divisions of HTV – the remaining divisions passing to rival company Carlton due to competition laws. A year later, it acquired Border from Capital Radio Group.

By 2002, Granada had established an effective duopoly of ITV with Carlton Television, owning all the ITV companies in England and Wales. The remaining franchises in Scotland, (Scottish and Grampian), UTV in Northern Ireland, and Channel in the Channel Islands, remained independent.

Granada was in a poor financial state and closed the Granada Studios Tour in 2001, citing decreasing visitor figures. The real reason was the decision to increase production of episodes for Coronation Street to five per week. Without access to that set, the highlight of the tour, the Granada Studios Tour venture was no longer viable. The company also closed Granada Film. The emergence of digital television cut ITV's viewing share, decreasing advertising revenue, which was already suffering from competition with the internet. The failure of ITV Digital cost Granada and Carlton losses estimated at over £1 billion reducing the company's value from 2001 to 2003.

ITV Granada and the unification of ITV
On 28 October 2002, in a network-wide relaunch, Granada was rebranded as ITV1 Granada. The Granada name was shown before regional programmes, but this has ceased; its name has all but disappeared from screens, as have all other ITV regional identities. Since rebranding, all continuity announcements are made from London. The Granada logo appeared at the end of its own programmes until 31 October 2004.

Granada was permitted by the government to merge with Carlton on 2 February 2004 to form ITV plc. The move was a takeover by Granada, whose market capitalisation was double that of Carlton, at nearly £2 billion. Granada owned 68% of the shares and Carlton 32%; chairman designate Michael Green was ousted by shareholders and the majority of new board members originated from Granada. Carlton employees were subsumed in Granada operations or made redundant, with three out of four new departments led by Granada staff.

From 1 November 2004, Granada productions were credited "Granada Manchester", the brand of the unified in-house production arm but on 21 September 2005, it was announced that Granada's name would no longer appear at the end of programmes. The in-house production arm was renamed ITV Productions. The change on 16 January 2006 coincided with a relaunch of ITV's on-screen graphics. Granada's name and logo were still used at the end of programmes made for other networks, such as University Challenge for BBC Two, and old programmes shown on BSkyB channels Sky One, and the former Sky Two (now Sky Replay) and Sky Three (now Pick), until 2009.

On 13 November 2006, Granada lost its on-air identity when regional programming voiced ITV1 or ITV1 Granada over a generic ident. Local news coverage was branded Granada News except for the main 18.00 Granada Reports bulletin. Granada Reports' main rival is BBC North West Tonight, broadcast to roughly the same region. In 2009, ITV removed the Granada brand from all departments including its international production arm, Granada America which became ITV Studios America. End credits on programmes made at The Manchester Studios were credited to ITV Studios.

Present
ITV made cutbacks, dropping 600 jobs in 2009, which effectively closed the Yorkshire Television Leeds Studios; more redundancies were made in London, leaving Granada relatively unscathed. In the 2009 ITV regional news cutbacks, Granada was one of three regions unaffected by changes, except for extending its coverage area to include the Isle of Man, which had previously been served by ITV Border.

ITV is obliged by UK communications regulator Ofcom to produce 50% of its programmes outside London, something it failed to achieve in 2007 and 2008. With this obligation, retaining Manchester as the northern hub, and an £80m move to MediaCityUK on 25 March 2013, ITV appears to be committed to the Granada region for the foreseeable future.

Studios

In the eighteen months between the award of the franchise and the start of transmission, Granada built a brand new studio complex on Quay Street. The site was reportedly previously a cemetery for pauper's graves, where 22,000 people were buried. An article in The Sun newspaper and an episode of the TV series Most Haunted seem to be the only sources for this claim in 2009. Twelve maps from between 1772 and 1960 show no evidence of a cemetery and buildings are shown on the bull china site from 1807. Part of the Manchester and Salford Junction Canal, which linked the River Irwell to the Rochdale Canal from 1839 to 1922, ran in a tunnel underneath the site. The studios pre-dated BBC Television Centre by four years and were the first purpose-built television studios in the United Kingdom.

Bernstein exaggerated the scale of the studios, to make Granada appear a rival to the BBC, and gave the studios only even numbers so that it appeared there were twelve despite there only being six. The studios were operated by 3sixtymedia, ITV Studios' joint-venture company with BBC Resources Ltd from 2000. The studios later hosted shows displaced by the proposed closure of the Yorkshire Television studios in Leeds in 2009, including Channel 4's Countdown.

In September 2010, the noted 1950s red landmark "Granada TV" sign on the roof and entrance of Granada Studios on Quay Street was removed for safety reasons after maintenance found it was badly corroded. The Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) now owns the sign, deeming it important to Manchester's cultural heritage.

Relocation
After the ITV merger in 2004, the possibility of selling the Quay Street site was considered, with staff, studios and offices moved into the adjacent bonded warehouse building. ITV anticipated the BBC would buy the land but the BBC opted to move to the Peel Group's MediaCityUK development in Salford Quays. ITV considered relocating to Trafford Wharf across the Manchester Ship Canal from the BBC at MediaCityUK. Discussions continued for several years and an agreement in principle was reached in 2008. In March 2009, in the recession, Granada announced it would remain at Quay Street, but after a change of management, talks resumed in January 2010. Two years later, on 16 December 2010, Granada announced it would move to the Orange Building in MediaCityUK alongside the University of Salford. It planned to build a studio to produce Coronation Street on the opposite bank of the ship canal on Trafford Wharf. Planning permission was granted, and building work began on 6 September 2011 with the goal of completion in 2012. ITV Granada moved to MediaCityUK on 25 March 2013.

Identity
Throughout its history, Granada Television used the logo of an arrow pointing northwards in idents, often accompanied by the tagline "from the North". Sidney Bernstein wanted to present a northern identity. Granada Television was considered "bolder", "gritty" and more "Socialist" in its identity than the other more "sedate" and "Conservative" ITV franchisees and the BBC, and placed great emphasis displaying the northern style which distinguished it from them. Bernstein believed the north had "untapped creative energy" that needed cultivation.

Granada was one of the few regions that did not play the national anthem at closedown.

In 1958, two years after its launch, Granada Television's northern style was apparent. Kenneth Clark, of the ITA, which let the franchise, remarked: "We did not quite foresee how much Granada Television would develop a character which distinguishes it most markedly from the other programmes companies and from the BBC." Peter Salmon, of the BBC said: "Granada Television made TV programmes in the north west; for northerners, reflecting northern culture and attitudes."

Idents

From its launch in 1956 until 1968, when an ident featuring the word "GRANADA" between two horizontal lines was introduced, the channel used captions and animations featuring a thin arrow pointing upwards and Granada, in a stylised font, in boxes. The arrow pointed at the "n" in Granada, pointing north and sometimes animated revealing the slogan "From the North", before the Granada name.

After the use of the word "GRANADA" between two horizontal lines was phased out in the first half of 1969, the famous pointed "G" logo, incorporating the upward/Northward facing arrow used previously into a letter "G" was introduced. This was to be the corporate logo for the Granada Group as a whole (also seen as the logo for Granada's TV rentals firm), so it was introduced to their ITV franchise as a matter of course rather than the ITV franchise choosing to adopt the new branding. This logo was originally white on a grey background (although occasionally seen as black on a white background) but after the introduction of colour, grey was replaced with blue (after a short period of using white symbol/yellow lettering/purple background), with the GRANADA name in white and the G symbol in yellow.

A colour emblem was used from the 1970s until it was replaced by a series of idents to celebrate Granada Television's 30th anniversary on 3 May 1986, when it was a computer-animated pointed "G" against a graded background and a cake covered in candles in the pointed G shape. On 1 September 1986, Granada Television reverted to using a caption featuring a gold or chrome 3D pointed "G" on a graded blue background. Granada Television used in-vision continuity featuring northern personalities giving messages. It was common for the logo to be seen for a few seconds after the continuity before the programme, and continuity was rarely given over the symbol.

On 5 June 1989, Granada Television launched a look featuring a translucent pointed G, which rotated into place in time to the music against a natural scene. When the first ITV generic look was launched, Granada Television refused to adopt it, because the Granada Television logo was incorrectly inserted into the "V" segment of the logo. The company used a version with its translucent logo shown at the beginning, before continuing with the generic ident and ending with the generic ITV logo.

