*At **16:00** - Operation Steinbock, He 177 Note:* While, as an operation, Steinbock could only be considered an abysmal failure, the He 177s achieved some success. The more experienced crews carried maximum bomb loads and, climbing to 23,000 feet while still over German territory, approached their target in a shallow dive, attaining speeds in excess of 430 mph, at which night fighters could not intercept and anti-aircraft fire could not follow them. page 346 - "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" - William Green copyright 1970, SBN 356 02382 6
Once again, very enjoyable. I appreciate the effort to employ photographs of similar planes when actual records do not exist. This makes it interesting visually. Mahalo and Aloha from Maui!
One single reason for the 217's failure: the extremely high wing loading, caused by its almost vestigial wings coupled to its heavy engines and the overly heavy armament of bombs or multiple cannons. That's why famous test pilot Eric Brown found it to be underpowered. Many thanks to IHYLS (what does it stand for?) for this great episode.
It had exactly the same problem as the B26 Marauder, being intentionally designed for a stronger engine it never reseaved. But just like the Marauder it was still an excellent tactical Bomber. The Marauder had the best combat record of all US Bombers, despite having difficulties staying airborne on one engine. I am convinced that the Do 217 was one of the best German Bombers.
@@Otokichi786😢 What should I learn from a dude who is not even capable of researching the simple facts. The M410 was never used as a nightfighter, there were plans and Rüstsätze(kits), but there is no hard evidence that plane was ever used as a nightfighter. If you really compare the loss ratio between allied and german bombers, there is no difference. The only difference was, that allies could replace the losses. Lancasters had a loss rate of 50% of aircraft and 75% of the crew men, for example. Furthermore he compared the attack of Lübeck to the Bädecker Blitz. One attack to a series of Attacks on 5 Towns. 80 German aircraft did similar damage to the British town Bath with almost no losses, than over 200 Vickers Wellington with 12 losses did to Lübeck. The Wellington was Britains best medium bomber, but on their first mission against germany they suffered a total loss rate of 50%. There is no proof in his intire Video, to claim that the Do 217 was poor aircraft, despite the Luftwaffe lost the war, hence the aircraft must be bad. Thats not a valid logic. Having not enough Power to maintain a single engine flight is an overhyped aspect. Many twin engine aircraft can not do it. If your airplane is hit that bad, that one engine is completely out of service, the list of other Problems maintaining a safe flight condition is probably quite long. First you became a sitting Duck anyway, becoming a prime target for interceptors. The B26 Marauder had the same problem, but still it's combat record is better than that of the B25, which had an excellent one engine performance, it could even climb on one engine. But the higher cruise speed, spending less time over the enemy territory, safes more aircraft (B26, A26, Mosquitoe, He 177, Ju 188, Do 217, B29) from being shot down, than B25, Wellingtons, HE 111 being able to fly safely on one engine. This is also proven by allied Data and German Data alike. During Operation Steinbock the best Bomber with the lowest loss rate was the HE 177, which also sufferes undiserved from bad a reputation. It was the fastest Bomber used by the germans, despite some tuned Ju88. The worst aircaft during this operation was the He 111, the slowest aircraft, but the only one which could maintain single engine flight well. The high wing loading of the B26 and Do 217, allowed to carry higher payloads at greater speeds while being more fuel efficient. But you better do not lose an engine under a critical altitude or distance to the next friendly airfield. All in all this Video is poorly researched. As much as I respect Eric Brown, but he is not always right. He claimed the P47 had a critical Mach number of 0.71 while it was beyond 0.78 at up to 0.81. On the HE177 he was annoyed by the light controls for such a large bomber aircraft, on the Do 217 it was to heavy for him. Seems like you could not really do right for him. The only german Bomber he liked was the Ju 88, because it had fighter like behavior with no restrictions in aerobatics. Even the Mosquito had restrictions in aerobatics. Maybe Brown wasn't the right guy to ask to evaluate bomber aircraft. Hope you learned something!
