Originally posted by hazed-
you are repeating myths . . .
you would know that the engine fires were common but avoidable and that eventually there were modifications which severely reduced their incidence. . . .
I have a book written by a german test pilot which describes the he177 . . .
Several things worth commenting on there:
As you note, the plane did in fact have serious engine fires, serious enough that it could not fulfill it's mission on any scale (as late as 1944 177A5 missions were scrapped or basically meaningless due to engine failures) that approaches actual contribution to the war effort. Those were "allegedly" overcome (in test situations) but honestly, since the plane was scrapped before it saw meaningful combat (and low level attack raids with cannon-equipped 177s are not the same as carrying 12k of bombs for 2500 miles so saying those planes used in low level attacks would in fact have succesfully bombed is assuming a very great deal) how would you or anyone really know? I am quite sure it did provide a few raids on industry in Russia (well, at least one I have read about years back but that might have been Junkers planes), but not many.
Everything the "test pilot" said about the B26 was known by the Allies and widely reported amongst Allied aircrews, yet the 26 flew in combat and was used throughout the war having the lowest loss rate of any US bomber. So on paper it was problematic but in use it was superb. This is precisely the opposite of the 177's experience.
Test pilot data is interesting but equating that to the Battlefield is precisely why this entire debate is so much, uhhhm, marfi. It is at times meaningless in light of the experience in combat. If the plane never flew in combat successfully excepting one or two raids and never was used on any scale or provided any meaningful contribution to warrant its 6-7 year devleopment, then what is the point? The 177 A5 is "alleged" to have been a better plane but the project was so fraught with difficulties that no one cared by the time they "allegedly" ironed them all out. Heinkel himslef continued to try to sell a 4 engine bird after being ordered to stop: that is, he knew the twin nacelle design sucked and I feel he may have known almost as much about his plane as we here do so I ascribe more weight to his ruminations on the subject.
Hey, test data and incidental reports list the P-39 as superior to the Me109. Do you believe it? There is a revisionist desire to see the 177 as something it simply was not. I agree that had it been a different plane, it would have been a different plane, but wishing and saying so does not make it so.
If it is modeled, I hope single bullets to the oil pan send it straight to hell in flames because no one believes that monstrosity could fly without a perfectly in balance oil supply which had zero margin for error in maintenance.
Now, if the 177 is modeled to quell the hue and cry and a sneeze will shoot it down, guess what? Everyone will say "Well, can't we have the Do217 then since it didn't suck?" So why not skip point B, go past "Go", collect 200.00 and model a plane that while not stellar, was at least workmanlike and serviceable and had a terrific bomb load?
Sakai