On 4 June 1990, Granada Television, in the run-up to the 1990 franchise round, relaunched its on-screen branding to a blue stripe descending from the top of the screen, containing the pointed "G", against a plain white background accompanied by the same music as previously. Variations were seen from which the stripe formed from a falling feather or was backlit. On 4 May 1992, the stripe descended to reveal a rainbow of colours before becoming the usual blue and this ident stays on screen until 1 January 1995.

On 3 January 1994, Granada Television introduced a series of films featuring flags with its logo against various scenes in the region, accompanied by the slogan 'Setting the Standard'. These introduced local programming, Granada Reports, or promotions.

On 2 January 1995, the stripe theme was modified; the pointed "G" was larger on the blue stripe against a computer generated multicoloured background and the "G" was created by filming a large perspex "G" with motion control photography. This ident was used, from a variety of angles, until 7 November 1999, by which point additional idents based on surreal surroundings, such as a fish blowing a bubble with a G inside, which floated to the surface, or a camera zoom into the eye of a housewife to reveal the G in her eye, were introduced on 2 September 1996.

All of the idents were replaced on 8 November 1999 when Granada Television took the generic hearts idents. Granada Television kept the pointed G logo, made slightly thinner and placed in a box at the top of the screen. The dual branding of Granada Television and ITV lasted until 28 October 2002, when regional identities were dropped in favour of the new ITV1 channel brand. The celebrities ident package featured plain ITV1 idents for all national programmes, and Granada Television placed under the ITV1 logo for regional programmes. This practice continued until 16 January 2006, when no name was used, and Granada Productions was replaced with ITV Productions on programme end boards. The Granada Television logo continued on end boards until this date. The Granada name was used on announcements before local programming over a generic ITV1 ident until all non-news regional programming was scrapped.

On 14 January 2013, ITV1 reverted to its original name of ITV, along with all other ITV plc-owned franchises.

During the early days, the pointed G logo was used on two other subsidiary businesses. Firstly came the Red Arrow Television Rental chain. During the days when many families preferred to rent their TV sets to offset poor reliability and changing fashions, and due to the high price of television receivers, this company fared well alongside the established "heavy hitters" such as Radio Rentals. The company's opening promotion was to give every new customer a small, Hiawatha-style figurine to stand on top of their new TV set. Upon its success, the name was later changed to Granada TV Rental. Based on the results of this company, Granada Television dipped its toes into the office furniture rental business, and carpet sales and fitting for larger business customers, with Black Arrow. This business was less successful.

Programmes
In 1958, Granada Television broadcast coverage of the 1958 Rochdale by-election, the first election to be covered on television in Britain. Granada's coverage was broad in scope, and it also broadcast two candidate debates. Over 50 years later, Granada Studios hosted the first General Election debate among the leaders of the three main political parties.

Granada's boldness was seen in ambitious documentaries such as Seven Up!, which premiered in 1964. The programme was a social experiment which followed the lives of 14 British children aged seven. It tracked their lives at seven-year intervals to discover whether their hopes and aspirations had been achieved. The documentary was voted the greatest ever by esteemed filmmakers and its latest installment, 63 Up, premiered in 2019. Seven Up was part of the World in Action documentary series between 1963 and 1998, which won awards but was controversial. It garnered a reputation for hard-hitting investigative journalism and its producer Gus Macdonald commented that the programme was "born brash". Paul Greengrass said that David Plowright told him, "don't forget, your job's to make trouble." World in Action demonstrated hard-hitting investigative journalism and explored issues such as police corruption at the Metropolitan Police in 1985 and the Royal Family's tax loophole in 1991. The programme led a campaign to prove the innocence of the Birmingham Six in 1985 when researcher Chris Mullin questioned the convictions; by 1991 the men had been released from prison.

The classic northern working-class soap opera, Coronation Street, began a thirteen-week, twice weekly regional run of half-hour episodes on 9 December 1960. It is still produced at the rate of three one-hour peak-time episodes a week after over sixty years, and is the longest-running television soap opera in the world. Such set-pieces as Siege Week and the 2010 Tram Crash were filmed at the studio. The company also produced gritty drama series such as A Family at War (1970–72), set during the Second World War.

Granada produced The Stars Look Down (1975), Laurence Olivier Presents (1976–78), Brideshead Revisited (1981), the multi-award-winning Disappearing World series (between 1969 and 1993) and, from 1984, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and The Jewel in the Crown for an international audience. These shows were sold overseas by Granada Television International.

Another flagship programme, the long-running quiz show, University Challenge was originally aired between 1962 and 1987. It was revived by the BBC in 1994 but still produced by Granada. The company produced The Krypton Factor between 1977 and 1995 (revived by ITV in 2009). One of Granada's longest-running programmes, What The Papers Say, was broadcast by Granada in 1956, was taken over by the BBC in the early 1990s, and later by Channel 4. The programme introduced the idea of discussing what the newspapers were reporting, continued by Sunday Supplement and The Wright Stuff. In the 1970s, Granada produced situation comedies, often based around life in the north-west, including Nearest and Dearest, The Lovers and The Cuckoo Waltz, followed by The Brothers McGregor and Watching in the 1980s.

Granada drew on 1970s pop music with shows such as Lift Off with Ayshea and the Bay City Rollers show, Shang-a-lang. Granada's So It Goes was presented by Tony Wilson and showcased the punk phenomenon, bringing the Sex Pistols and the Clash to TV screens. The station also produced Marc, presented by glam rock star Marc Bolan. The show was in production when Bolan was killed in a car accident in 1977. Granada produced Allsorts from 1989 to 1995 for CITV, featuring Wayne Jackman, Andrew Wightman (who later produced Granada's talent show Stars in Their Eyes), Virginia Radcliffe, Jane Cox and Julie Westwood.

Granada Studios produced The Weekenders (1992), a surreal comedy episode featuring Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer.

Significant broadcasters
Denis Forman, chairman 1974-87, and David Plowright, chairman 1987–92, were the executives who led Granada Television during its most successful years. Forman and Plowright have been described as embodying the Granada outlook, which was "non-conformist, alternative, non-London".

Granada Television introduced many broadcasters to British television, and a number of its directors, producers and writers went on to create their own production companies. Some have been recognised for their achievements in British television with honours such as knighthoods, while others achieved senior posts such as Director-General of the BBC. Jeremy Isaacs developed a significant portion of Granada's factual programming, and the company produced a generation of major British TV "players" including John Birt, later Director-General of the BBC, and Gus Macdonald, his fellow World in Action producer. Many began work as researchers on World in Action.

 * Directors, producers and writers
 * Paul Abbott is a former scriptwriter who created State of Play and Shameless.
 * Jim Allen, a prolific socialist playwright best known for his collaborations with Ken Loach, contributed scripts to Coronation Street from 1965 to 1967.
 * Michael Apted began his television career at Granada and stayed for over twenty years. He devised the Up series documentary.
 * John Birt, Baron Birt began his career at Granada in 1966 as a researcher for World in Action before leaving in 1971. He became Director-General of the BBC from 1992 to 2000.
 * Russell T Davies collaborated with Paul Abbott as a writer in the 1990s.
 * Bill Gilmour was a drama director.
 * Paul Greengrass was a director of current affairs program World in Action in the 1980s before becoming a film director.
 * Andy Harries was researcher before starting his television career on World in Action, and worked in various roles until the 2000s.
 * Tom Hooper directed two episodes of Cold Feet and directed Helen Mirren in Prime Suspect before becoming a film director.
 * Jeremy Isaacs joined Granada in 1968, where he supervised production of World in Action and What the Papers Say.
 * Brian Lapping produced major political and historical documentary series, including End of Empire.
 * Gus Macdonald joined Granada in 1967 and went on to edit World in Action, leaving in 1986.
 * Kay Mellor worked with Paul Abbott on Children's Ward and wrote other drama serials, such as Strictly Confidential and Between the Sheets.
 * Norma Percy produced political and historical documentaries, working with Brian Lapping.
 * Jack Rosenthal was a prolific playwright producing The Dustbinmen and The Lovers.
 * Nicola Shindler was a script-writer on Cracker in 1993 before forming the Red Production Company.