The wings were nowhere near vestigial. Faster planes have always had higher wing loading, that is the story of progress. All it means is you need more distance to takeoff and land. We'd still be flying biplanes if high wing loading was a net negative.
I wonder were this Me 410 Nightfighter misconception comes from as I have heard it several times already. Were people misinterpreting the naval radar on the Me 410 B-6?
@@FirstDagger maybe, but i think of you find a picture of that plane, which was very rare, you are so far in the 410 rabbit hole that you should know it wasn't a nightfighter. I assume it's just a unintentional error in the script. Maybe because both systems were classified as FuGs by the germans.
The 217 is a visually rather pleasing bird gotta say, great video! Could you maybe make a mega-playlist with all your videos? I'd love to listen to them while relaxing/falling asleep, you got a really nice voice for that and the topics are also interesting.
I've noticed that often, the first picture of that weeks given aircraft, is very dark. When speaking about a different aircraft, or just showing a different photo, that one is bright and easy to see. Why?
@@scootergeorge7089Heavy defenses like the B-17's were not needed for a night bomber. And the Germans had their airfields on the other side of the channel.
That's not really accurate. A B-17 could carry the same payload internally, 4000kg, as a Do-217 could in total (the 217 holds around 2500kg internally), but a B-17 could also carry even more bombs on wing racks allowing for up to 7800kg of total payload.
"Flying Pencil" was like the "Kitty Hawk", Average plane with a good reputation for it's time but as the war progressed, should have been put out to pasture.
I always liked the Do 217, and in terms of performance it was definitely one of the better bombers Germany had at the time. It could outrun a Ju 88 while carrying as much as a He 111, and if it wanted to it could carry double of an He 111. Defensive armament was much better laid out as well with a proper dorsal turret, and durability against early Hurricanes and Spitfires, those armed with just .303 MGs, was also quite good. Later designs like the He 177 could outperform it, but the 177 was an utter failure for its own reason, mostly engines catching fire. A lot. And half the other airplanes, like the Me 410, were taking over for the Do 217 in roles that it was somehow adapted into despite being badly suited for them, like night fighting.
@@jackx4311Ju88 was used as a dive bomber as it had dive brakes. The dive was a shallower angle of course. The brakes were removed on the A13 variant. Its finest hour as a dive bomber was on 1st July 1941.
There is no reason an airplane the size of a DO-217 or JU-88 cannot be a dive bomber if it is designed and equipped for the role. The structure has to be strong enough withstand the stress of recovering from a dive, which will make the airplane heavier than it need be for level bombing and therefore less efficient in that role. But if an air force wants to make that tradeoff due to its operational doctrine that is their prerogative.
@gort8203 - "There is no reason an airplane the size of a DO-217 or JU-88 cannot be a dive bomber if it is designed and equipped for the role." But that was precisely the problem; the Do217 and the Ju88 were *NOT* 'designed and equipped for the role'. At best, they were bodged up in a futile attempt to make them capable of doing it. "If an air force wants to make that tradeoff due to its operational doctrine that is their prerogative." Certainly - but the Luftwaffe failed to take into account that the reason the Stukas were so effective in the Spanish Civil War and the first few months of WWII was because the fighters they were up against were either obsolescent biplanes and / or completely outnumbered by Me109s. Once they came under attack from significant numbers of modern fighters, their losses became insupportable - and they were also vulnerable to heavy anti-aircraft gunfire, as, once they went into their dive, their trajectory was completely predictable, making them an easy target for AA gunners (torpedo bombers had exactly the same problem, having to fly straight and level at constant speed until the torpedo was dropped).