 * Presenters
 * Gordon Burns joined in 1972 and presented Granada Reports, World in Action and The Krypton Factor. He later joined BBC North West in 1999 to present North West Tonight, where he became the programme's main anchor from then until 2011.
 * Sacha Baron Cohen had a chatshow, F2F on Granada Talk TV in 1996.
 * Richard Madeley joined Granada in 1982 where he met Judy Finnigan, who joined as a researcher in 1972.
 * Lucy Meacock is Granada news presenter since 1988 and used to be an occasional presenter for the ITV national news.
 * Michael Parkinson began his television career at Granada Television.
 * Tony Wilson presented Granada Reports and music programmes that promoted Manchester music, which gave him the nickname 'Mr Manchester'.

Granada Studios Tour
The Granada Studios Tour opened in 1988 as an entertainment park on the Granada Studios Quay Street back lot, themed around television productions. The park featured a replica set of 10 Downing Street, and visitors were shown how television is produced. The main feature was the set of Coronation Street

G-Wizz
Several of Granada's programmes administered their websites using G-Wizz, including This Morning, Coronation Street and Emmerdale. Its Flash-heavy pages were mostly unusable by subscribers, who were then still largely modem-based, and take-up was low. Less than a year after it opened, Granada closed G-Wizz in March 2001, after it had cost the company £9 million. It combined the remainder of its online presence with fellow ITV company Carlton to launch itv.com.

Granada Sky Broadcasting
In 1996 Granada joined BSkyB to form a joint venture, Granada Sky Broadcasting (GSB) providing content and new channels to the satellite platform. Granada launched a range of television channels broadcasting the Granada archive on the Sky satellite television platform and other digital platforms such as ITV Digital which closed in 2002 due to administration, NTL and Telewest (which merged to form Virgin Media). GSB operated as a joint venture until 2004 when ITV was formed. Consequently, ITV purchased BSkyB's 10% stake in the venture and launched ITV3, which replaced Granada Plus. GSB was renamed the ITV digital channels Ltd to reflect ITV plc control.

ONdigital
From 1997 until 2002 Granada and Carlton invested, and lost, over £1 billion with a joint venture into ONdigital, a pay-TV, digital terrestrial broadcaster. ONdigital was rebranded ITV Digital in summer 2001, but opposed by SMG plc, UTV, and Channel Television, who felt it would damage the ITV brand. ONdigital was expected to create a new revenue stream and be floated as a separate company but by March 1999 the service only had 110,000 subscribers, well below the 2 million Granada aimed for. Granada and Carlton persevered by rebranding the service ITV Digital but this too was not successful. Competition from Sky Digital launched in 1998 was too great and ITV Digital ceased broadcasting on 1 May 2002. This led to sweeping cuts in the organisation, including cutting budgets for flagship drama serials and productions and loss of jobs at the Manchester headquarters.

Granada Plus
Granada Plus was a general entertainment channel, a 50–50 joint venture between Granada Television and British Sky Broadcasting, aimed at older audiences using archive material. The channel, launched on 1 October 1996 as Granada Plus, was later known as G Plus and finally Plus. It broadcast until 1 November 2004, when ITV bought BSkyB's stake in GSB, and closed the channel, replacing it with ITV3, and taking Plus' low EPG position on Sky Digital.

Men & Motors
Men & Motors was a male-orientated channel which launched on the same day as Granada Plus, sharing transponder space with Plus and broadcasting for three hours a day in the late evening. In 2004 it became a full-time channel, broadcasting motors programming during the day and adult programming in the late evening although the adult programming was dropped when the channel went free-to-air in 2005. It lasted longest of all the channels, and ran until 2010, when it was closed to make way for ITV HD. Most of its programmes were transferred to ITV4.

Granada Breeze
Originally Granada Good Life, Granada Breeze was another GSB venture which also launched on 1 October 1996. It was a lifestyle channel aimed at women viewers and showed programmes on, cookery, health and US daytime television such as Judge Joe Brown. It provided programmes split into themed sections called Granada Talk Television, Granada Food and Wine, Granada Health and Beauty, Granada Television High Street and Granada Home and Garden. Most shows were presented from a large conservatory studio outside the Coronation Street studio which was later used for daytime ITV Play programming. Granada Breeze was scaled down in July 2001 before ceasing operation in March 2002 due to poor viewing figures.

Others
Wellbeing was a joint venture with Boots, modelled on Granada Breeze, and was broadcast from The Leeds Studios, although Granada made some programmes, closed in 2003.

Granada Talk TV focused on chat shows and closed after less than a year on air.

Shop!, launched in 1998, was a partnership between Granada and Littlewoods. However, its closure was announced in 2002.

Awards and accolades
Granada Television had a reputation for strong production values. In 1999, Granada Television made eight of ITV's top-rated programmes and 30% of the UK's top-rated programmes came from its studios and in 2005 supplied 63% of ITV original production. It was the only ITA broadcaster created in 1954 that survived into the 21st century, and it flourished until it emerged as the dominant player in the ITV network by 2000.

In the nineteen BAFTA Awards for the Best Drama series awarded since 1992, Granada Television has won five in total, Cracker twice in 1994 and 1995, Cold Feet in 2002 and The Street in 2007 and 2008 – more than any other production company.

Coronation Street became the longest running serial soap in 2010 when it celebrated its 50th anniversary, and the Seven Up documentary series was voted the greatest documentary in a Channel 4 programme by film makers.

Criticisms of perceived Manchester-centric bias
In three franchise rounds (1967, 1980, and 1991) three groups (Palatine Television, Merseyvision, and Mersey Television, wherein the latter two were unconnected) each made audacious bids to rid Granada (and in 1967, ABC) of its franchise, but were unsuccessful, given that Granada was well respected (second only to the BBC). The opponents claimed to the regulatory bodies that existed at the time (the ITA in 1967, the IBA in 1981, and the ITC in 1991) in these successive franchise rounds that Granada was too Manchester-centric at the expense of the Liverpool area and need to cater for the whole of north west England. They were supported by the fact that Granada Television was frequently referred to as "Granada Manchester" instead of "Granada North West", as most productions were made in Manchester and in 2005 Granada and Manchester City Council held a celebration recognising Granada's 50th anniversary, cementing this perception further. In 1993, Brian Sedgemore MP complained that promises Granada made during the 1991 franchise round to open offices in Chester, Lancaster and Blackburn were not fulfilled, but David Liddiment at Granada did not believe this assertion to be true.

Granada had increased investment in Liverpool moving its regional news service to the Albert Dock complex in 1986, before moving back to Quay Street sometime in the early 2000s.

The daytime show This Morning broadcast from Liverpool's Albert Dock for many years before it moved to the London Studios in 1996, as it was difficult to get celebrity guests to travel from London to Liverpool.

Criticisms and controversies over World in Action and Tonight
Granada's bold, hard-hitting television and documentaries resulted in a number of legal cases. David Plowright told junior researcher Paul Greengrass that Granada's role was to "make trouble". World in Action was hard-hitting but resulted in expensive libel trials when false accusations were made in the 1990s.

In 1998 Granada paid £2 million, in two cases, to three Metropolitan Police officers who were wrongly accused of covering up a murder and Marks and Spencer for alleging M&S knew one of its suppliers was using child labour. World in Action was axed in 1998 and replaced by the Tonight programme in 1999. Tonight was also criticised, but this time for dumbing down, as it was markedly less hard-hitting.

Nevertheless, Tonight had occasionally stirred controversy like its predecessor. An example is the 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson (a Tonight special). Its airing resulted in the threat of legal action by Michael Jackson. The documentary gained an audience of fifteen million in the United Kingdom, and newspapers depicted Jackson in a negative light following the documentary. Jackson did not, ultimately, bring any case to court.

title: ITV Granada


text:
Talk:Figured bass

History largely unsourced
Aargh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.148.170 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah, and how about the wild, unsourced assertion that there were humans in Europe during the 18th century?Sebum-n-soda (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Basso vs. Figured 1
This should be rolled into the Basso continuo article, no? Are there any situations when they are not synonyms? I'll wait for comments before I combine. - Dreamword 02:23 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * My instinct was to roll them into one as well, but I think we can reasonably keep them separate. They are different subjects, in fact, though they're almost always found together - "basso continuo" is the accompaniment, "figured bass" is the notation that indicates how that accompaniment should be realised. However, I think there's enough to write about in each subject to keep them separate, and, in any case, sometimes you find parts for continuo that don't actually have figured bass (they just have a bass line, and you have to work the rest out for yourself).

 * I hope to work on both the articles in the near future, by the way. --Camembert

 * Well, I've had a go at expansion - I've sort of written it off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure everything is correct. I hope it's clear to everybody. (This could probably do with a section on the practical realisation of figured bass, by the way - avoidance of doubled thirds, ways to elaborate the part, and so on.) --Camembert

 * The argument for keeping the articles separate was strong. Any chance of reconsidering it? Wahoofive 22:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basso vs. Figured 2
I find it rather odd that the main article is "Figured Bass" and that "Basso Continuo" is a section of it - figured bass is a way of notation basso continuo, while the article makes it appear as though continuo is a form of figured bass. Anyway, most continuo is unfigured - this should be reversed and fixed. John Holly (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the insight, but wanted to stress that there still needs to be an article specifically on figured bass, and basso continuo should be mentioned in any article on figured bass. We can always have an article on continuo in addition to figured bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.87.224.54 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Mehegan Jazz Improvisation
In response to the statement that figured base is not used in contemporary music: Johnny Mehegan used figured bass as the basis for his approach to jazz notation, in his Jazz Improvisation series. --ShawnHarrison

 * I've inserted the word "generally" - I'll bet a number of people use figured bass or similar systems, actually. There's virtually nothing that nobody does in music. --Camembert

Figured bass markup
For figured bass markup see WikiProject_Music_standards. Hyacinth 00:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, see Manual of Style (music). Hyacinth (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

added extensive history section
In adding a more extensive history section just now, I have removed nothing from this article, and should have offended no one. I do not know why my addition was removed, but I have restored it. If there is some reasonable reason why this was done, or if it is an overlap or other misunderstanding, please contact me at the e-mail address in my page. I would like to contribute to the wikipedia's music pages on a regular basis, but if this is the type of attitude that prevails here, then it is not the "open-source" project it is made out to be, and I will not trouble myself over it. Vaux 21:30 EDT, 31 May, 2005.
 * Your additions are great, and it's silly that anyone reverted them. But your history section is under "Figured bass notation" whereas most of the history you cite is of continuo accompaniment itself. It's unfortunate that these two concepts got integrated into one article, but in the meantime you might move the history (and maybe the mysterious "contemporary uses") to a ==top-level heading==.—Wahoofive (talk) 02:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

further discussion of yesterday's alterations
I didn't write the "contemporary uses" section. As for the history section, there already was a history heading, so I just put the history where I found it. It might be a bit better to have it at the top level, but we'll see what others think. Vaux 19:39 EDT, 1 Jun 2005

paragraphs
Some intrepid soul make the huge history section readable and break it into paragraphs! --Sammermpc 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

accidentals
page text has "Alternatively, a cross placed next to a number indicates that the pitch of that note should be raised by a semitone (so that if it is normally a flat it becomes a natural, and if it is normally a natural it becomes a sharp). A different way to indicate this is to draw a bar through the number itself. The following three notations, therefore, all indicate the same thing:"

this is followed by 3 notes on stave: C, C#, C# (or am i missing something?) Oniscoid (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Layout of sections
Will anyone mind if I merge the contemporary usages into the history, then move the whole thing up above the notation?  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on appropriateness of this external link
I would like to add Figured Bass — what it is, and how it works as an external link from this article, and would greatly appreciate feedback on its appropriateness. (I'm new to Editing Talk, so my apologies, in advance, for any errors in protocol or etiquette.)

Thanks!