@@jackx4311 We've already determined from your last comment to me that you don't understand what you read. I did not make a value judgment on dive bombing as a tactic, so you can spare me your analysis of that tactic. The USAAF dispensed with it because it made the airplane too vulnerable to ground fire, but the Navy used it to some effect in the Pacific. You can discuss the reasons for the difference in doctrine with yourself. I was merely commenting on the fact that the mere size of a bomber like the DO-217 does not make it unsuitable for the role as long as it can withstand the stress of the dive recovery. The fact that the JU--88 was not strong enough to withstand vertical dives and had its dive angle limited to 45 degrees supports rather than disproves my comment. By the way, the F-105 was larger, heavier, three times faster, with twice the wing loading of the JU-88 (there's that wing loading thing you don't understand again), yet most of the many bombs it delivered in Vietnam were dropped from a dive. If you want to debate the operational doctrine of dive bombing, please do it with some else who shares your keen ability to focus on the subject. My comment was only about how large a dive bomber can be.
There is no reason to presuppose sufficient reliable consistency from Nazi German war-production, when seldom 2 airframes from the same manufacturer were the same Let’s not get too deep into the weeds on the corruption & other gnostic pseudo anthropological cult mindset fucking up outcomes practically everywhere inside a NatSoc controlled society. Even when the NatSocs had the initiative, they’d get bogged down by culty precepts & an impractical conceptualisation of their circumstances. Additionally inconvenient was the fact that feedback which could displease the corrupt higherups -results in even a worse plight for all subordinates involved.
@@imperialmodelworks8473 I have no interest in a pointless quasi-debate about what qualifies as a "success". My point is that size alone does not keep an airplane from divebombing. Due to outdated categorization, you apparently don't consider the F-105 to be a "dive bomber", but that's exactly how most of the bombs it dropped in battle were successfully delivered.
Tosh, The Gloster Gladiator Mk II was developed with a slightly more powerful Mercury engine producing 840 hp, with a three bladed metal propeller instead of the two bladed wooden one reaching a top speed of 257 mph. The Gladiator was used later in the war, in the initial defence of Malta, and could still catch the Do17, even then
Using postal aircraft for training and dispatches is one thing... as bombers err nope... just a waste of a good flight crew.. better to build pilot numbers to allow rotation of front line crews..
I've pondered this for a while. Apart from the cockpit and canopy areas, the plane looks like it has a quite nice aero design, with wings the curve into the body. I've spent ages head scratching at its rather low speed. In 17 guise, it had 2 1000hp engines, which isn't huge, but that plane must have had some horrible drag somewhere. The 217 had almost 2x that, and while it was better, its speed still seems draggy. Something is odd speedwise and aero on those designs.
You didn't specifically mention the 217's "moment in the sun", sinking Roma, damaging Italia, and contesting Salerno landing with putting out of action for many months Savanah, Uganda, Warspite. The K-2 subtype involved HAD the wing area/improved wing leading to be effective at the required all-up bombing weights. Whether a design CAN, in some narrow sense sense, ALWAYS be redesigned to successfully fly as a divebomber is an arcane point sometimes made by snarky, sarcastic commentators who seem to frequent online forums. Arcane in the sense that the point is obvious and usually irrelevant. What IS relevant to the video of this a/c, is that Germany went down this rabbit hole--regardless of its PREROGATIVE--WAY to often, preventing otherwise promising designs from being operational at a time in the war when they might have made a difference. This was a reasoning flaw, that did not take into proper account multiple factors, not least of which is that the divebombing concept, by its very nature, presupposes a sufficient air superiority. This flawed German analysis is integral to the Do-217 Story. One could theoretically make the B-36 into a divebomber, but, as Capt. Obvious may opine, why do we need such ridiculously narrow points? Prerogative is as prerogative does, I always sez. To quote a semi-famous actor, "Winning!" is the name of the game here, also central to the 217's less than stellar story.
Many years ago , when I was a delivery driver in London, I drove an old Thames Trader that we all called the five ton vibrator................. though not as much fun.😂😂
The Germans are so crazy. "Yeah so I want a 4 engine bomber with 2 engines, that also divebombs, itself also functions as a napalm bomb, and to reach the Urals." "Ja" "Yes I would like this plane to carry 4000 kgs of bombs divebomb, have 2 engines function with 1, launch glide bombs, be a night fighter, and eventually have 3500 hp" "Ja" "I wonder why these planes are pieces of shit?"