Maberly (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

== German sister article worth translating ==

The German version of this article (Generalbass) is easily the most thorough of all articles on this topic in Wikipedia. If you have a reading knowledge of German and too much time on your hands, it really would be worth bringing into English and merging with the English article. Signed: Basemetal ( write to me here) 05:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Basemetal  12:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfigured bass article
I have AFD's the article Unfigured bass as a nonexistent topic. Feel free to weigh in on that nomination here. However, a sentence or two on the topic of realizing unfigured (or incompletely figured) basses might be appropriate within this article. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this legal?
These people perform Corelli's Op. 5 without a bass. Is this legal where you live? No, seriously, does this have any historical basis? Or did these guys just not want to hire and have to pay a cello player? Contact Basemetal   here  22:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a famous story (I think perhaps reported in Burney, but I 'm not sure of the reference) about Corelli deliberately offending some community where he was on tour, by performing his much-admired compositions with no chording instrument—only a cello on the bass line—because he found the playing of every single local keyboard player to be beneath contempt. The present case is rather different, but Andrew Manze has made a case for performing violin music from before about 1720 senza basso (on grounds that the continuo parts tend to be musically very simple, and even redundant, but also because of documentary evidence from the period), and has even recorded a sampling of music in this way, including Tartini's famous "Devil's Trill" sonata.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why but these people performing with only voice and lute Henry Lawes' "Go Lovely Rose" whose score (p. 9 of the book / p. 21 of the PDF document) is for voice and unfigured bass shocked me less, even though it should be as illegal. Of course I suspect (until told otherwise) that Corelli's tantrum was a one off, but the question of the performance of pieces with figured or unfigured bass on only the melody instrument(s) and the bass has intrigued me for a long time. It all started in fact with "Go Lovely Rose" by Lawes. I didn't know at the time what an unfigured bass was and when I asked if a performance with only voice and bass was historically plausible (as one alternative) I was immediately told this was unlikely in the extreme, and as unlikely in fact whether the bass is figured or unfigured. Then a short time later I found a mention of just such a performance practice in Restoration English music in Gerald Abraham's "Concise Oxford History of Music". Unfortunately I don't have that book any more and can't check precisely the page and the wording. I asked about this at the talk page of Unfigured bass. But since that page has probably about three watchers and one of them is Wahoofive who tried to get rid of it (in order to reduce the size of his watchlist most likely) I'm not surprised that question has remained unanswered for two years and is likely to remain so for a good while to come. And it's probable that my question about performing Boccherini's cello sonatas on only two cellos is also not about to be answered. Generally speaking I'm still wondering if for an unfigured bass the option of performing it without a chording instrument was historically a little more likely than for a figured bass. Contact Basemetal   here  20:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The nature of the source must be taken into account, of course, but there is really a continuum involved here, rather than a black-and-white, "is it figured, or is it isn't?" (and please don't quote this as an example of potentially acceptable Wikipedia American English style ;-). Keep in mind that manuscripts tend to figured much more lightly than printed editions, and the supposition is that manuscripts were intended more for professional musicians, whereas printed editions were aimed at amateurs. Publishers, with an eye on potential sales, did not want to make their products difficult to use, and so supplied figures more liberally than manuscript copyists were prone to doing. Within this broad division, there are manuscripts with no figures at all, manuscripts with sparse figuring, etc. Variation (and even style of figuring) also varies by nationality. If you compare the bass figuring in the first (Hamburg) edition of Telemann's "Paris" Quartets with the later edition produced in Paris for Telemann's visit there, you will find not only are the specifically French figurings substituted for Telemann's German ones, but the Paris edition is also more densely figured. Perhaps this was because the publisher wanted to optimize sales, but equally it may have been a difference between French and German taste or custom. What I am trying to say is that (as you already know) unfigured bass in no way assumes omission of a chording instrument, but neither is the relative density of the figuring any indicator of the likelihood that the bass line might be played by a melody instrument alone. Ultimately, it is up to the performers to decide what they want to use to realize the continuo, and if Corelli once chose to use only his cellist in order to spite the local keyboardists in that one town, at his next stop he might have used organ, two harpsichords, harp, theorbo, three guitars, and glockenspiel for just the opposite reason. There simply isn't just one correct way to do things. To be sure, different performers are likely to have different opinions about the most effective way of realizing the continuo for any given piece of music, but at the same time circumstances may dictate less-than-optimal choices. When you have got a paying audience seated in the auditorium, are you going to stand by your principles when the pedals fall off of your Neupert harpsichord (as I once saw happen as a Brandenburg Concerto was about to get under way), or do you just go ahead and perform without the beast?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You do of course. With apologies. Maybe. But my question may have been restricted more to the production of so called "historically informed" recordings of early music. The phrase "historically plausible" should maybe be replaced with "historically typical enough that someone producing a recording may be able to defend their choice to the early music buying public". The people performing Boccherini's cello sonatas on two cellos only (as here) surely will have something to say to defend their choice of not involving a harpsichord. And if someone decided to produce a recording of Corelli's Op. 5 where the continuo group included an organ, two harpsichords, a harp, a teorbo, three guitars, and a glockenspiel (besides of course two cellos, three bassoons, a small and a large violone, four gamba basses and timpani to play the bass line) I do wonder if to a few people it may not seem like an inadequate defense of their choice to simply say: "Tell me that if I take the glockenspiel and the timpani out this couldn't have happened. Once. Maybe." Contact Basemetal   here  23:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as a dyed-in-the-wool, indefatigable and fully operational HIP pedant I probably shouldn't be saying this, but sometimes what works in practice is preferable to what the textbooks tell us we are supposed to do. Even if the closest thing I have got to a reliable source is This General-reference Work, I am absolutely certain that no good musician in days of yore looked these things up in a rulebook before deciding how to proceed. Those books were written for rank beginners, and were only meant to serve as a rough guide until the student could gain sufficient experience to know how to proceed, including when it was preferable to violate the rule, rather than follow it. If we are going to base our performances today on such primers, then woe betide us.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Had a bad day? Settle in front of a fire with a nice mug of Glühwein, your cat on your lap et les doigts de pied en éventail (interjecting some French as is my wont ) Seems to me you're making these choices sound direr than they need to be. Get stuck at a level the dimmest amateur would soon have grown out of in the 17th/18th c. or give your unbridled "intuition" free rein. The problem with "intuition" is that, for innumerable obvious reasons, today's musician's no longer a "native speaker" of that musical culture. A rule such as "if it sounds good do it" may make a nonsense out of the whole early music and historically informed performance enterprise. What if it "sounds good" to me to perform Corelli on sitar and tablas? Couldn't there be some reasonable middle ground? Today's early music musician ("early musician"?) may've had to reinvent/rediscover a tradition that's died, unable to retrieve so many things the 17th/18th c. musician may've so taken for granted that there's absolutely no trace of them, and all under the conflicting influences of so many musical cultures whose impact it's impossible to avoid. But they're not starting from scratch. The process of "reinvention/rediscovery" of early music is more than a 100 years old. There's been an accumulation of knowledge, of experience, of practice, for more than a 100 years. Also today's early musicians have so many advantages over their 17th/17th c. colleagues: they live longer, smell better, get to keep most of their teeth into their 80s and 90s, have access to so much more information, lead an easier life, practice more so play better and are more respected socially. So ok with "intuition" but an intuition informed, channeled, disciplined and focused by intense study and practice. Contact Basemetal   here  11:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All of what you say is perfectly true. If I am making things sound direr than need be, it is just a bit of poetic exaggeration. What I am driving at here is that there is a wrong-headed attitude I encounter from time to time, according to which there is one and only one "correct" way to perform any given piece of early music. There are of course demonstrably unhistorical ways of performing music. As someone once observed, if the saxophone had existed in Bach's day, he probably would have written for it, but of course we cannot begin to imagine what he actually would have written, and it is a dead certainty he never imagined it as a substitute for the trumpet part in the Second Brandenburg Concerto. Whether he may have considered the part for a horn instead of a trumpet is quite a different matter. Insisting on a single "historically correct" way of performing is wrong-headed, in my opinion. Much better to think of a range of possibilities, within which there may be more and less plausible choices.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I understand why you sounded so tragic. But I don't know enough about all this to be dogmatic. I never assumed there was only one way. I was simply curious to know if those various performances I've run into here and there, were among those demonstrably unhistorical ways of performing this repertoire, or not. From your explanations I gather they're not. Incidentally Sparafucil answered my query about Boccherini's Cello Sonatas at Unfigured bass by referring me to the advice François Couperin gave for performing his Goûts réunis, in particular how he advised to perform without chords some of his Concerts. Live and learn. Thanks guys. Now if I ever find out where that guy (who long ago told me this sort of practice was "unlikely in the extreme") lives... Contact Basemetal   here  17:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Basso vs. Figured 3
Besides agreeing with John Holly and Dreamword (see here below), I would like to point out that in the different language versions of Wikipedia, sometimes it is called (the translation of) "figured bass" sometimes (the translation of) "basso continuo", and when you look at the list of articles in other languages on the left side of the page you only see those languages whose entry corresponds word by word. Which does not mean an opposition of meaning. And last but not least, why is it called Figured bass in English, and Basso continuo in "simple English"? --Nisanslims16 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * [Note: "see here below" means "see here above", after move to chronological position.]—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
In response to "In what way is this an example of a sacred choral work?" (referring to CPE Bach's concerto) - Rewrote to sentence to avoid this confusion (it said "especially sacred choral music") by replacing especially with "mostly (but not limited to)". 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Errors in "figured bass realization" in the box
It's a great idea having an example of an unrealized and realized figured bass in a sample box (not sure of correct term for the box). But: the "figured bass realization" of the Purcell has (at least) 3 errors in it. On the first beat of measures 4, 6 and 8, the left hand is supposed to play two consecutive quarter notes but only one half note is played in the performance. In the first two instances, this is not much of a problem as the melody supplies each missing note, but in measure 8 it is a problem: on the word "now" (measure 8) the indicated 5-6 is not played, only the 6. There needs to be a 5 (a quarter note A) on the downbeat, followed by a quarter note Bb. Not sure how to correct the Midi rendition myself.David Couch (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Forward vs. back slashes
The Accidentals section dubiously claims a convention made "more rarely" according to the angle of slashes. I've always distinguished raised/lowered alterations by context myself, and looking at the work of Couperin's engraver it's striking that 6 is invariably altered with an accidental but 7, 5 & 4 all use the 'forward' slash (raised 4's through the leg instead of the more usual arm). Handel's autograph here uses 'back' slashes for both 5 & 6. So, is there any rare example out there in which to's and fro's are distinguished? Sparafucil (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Figured bass


text:
Heinkel He 100

The Heinkel He 100 was a German pre-World War II fighter aircraft design from Heinkel. Although it proved to be one of the fastest fighter aircraft in the world at the time of its development, the design was not ordered into series production. Approximately 19 prototypes and pre-production examples were built. None are known to have survived the war.

The reason for the He 100 failing to reach production status is mostly unknown. Officially, the Luftwaffe rejected the He 100 to concentrate single-seat fighter development on the Messerschmitt Bf 109. Following the adoption of the Bf 109 and Messerschmitt Bf 110 as the Luftwaffe's standard fighter types, the Ministry of Aviation (the Reichsluftfahrtministerium or RLM) announced a "rationalization" policy that placed fighter development at Messerschmitt and bomber development at Heinkel.

Because there are no surviving examples, and since many factory documents - including all blueprints for the He 100 - were destroyed during a bombing raid, there is limited specific information about the design and its unique systems.

Development
Following the selection by the RLM of the Bf 109 as its next single-seat fighter over the He 112, Ernst Heinkel became interested in a new fighter that would leap beyond the performance of the Bf 109 as much as the Bf 109 had over the biplanes it replaced. Other German designers had similar ambitions, including Kurt Tank at Focke-Wulf. There was never an official project on the part of the RLM, but Rudolf Lucht felt that new designs were important enough to fund the projects from both companies to provide "super-pursuit" designs for evaluation. This would result in the single-engined He 100 fighter, and the promising twin-engine Fw 187 Falke Zerstörer-style heavy fighter, both reaching the flight stage of development.

Walter Günter, one half of the famous Günter brothers, looked at the existing He 112, which had already been heavily revised into the He 112B version and decided it had reached the end of its evolution. He started over with a completely new design, Projekt 1035. Learning from past mistakes on the 112 project, the design was to be as easy to build as possible yet 700 km/h was a design goal. To ease production, the new design had considerably fewer parts than the 112 and those that remained contained fewer compound curves. In comparison, the 112 had 2,885 parts and 26,864 rivets, while the P.1035 was made of 969 unique parts with 11,543 rivets. The new straight-edged wing was a source of much of the savings; after building the first wings, Otto Butter reported that the reduction in complexity and rivet count (along with the Butter brothers' own explosive rivet system) saved an astonishing 1,150 man hours per wing.

The super-pursuit type was not a secret, but Ernst Heinkel preferred to work in private and publicly display his products only after they were developed sufficiently to make a stunning first impression. As an example of this, the mock-up for the extremely modern-looking He 100 was the subject of company Memo No.3657 on 31 January that stated: "The mock-up is to be completed by us ... as of the beginning of May ... and be ready to present to the RLM ... and prior to that no one at the RLM is to know of the existence of the mock-up."

Walter Günter was killed in a car accident on 25 May 1937, and the design work was taken over by his twin brother Siegfried, who finished the final draft of the design later that year. Heinrich Hertel, a specialist in aircraft structures, also played a prominent role in the design. At the end of October the design was submitted to the RLM, complete with details on prototypes, delivery dates and prices for three aircraft delivered to the Rechlin test center.

He 100 should have been designated He 113, but since the number "13" was unlucky, this had been dropped. It is reported that Ernst Heinkel lobbied for this "round" number in the hope that it would improve the design's chances for production.

Design
In order to get the promised performance out of the aircraft, the design included a number of drag-reducing features. On the simple end was a well-faired cockpit, the absence of struts and other drag-inducing supports on the tail. The landing gear (including the tailwheel) was retractable and completely enclosed in flight.

There was also a serious shortage of advanced aero engines in Germany during the late 1930s. The He 100 used the same Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110, and there was insufficient capacity to support another aircraft using the same engine. The only available alternative engine was the Junkers Jumo 211, and Heinkel was encouraged to consider its use in the He 100. However, the early Jumo 211 then available did not use a pressurized cooling system, and it was therefore not suitable for the He 100's evaporative cooling system. Furthermore, a Jumo 211-powered He 100 would not have been able to outperform the contemporary DB 601-powered Bf 109 because the supercharger on the early Jumo 211 was not fully shrouded. In order to reduce weight and frontal area, the engine was mounted directly to the forward fuselage, which was strengthened and literally tailored to the DB 601, as opposed to conventional mounting on engine bearers. The cowling was very tight-fitting, and as a result the aircraft has something of a slab-sided appearance.

In order to provide as much power as possible from the DB 601, exhaust ejectors were used to provide a small amount of additional thrust. The supercharger inlet was moved from the normal position on the side of the cowling to a location in the leading edge of the left wing, which was also a feature of the earlier and larger He 119 experimental high-speed reconnaissance aircraft. Although cleaner-looking, the long, curved induction pipe most probably negated any benefit.

Engine coolant and oil cooling systems
For the rest of the designed performance increase with the DB 601 powerplant, Walter turned to the somewhat risky and still experimental method of cooling the engine via evaporative cooling. Such systems had been in vogue in several countries at the time. Heinkel and the Günter brothers were avid proponents of the technology, and had previously used it on the He 119, with promising results. Evaporative or "steam" cooling promised a completely drag-free cooling system. The DB 601 was a pressure-cooled engine in that the water/glycol coolant was kept in liquid form by pressure, even though its temperature was allowed to exceed the normal boiling point. Heinkel's system took advantage of that fact and the cooling energy loss associated with the phase change of the coolant as it boils. Following is a description of what is known about the final version of Heinkel's cooling system. It is based entirely on careful study of surviving photographs of the He 100, since no detailed plans survive. The earlier prototypes varied, but they were all eventually modified to something close to the final standard before they were exported to the Soviet Union.

Coolant exits the DB 601 at two points located at the front of the engine and at the base of each cylinder block casting immediately adjacent to the crank case. In the Heinkel system, an S-shaped steel pipe took the coolant from each side of the engine to one of two steam separators mounted alongside the engine's reduction gear and immediately behind the propeller spinner. The separators, designed by engineers Jahn and Jahnke, accepted the water at about 110 C and 1.4 bar of pressure. The vertically mounted, tube-shaped separators contained a centrifugal impeller at the top connected to an impeller-type scavenge pump at the bottom. The coolant was expanded through the upper impeller where it lost pressure, boiled and cooled. The by-product was mostly very hot coolant and some steam. The liquid coolant was slung by the centrifugal impeller to the sides of the separator where it fell by gravity to the bottom of the unit. There, it was pumped to header tanks located in the leading edges of both wings by the scavenge pump. The presence of the scavenge pump was necessary to ensure the entire separator did not simply fill up with high-pressure coolant coming from the engine.

Existing photographs of the engine bay of the final pre-production version of this system clearly show the liquid coolant from both separators was piped along the bottom left side of the engine compartment and into the right wing. The header tanks were located in the outer wing panels ahead of the main spar and immediately outboard of the main landing gear bays. The tanks extended over the same portion of the outer panel's span as the outer flaps. Coolant from the right wing header tank was pumped by a separate, electrical pump to the left wing header tank. Along the way from the right to left wing, the coolant passed through a conventional radiator mounted on the bottom of the fuselage. That radiator was retractable and intended for use only during ground-running or low-speed flight. Nevertheless, coolant passed through it whenever the engine was running and regardless of whether it was extended or retracted. In the retracted position, the radiator offered little cooling, but some heat was exchanged into the aft fuselage. Finally, a return tube connected the left wing's header tank to that on the right. This allowed the coolant to equalize between the two header tanks and circulate through the retractable radiator. The engine drew coolant directly from both header tanks through two separate pipes that ran through the main landing gear bays, up the firewall at the back of the engine compartment, and into the usual coolant intakes located at the top rear of the engine.

The steam collected in the separators was vented separately from the liquid coolant. The steam did not require mechanical pumping to do this, and the buildup of pressure inside the separator was sufficient. The steam was piped down the lower right side of the engine bay and led into the open spaces between the upper and lower wing skins of the outer wing panels. There, it further expanded and condensed by cooling through the skins. The entire outer wing, both ahead of and behind the main spar, was used for this purpose covering that portion of the span containing the ailerons (the fuel was also carried entirely in the wings and occupied the areas behind the main spar in the center section and immediately ahead of the outboard flaps). The condensate was scavenged by electrically-driven centrifugal pumps and fed to the header tanks. Sources indicate as many as 22 separate pumps were used for this, each with their own attendant pilot light on the instrument panel, but it is not clear whether that number includes all of the pumps in the entire water- and oil-cooling systems or merely the number of pumps in the outer wing panels. The former is generally accepted.

Some sources state the outer wing panels used double skins top and bottom with the steam being ducted into a thin space between the outer and inner skins for cooling. A double-skinned panel was used in the oil cooling system, but surviving photographs of the wings indicate that they were conventionally single-skinned, and that the coolant was simply piped into the open spaces of the structure. Double skinning over such an extensive area would have made the aircraft unacceptably heavy. Furthermore, there was no access to the inner structure to repair damage such as a bullet hole from the inside, as would be needed if the system used a double skin. A similar system was used by the earlier Supermarine Type 224. Contrary to assertions in some references, all of the He 100s that were built used the evaporative cooling system described above. A derivative of this system was also intended for a late-war project based on the He 100, designated P.1076.

Unlike the cooling fluid, oil cannot be allowed to boil. This presented a particular problem with DB 601-series engines, because oil is sprayed against the bottom of the pistons, resulting in a considerable amount of heat being transferred to the oil as opposed to the coolant. The He 100's oil cooling system was conceptually similar to the water cooling system in that vapor was generated using the heat of the oil and condensed back to liquid by surface cooling through the skins of the airframe. A heat exchanger was used to cool the oil by boiling ethyl alcohol. The oil itself was simply piped to and from this exchanger, which was apparently located in the aft fuselage. The alcohol vapor was piped into the fixed portions of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers and into a double-skinned portion of the upper-aft fuselage behind the cockpit. This fuselage "turtle deck" panel was the only double-skinned portion of the aircraft's cooling system. The use of a double-skinned panel was possible here because the inside of panel was accessible in the event of repair. Condensed alcohol was collected by a series of bellows pumps and returned to a single header tank that fed the heat exchanger. Some sources speculate that a small air intake located at the bottom front of the engine cowl was used for an auxiliary oil cooler. No such cooler was fitted, nor was there room for one at that point. This small inlet served simply to admit cool air into what was a very hot portion of the engine bay. Immediately above this vent were the two steam separators, and immediately behind it were the hot coolant pipes coming from the separators.