I'm not deliberately trying to be mean, but God, your narration style is very tiring. Da, da, da, daah. Da, da, da, daah, Da, da, da, daah... Twenty minutes of that and the listeners are left with a headache, PTSD, possibly hospitalization.
*At **16:00** - Operation Steinbock, He 177 Note:*
While, as an operation, Steinbock could only be considered an abysmal failure, the He 177s achieved some success. The more experienced crews carried maximum bomb loads and, climbing to 23,000 feet while still over German territory, approached their target in a shallow dive, attaining speeds in excess of 430 mph, at which night fighters could not intercept and anti-aircraft fire could not follow them.
page 346 - "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" - William Green copyright 1970, SBN 356 02382 6
Once again, very enjoyable. I appreciate the effort to employ photographs of similar planes when actual records do not exist. This makes it interesting visually. Mahalo and Aloha from Maui!
One single reason for the 217's failure: the extremely high wing loading, caused by its almost vestigial wings coupled to its heavy engines and the overly heavy armament of bombs or multiple cannons. That's why famous test pilot Eric Brown found it to be underpowered. Many thanks to IHYLS (what does it stand for?) for this great episode.
It had exactly the same problem as the B26 Marauder, being intentionally designed for a stronger engine it never reseaved.
But just like the Marauder it was still an excellent tactical Bomber. The Marauder had the best combat record of all US Bombers, despite having difficulties staying airborne on one engine.
I am convinced that the Do 217 was one of the best German Bombers.
" I Hope You Learned Something."
@@Otokichi786😢
What should I learn from a dude who is not even capable of researching the simple facts.
The M410 was never used as a nightfighter, there were plans and Rüstsätze(kits), but there is no hard evidence that plane was ever used as a nightfighter.
If you really compare the loss ratio between allied and german bombers, there is no difference. The only difference was, that allies could replace the losses.
Lancasters had a loss rate of 50% of aircraft and 75% of the crew men, for example.
Furthermore he compared the attack of Lübeck to the Bädecker Blitz. One attack to a series of Attacks on 5 Towns.
80 German aircraft did similar damage to the British town Bath with almost no losses, than over 200 Vickers Wellington with 12 losses did to Lübeck.
The Wellington was Britains best medium bomber, but on their first mission against germany they suffered a total loss rate of 50%.
There is no proof in his intire Video, to claim that the Do 217 was poor aircraft, despite the Luftwaffe lost the war, hence the aircraft must be bad. Thats not a valid logic.
Having not enough Power to maintain a single engine flight is an overhyped aspect.
Many twin engine aircraft can not do it.
If your airplane is hit that bad, that one engine is completely out of service, the list of other Problems maintaining a safe flight condition is probably quite long.
First you became a sitting Duck anyway, becoming a prime target for interceptors.
The B26 Marauder had the same problem, but still it's combat record is better than that of the B25, which had an excellent one engine performance, it could even climb on one engine.
But the higher cruise speed, spending less time over the enemy territory, safes more aircraft (B26, A26, Mosquitoe, He 177, Ju 188, Do 217, B29) from being shot down, than B25, Wellingtons, HE 111 being able to fly safely on one engine.
This is also proven by allied Data and German Data alike.
During Operation Steinbock the best Bomber with the lowest loss rate was the HE 177, which also sufferes undiserved from bad a reputation. It was the fastest Bomber used by the germans, despite some tuned Ju88. The worst aircaft during this operation was the He 111, the slowest aircraft, but the only one which could maintain single engine flight well.
The high wing loading of the B26 and Do 217, allowed to carry higher payloads at greater speeds while being more fuel efficient. But you better do not lose an engine under a critical altitude or distance to the next friendly airfield.
All in all this Video is poorly researched.
As much as I respect Eric Brown, but he is not always right. He claimed the P47 had a critical Mach number of 0.71 while it was beyond 0.78 at up to 0.81.
On the HE177 he was annoyed by the light controls for such a large bomber aircraft, on the Do 217 it was to heavy for him. Seems like you could not really do right for him. The only german Bomber he liked was the Ju 88, because it had fighter like behavior with no restrictions in aerobatics.
Even the Mosquito had restrictions in aerobatics.
Maybe Brown wasn't the right guy to ask to evaluate bomber aircraft.
Hope you learned something!
@@Otokichi786 NILSA (Now I Learned Something Again)
The wings were nowhere near vestigial. Faster planes have always had higher wing loading, that is the story of progress. All it means is you need more distance to takeoff and land. We'd still be flying biplanes if high wing loading was a net negative.
18:19 the me410 was never used AS a nightfighter. Late war nightfighters were mostly JU88Gs ,88Cs and a handful of 88Rs.
I wonder were this Me 410 Nightfighter misconception comes from as I have heard it several times already.
Were people misinterpreting the naval radar on the Me 410 B-6?
@@FirstDagger maybe, but i think of you find a picture of that plane, which was very rare, you are so far in the 410 rabbit hole that you should know it wasn't a nightfighter. I assume it's just a unintentional error in the script. Maybe because both systems were classified as FuGs by the germans.
The 217 is a visually rather pleasing bird gotta say, great video!
Could you maybe make a mega-playlist with all your videos? I'd love to listen to them while relaxing/falling asleep, you got a really nice voice for that and the topics are also interesting.
I have never really liked the visuals of the 217, but I do like the Do-17. Thats one sleek bird.
Even if it might not be the most effective the do 217 is a very pretty aircraft
Indeed!
Only the K version
I've noticed that often, the first picture of that weeks given aircraft, is very dark. When speaking about a different aircraft, or just showing a different photo, that one is bright and easy to see. Why?
Good video, someone have been reading M. Griehl's "Dorniel Do 217-317-417". Very complete book indeed.
allways love seeing videos of lesser know or covered planes. keep it up
pic at 3.28 ...what a beautiful aircraft! good video! thanks
A distant relative was a crew member , Observer, whatever that means , of a 17Z shot down in Cornwall Nov 1940. RIP Lt Gunter Seelhorst.
Dmler engine version shown right at beginning is Do-215
Not a Caran D'Ache or Derwent, Eh? Very good and documented video on a pretty interesting and relevant german bomber, Thank you IHYLS!
It could carry the same bomb load as a B-17. Not mediocre for a twin.
But lacking the range and or the defensive capabilities Flying Fortress.
@@scootergeorge7089Heavy defenses like the B-17's were not needed for a night bomber.
And the Germans had their airfields on the other side of the channel.
That's not really accurate. A B-17 could carry the same payload internally, 4000kg, as a Do-217 could in total (the 217 holds around 2500kg internally), but a B-17 could also carry even more bombs on wing racks allowing for up to 7800kg of total payload.
@@scullystie4389only the B-17s upto the F model could carry external bombload.
@@scullystie43894 000 kg was the typical load of a B-17, and the Do 217 could carry that, with two engines. That's an accurate statement.
Do-217 is a good plane in an impossible situation and not enough to attack en masse
I dunno if you take requests, but I'd suggest a video about the Farman 220-223 series of French aircraft.
Great video
"Flying Pencil" was like the "Kitty Hawk", Average plane with a good reputation for it's time but as the war progressed, should have been put out to pasture.
It was. Production of the Do 17 ended in Oct 1940, and Do 217 production ceased in October 1943.
I always liked the Do 217, and in terms of performance it was definitely one of the better bombers Germany had at the time. It could outrun a Ju 88 while carrying as much as a He 111, and if it wanted to it could carry double of an He 111. Defensive armament was much better laid out as well with a proper dorsal turret, and durability against early Hurricanes and Spitfires, those armed with just .303 MGs, was also quite good.
Later designs like the He 177 could outperform it, but the 177 was an utter failure for its own reason, mostly engines catching fire. A lot. And half the other airplanes, like the Me 410, were taking over for the Do 217 in roles that it was somehow adapted into despite being badly suited for them, like night fighting.