World speed record

One aspect of the original Projekt 1035 was the intent to capture the absolute speed record for Heinkel and Germany. Both Messerschmitt and Heinkel vied for this record before the war. Messerschmitt ultimately won that battle with the first prototype of the Me 209, but the He 100 briefly held the record when Heinkel test pilot Hans Dieterle flew the eighth prototype to 746.606 km/h on 30 March 1939. The third and eighth prototypes were specially modified for speed, with unique outer wing panels of reduced span. The third prototype crashed during testing. The record flight was made using a special version of the DB 601 engine that offered 2,010 kW and had a service life of just 30 minutes. Prior to setting this absolute speed record over a short, measured course, Ernst Udet flew the second prototype to a 100 km closed course record of 634.32 km/h on 5 June 1938. Udet's record was apparently set using a standard DB 601a engine.

However, although the Me 209 V1 (known erroneously as the "Me 109R", ignoring the July 1938-dated change in prefixes) officially won over the He 100 and held the world speed record for piston engined aircraft for roughly 30 years, some historians such as Erwin Hood, state that the Me 209 V1's flight was 450 meters above sea level due to the topography of where its flight was held (at Augsburg) compared to that the He 100 V8's location of 50 meters above sea level (in Mecklenburg), thus their speed comparisons are not valid as the higher an aircraft goes, the lower the density of the atmosphere is, thus there is less drag. Hood then asserts that, based on his own calculations, if the He 100 V8 had flown at the same altitude of the Me 209 V1, it would have obtained a speed of 757 km/h.

Designation debate
There is a debate regarding the correct designation of the He 100 aircraft actually built. Green (1970) cited "A", "B", "C" and "D" variants, and that later He 100 prototypes and all pre-production He 100s were called "He 100D-0" and "He 100D-1" production runs. However, Heinkel documents indicate that the pre-production were only designated He 100A-0, and that all of the He 100s built were essentially the same, with even the prototypes later updated to the production standard before they were exported to the Soviet Union. Thus, supposed "He 100B", "He 100C", and "He 100D" designations are fictitious postwar inventions.

Prototypes

The first prototype He 100 V1 flew on 22 January 1938, only a week after its promised delivery date. The aircraft proved to be outstandingly fast. However, it continued to share a number of problems with the earlier He 112, notably a lack of directional stability. In addition, the Luftwaffe test pilots disliked the high wing loading, which resulted in landing speeds so great that they often had to use brakes right up to the last 100 m of the runway. The ground crews also disliked the design, complaining about the tight cowling which made servicing the engine difficult. But the big problem turned out to be the cooling system, largely to no one's surprise. After a series of test flights V1 was sent to Rechlin in March.

The second prototype He 100 V2 addressed the stability problems by changing the vertical stabilizer from a triangular form to a larger and more rectangular form. The oil-cooling system continued to be problematic, so it was removed and replaced with a small semi retractable radiator below the wing. It also received the still-experimental DB 601M engine which the aircraft was originally designed for. The M version was modified to run on "C3" fuel at 100 octane, which would allow it to run at higher power ratings in the future.

V2 was completed in March, but instead of moving to Rechlin it was kept at the factory for an attempt on the 100 km (62 mi) closed circuit speed record. A course was marked out on the Baltic coast between Wustrow and Müritz, 50 km (30 mi) apart, and the attempt was to be made at the aircraft's best altitude of 5,500 m. After some time cleaning out the bugs the record attempt was set to be flown by Captain Herting, who had previously flown the aircraft several times.

At this point Ernst Udet showed up and asked to fly V2, after pointing out he had flown the V1 at Rechlin. He took over from Herting and flew the V2 to a new world 100 km closed-circuit record on 5 June 1938, at 634.73 km/h. Several of the cooling pumps failed on this flight as well, but Udet wasn't sure what the lights meant and simply ignored them.

The record was heavily publicized, but in the press the aircraft was referred to as the "He 112U". Apparently, the "U" stood for "Udet". At the time the 112 was still in production and looking for customers, so this was one way to boost sales of the older design. V2 was then moved to Rechlin for continued testing. Later in October, the aircraft was damaged on landing when the tail wheel didn't extend, and it is unclear if the damage was repaired.

The V3 prototype received the clipped racing wings, which reduced span and area from 30 ft and 14.4 m², to 24 ft and 11 m². The canopy was replaced with a much smaller and more rounded version, and all of the bumps and joints were puttied over and sanded down. The aircraft was equipped with the 601M and flown at the factory.

In August, the DB 601R engine arrived from Daimler-Benz and was installed. This version increased the maximum rpm from 2,200 to 3,000, and added methyl alcohol to the fuel mixture to improve cooling in the supercharger and thus increase boost. As a result, the output was boosted to 1324 kW, although it required constant maintenance and the fuel had to be drained completely after every flight. The aircraft was then moved to Warnemünde for the record attempt in September.

On one of the pre-record test flights by the Heinkel chief pilot, Gerhard Nitschke, the main gear failed to extend and ended up stuck half open. Since the aircraft could not be safely landed it was decided to have Nitschke bail out and let the aircraft crash in a safe spot on the airfield. Gerhard was injured when he hit the tail on the way out, and made no further record attempts.

V4 was to have been the only "production" prototype and was referred to as the "100B" model (V1 through V3 being "A" models). It was completed in the summer and delivered to Rechlin, so it wasn't available for modification into racing trim when V3 crashed. Although the aircraft was unarmed it was otherwise a service model with the 601M, and in testing over the summer it proved to be considerably faster than the Bf 109. At sea level, the aircraft could reach 560 km/h, faster than the Bf 109E's speed at its best altitude. At 6560 ft, it improved to 610 km/h, topping out at 669 km/h at 5000 m before falling again to 641 km/h at 8,000 m. The aircraft had flown a number of times before its landing gear collapsed while standing on the pad on 22 October. The aircraft was later rebuilt and was flying by March 1939.

Although V4 was to have been the last of the prototypes in the original plans, production was allowed to continue with a new series of six aircraft. One of the airframes was selected to replace V3, and as luck would have it V8 was at the "right point" in its construction and was completed out of turn. It first flew on 1 December but this was with a standard DB 601Aa engine. The 601R was then put in the aircraft on 8 January 1939, and moved to a new course at Oranienberg. After several shakedown flights, Hans Dieterle flew to a new record on 30 March 1939, at 746.6 km/h. Once again the aircraft was referred to as the He 112U in the press. It is unclear what happened to V8 in the end; it may have been used for crash testing.

V5 was completed like V4, and first flew on 16 November. It was later used in a film about V8's record attempt, in order to protect the record breaking aircraft. At this point, a number of changes were made to the design resulting in the "100C" model, and with the exception of V8 the rest of the prototypes were all delivered as the C standard.

V6 was first flown in February 1939, and after some test flights at the factory it was flown to Rechlin on 25 April. There it spent most of its time as an engine testbed. On 9 June, the gear failed inflight, but the pilot managed to land the aircraft with little damage, and it was returned to flying condition in six days.

V7 was completed on 24 May with a change to the oil cooling system. It was the first to be delivered with armament, consisting of two 20 mm MG FF cannon in the wings and four 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns arranged around the engine cowling. This made the He 100 the most heavily armed fighter of its day. V7 was then flown to Rechlin where the armament was removed and the aircraft was used for a series of high speed test flights.

V9 was also completed and armed, but was used solely for crash testing and was "tested to destruction". V10 was originally to suffer a similar fate, but instead ended up being given the racing wings and canopy of the V8 and displayed in the German Museum in Munich as the record-setting "He 112U". It was later destroyed in a bombing attack.

Overheating problems and general failures with the cooling system motors continued to be a problem. Throughout the testing period, failures of the pumps ended flights early, although some of the test pilots simply started ignoring them. In March, Kleinemeyer wrote a memo to Ernst Heinkel about the continuing problems, stating that Schwärzler had asked to be put on the problem.

Another problem that was never cured during the prototype stage was a rash of landing gear problems. Although the wide-set gear should have eliminated the collapse of landing gears that plagued the Bf 109, especially in the difficult take-offs and landings, the He 100's landing gear was not built to withstand heavy use, and as a result they were no improvement over the Bf 109. V2, 3, 4 and 6 were all damaged to various degrees due to various gear failures, a full half of the prototypes.

He 100 D-0
Throughout the prototype period, the various models were given series designations (as noted above), and presented to the RLM as the basis for series production. The Luftwaffe never took Heinkel up on their offer although the company decided to build a total of 25 of the aircraft one way or the other, so with 10 down, there were another 15 of the latest model to go. In keeping with general practice, any series production is started with a limited run of "zero series", resulting in the He 100 D-0.