I always thought the Ju-88 was faster.
This is an excellent Aircraft video.....Thanks so much.....
Old F-4 Shoe🇺🇸
I can't find any evidence that ME410's were ever used as night fighters; if you have some, I'd sure be interested...
Wasn't the Ju 88 built as a dive bomber? How does it not fit the role?
@EneTheGene - nope; the *Ju87* was a purpose-built dive bomber; the Ju88 was designed for bombing from level flight.
@@jackx4311Ju88 was used as a dive bomber as it had dive brakes. The dive was a shallower angle of course. The brakes were removed on the A13 variant. Its finest hour as a dive bomber was on 1st July 1941.
There is no reason an airplane the size of a DO-217 or JU-88 cannot be a dive bomber if it is designed and equipped for the role. The structure has to be strong enough withstand the stress of recovering from a dive, which will make the airplane heavier than it need be for level bombing and therefore less efficient in that role. But if an air force wants to make that tradeoff due to its operational doctrine that is their prerogative.
@gort8203 - "There is no reason an airplane the size of a DO-217 or JU-88 cannot be a dive bomber if it is designed and equipped for the role."
But that was precisely the problem; the Do217 and the Ju88 were *NOT* 'designed and equipped for the role'. At best, they were bodged up in a futile attempt to make them capable of doing it.
"If an air force wants to make that tradeoff due to its operational doctrine that is their prerogative."
Certainly - but the Luftwaffe failed to take into account that the reason the Stukas were so effective in the Spanish Civil War and the first few months of WWII was because the fighters they were up against were either obsolescent biplanes and / or completely outnumbered by Me109s. Once they came under attack from significant numbers of modern fighters, their losses became insupportable - and they were also vulnerable to heavy anti-aircraft gunfire, as, once they went into their dive, their trajectory was completely predictable, making them an easy target for AA gunners (torpedo bombers had exactly the same problem, having to fly straight and level at constant speed until the torpedo was dropped).
@@jackx4311 We've already determined from your last comment to me that you don't understand what you read. I did not make a value judgment on dive bombing as a tactic, so you can spare me your analysis of that tactic. The USAAF dispensed with it because it made the airplane too vulnerable to ground fire, but the Navy used it to some effect in the Pacific. You can discuss the reasons for the difference in doctrine with yourself.
I was merely commenting on the fact that the mere size of a bomber like the DO-217 does not make it unsuitable for the role as long as it can withstand the stress of the dive recovery. The fact that the JU--88 was not strong enough to withstand vertical dives and had its dive angle limited to 45 degrees supports rather than disproves my comment.
By the way, the F-105 was larger, heavier, three times faster, with twice the wing loading of the JU-88 (there's that wing loading thing you don't understand again), yet most of the many bombs it delivered in Vietnam were dropped from a dive.
If you want to debate the operational doctrine of dive bombing, please do it with some else who shares your keen ability to focus on the subject. My comment was only about how large a dive bomber can be.
There is no reason to presuppose sufficient reliable consistency from Nazi German war-production, when seldom 2 airframes from the same manufacturer were the same
Let’s not get too deep into the weeds on the corruption & other gnostic pseudo anthropological cult mindset fucking up outcomes practically everywhere inside a NatSoc controlled society.
Even when the NatSocs had the initiative, they’d get bogged down by culty precepts & an impractical conceptualisation of their circumstances.
Additionally inconvenient was the fact that feedback which could displease the corrupt higherups -results in even a worse plight for all subordinates involved.
Do you know of any dive bomber that size rhat was actually a success?
@@imperialmodelworks8473 I have no interest in a pointless quasi-debate about what qualifies as a "success". My point is that size alone does not keep an airplane from divebombing. Due to outdated categorization, you apparently don't consider the F-105 to be a "dive bomber", but that's exactly how most of the bombs it dropped in battle were successfully delivered.
love the pictures
👏🏻
The "Leadless Pencil" may be a fitting pseudonym?