The D-0 was similar to the earlier C models, with a few notable changes. Primary among these was a larger vertical tail in order to finally solve the stability issues. In addition, the cockpit and canopy were slightly redesigned, with the pilot sitting high in a large canopy with excellent vision in all directions. The armament was reduced from the C model to one 20 mm MG FF/M in the engine V firing through the propeller spinner, and two 7.92 mm (.30-caliber) MG 17s in the wings close to the fuselage.

The three D-0 aircraft were completed by the summer of 1939 and stayed at the Heinkel Marienehe plant for testing. They were later sold to the Japanese Imperial Navy to serve as pattern aircraft for a production line, and were shipped there in 1940. They received the designation AXHe1.

He 100 D-1
The final evolution of the short He 100 history is the D-1 model. As the name suggests, the design was supposed to be very similar to the pre-production D-0s, the main planned change being to enlarge the horizontal stabilizer.

But the big change was the eventual abandonment of the surface cooling system, which proved to be too complex and failure-prone. Instead an even larger version of the retractable radiator was installed, and this appeared to completely cure the problems. The radiator was inserted in a "plug" below the cockpit, and as a result the wings were widened slightly.

While the aircraft didn't match its design goal of 700 km/h once it was loaded down with weapons, the larger canopy and the radiator, it was still capable of speeds in the 644 km/h range. A low drag airframe is good for both speed and range, and as a result the He 100 had a combat range of 900 to 1000 km compared to the Bf 109's 600 km. While not in the same league as the later escort fighters, this was at the time a superb range, which suggests that a production Heinkel 100 might have offset the need for the Bf 110 to some degree.

By this point, the war was under way, and as the Luftwaffe would not purchase the aircraft in its current form, the production line was shut down. There were allegations that politics played a role in killing the He 100.

The remaining 12 He 100 D-1 fighters were used to form Heinkel's Marienehe factory defense unit, flown by factory test pilots. They replaced the earlier He 112s that were used for the same purpose, and the 112s were later sold. At this early stage in the war, there were no bombers venturing that far into Germany, and it appears that the unit never saw action. The eventual fate of the D-1s remains unknown. The aircraft were also used for a propaganda spoof, as the supposed Heinkel He 113.

Foreign use
When the war opened in 1939 Heinkel was allowed to look for foreign licensees for the design. Japanese and Soviet delegations visited the Marienehe factory on 30 October 1939 and were both impressed by the design. The Soviets were particularly interested in the surface cooling system, having built the experimental Ilyushin I-21 with evaporative cooling and to gain experience with it they purchased the six surviving prototypes (V1, V2, V4, V5, V6 and V7). After arriving in the USSR they were passed onto the TsAGI institute for study.

The Japanese were also looking for new designs, notably those using inline engines, where they had little experience and purchased the three D-0s for 1.2 million RM, as well as a license for production and a set of jigs for another 1.6 million RM. The three D-0s arrived in Japan in May 1940 and were re-assembled at Kasumigaura. They were then delivered to the Japanese Naval Air Force where they were renamed AXHe1, for "Experimental Heinkel Fighter". When referring to the German design, the aircraft is called both the He 100 and He 113, with at least one set of plans bearing the latter name.

The prototypes were accompanied by Heinkel test pilot Gerhard Nitschke, who worked with Lieutenant Mitsugi Kofukuda during the testing and evaluation. The Navy was so impressed by tests that they planned to put the aircraft into production as soon as possible, as their land-based interceptor. (Unlike every other armed forces organization in the world, the Japanese Army and Navy both fielded complete land-based air forces.) Hitachi won the contract for the aircraft and started construction of a factory in Chiba for its production. With the European war on, the jigs and plans never arrived.

Further developments
In late 1944, the RLM went to manufacturers for a new high-altitude fighter with excellent performance; the Ta 152H (an inline engined version of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190) was in limited production but Heinkel was contracted to design an aircraft and Siegfried Günter was placed in charge of the new Projekt 1076. The new design was similar to the He 100 but many detail changes resulted in an aircraft that looked all new. It sported a new and longer wing for high-altitude work, which lost the inverted gull wing bend and was swept forward slightly at 8°. Flaps or ailerons spanned the entire trailing edge of the wing giving it a rather modern appearance. The cockpit was pressurized for high-altitude flying and covered with a small bubble canopy that was hinged to the side instead of sliding to the rear. Other changes that seem odd in retrospect is that the gear now retracted outward like the original Bf 109 and the surface cooling system was re-introduced. Planned armament was one 30 mm MK 103 cannon firing through the propeller hub and two wing mounted 30mm MK 108 cannons.

Three engine types were planned, the DB 603M with 1361 kW, the DB 603N with 2051 kW or the Jumo 213E, designed from the start to have the same fluid service locations as the DB 603, with 1287 kW. The 603M and 213E both supplied 1545 kW using MW-50 water injection. Performance with the 603N was projected to be 880 km/h, in the same class as the Messerschmitt Me 262 pioneering jet fighter then entering service testing, which would have stood as a record for many years, even against specialist racing machines. Performance would still be excellent even with the far more likely 1500 kW-output and above class aviation piston engines, which eventually proved to be a severe technological barrier for the German aero-engine industry during the war years. The 603M was projected to give it the high speed of 855 km/h.

These figures are somewhat suspect and are likely to be optimistic guesses that could not have been realised, something Heinkel was famous for. Propellers lose efficiency as they approach the speed of sound and eventually they no longer provide an increase in thrust for an increase in engine power. The only remaining gain of thrust would come from the piston engine exhausts. The advanced contra-rotating Vereinigte Deutsche Metallwerke (VDM)-origin propeller design is unlikely to have been able to counteract this problem. The design apparently received low priority and it was not complete by the end of the war. Siegfried Günter later provided detailed drawings and plans for the Americans in mid-1945.

Legacy
In 1939, it was reputedly one of the world's most advanced fighter designs, even faster than the later Fw 190, with performance unrivalled until the introduction of the Vought F4U Corsair in 1943, with the similarly-powered Republic XP-47J hitting 505 mph (813 km/h) in early August 1944. Nevertheless, the aircraft was not ordered into production. The reason why the He 100 was not put into service seems to vary depending on the person telling the story, and picking any one version results in a firestorm of protest.

Some say it was politics that killed the He 100. However, this seems to stem primarily from Heinkel's own telling of the story, which in turn seems to be based on some general malaise over the He 112 debacle. The fact is that Heinkel was well respected within the establishment, regardless of Messerschmitt's success with the Bf 109 and Bf 110, and this argument seems particularly weak.

Others blame the bizarre production line philosophy of the RLM, which valued huge numbers of single designs over a mix of different aircraft. This too seems somewhat suspect, considering that the Fw 190 was purchased shortly after this story ends.

For these reasons, it seems safe to accept the RLM version of the story largely at face value; that the production problems with the DB series of engines were so acute that all other designs based on the engine were canceled. At the time the DB 601 engines were being used in both the Bf 109 and Bf 110 aircraft, and Daimler could not keep up with those demands alone. The RLM eventually forbade anyone but Messerschmitt from receiving any DB 601s, leading to the shelving of many designs from a number of vendors. Furthermore, the Bf 109 and Bf 110 were perceived as superior to their likely opponents, which made the requirement for an even more powerful aircraft less imperative.

The only option open to Heinkel was a switch to another engine, and the RLM expressed some interest in purchasing such a version of the He 100. At the time the only other useful inline engine was the Junkers Jumo 211, and even that was in short supply. However, the design of the He 100 made adaptation to the 211 difficult; both the cooling system and the engine mounts were designed for the 601, and a switch to the 211 would have required a redesign. Heinkel felt that it was not worth the effort, considering that the aircraft would end up with inferior performance, and so the He 100 production ends on that sour note. For this reason, more than any other, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 became the next great aircraft of the Luftwaffe, as it was based around the otherwise unused Bramo 139 (and later BMW 801) radial engine. Although production of these engines was only starting, the lines for the airframes and aircraft could be geared up in parallel without interrupting production of any existing design, which was exactly what happened.

Aircraft on display
A full scale mockup of a He 100D-1 is on display at the Planes of Fame Air Museum in Chino, California. No original He 100 airframes are known to exist.

title: Heinkel He 100