Ask the Roma, wether the Do 217 could be quite successful
Fritz-X would be deadly dropped from almost any platform.
Tosh, The Gloster Gladiator Mk II was developed with a slightly more powerful Mercury engine producing 840 hp, with a three bladed metal propeller instead of the two bladed wooden one reaching a top speed of 257 mph. The Gladiator was used later in the war, in the initial defence of Malta, and could still catch the Do17, even then
So true about Roseart, that's how you knew your Mom didn't really love you
Using postal aircraft for training and dispatches is one thing... as bombers err nope... just a waste of a good flight crew.. better to build pilot numbers to allow rotation of front line crews..
I've pondered this for a while. Apart from the cockpit and canopy areas, the plane looks like it has a quite nice aero design, with wings the curve into the body. I've spent ages head scratching at its rather low speed. In 17 guise, it had 2 1000hp engines, which isn't huge, but that plane must have had some horrible drag somewhere. The 217 had almost 2x that, and while it was better, its speed still seems draggy. Something is odd speedwise and aero on those designs.
A case study in perfect being the enemy of good enough.
Toyota:I am best car company
BMW:really?
Mitsubishi:bro
Rolls Royce: I make nuclear subs
The Flying Texta?
He-117 was very ineffective as a dive bomber but highly effective as a flaming lawn dart😄
You didn't specifically mention the 217's "moment in the sun", sinking Roma, damaging Italia, and contesting Salerno landing with putting out of action for many months Savanah, Uganda, Warspite. The K-2 subtype involved HAD the wing area/improved wing leading to be effective at the required all-up bombing weights.
Whether a design CAN, in some narrow sense sense, ALWAYS be redesigned to successfully fly as a divebomber is an arcane point sometimes made by snarky, sarcastic commentators who seem to frequent online forums. Arcane in the sense that the point is obvious and usually irrelevant. What IS relevant to the video of this a/c, is that Germany went down this rabbit hole--regardless of its PREROGATIVE--WAY to often, preventing otherwise promising designs from being operational at a time in the war when they might have made a difference. This was a reasoning flaw, that did not take into proper account multiple factors, not least of which is that the divebombing concept, by its very nature, presupposes a sufficient air superiority. This flawed German analysis is integral to the Do-217 Story.
One could theoretically make the B-36 into a divebomber, but, as Capt. Obvious may opine, why do we need such ridiculously narrow points?
Prerogative is as prerogative does, I always sez. To quote a semi-famous actor, "Winning!" is the name of the game here, also central to the 217's less than stellar story.
Do 217 P V1 mit Höhen-Zentrale Anlage FdG!
Yep
Troppo difficile tradurre "Schnell" con "veloce"?
The Flying Fountain Pen sounds cool. 😂
The flying Sharpie
*I'll* have a look!
Flying Parsnip.
I suppose “flying pencil”was more polite than the “flying vibrator”.
Many years ago , when I was a delivery driver in London, I drove an old Thames Trader that we all called the five ton vibrator................. though not as much fun.😂😂
Germany didn't have the engines and even for those they did have; they didn't have the high octane fuel..
Good subject line up but itsnt funny at all on this attitude misery jocks . Well informative nice addition,thanks for yours afford
F-104: Am I a joke to you?
"Never-sharp"
27 seconds in, thats a dornier 215 not a 17!
Yeah, there were some Do17s with DB-600/601 motors, but not Z variants.
I would call it the flying crayon
Parachute rockets for the win!
The 217 was called the 'Pregnant Pencil'.
When did Germans start pronouncing "Dor-ni-er" as "Dor-ni-aye"? Are Chevys now Che-vro-letts?
I've been wondering that too!
Cheeky rocket parachutes
The Germans are so crazy.
"Yeah so I want a 4 engine bomber with 2 engines, that also divebombs, itself also functions as a napalm bomb, and to reach the Urals."
"Ja"
"Yes I would like this plane to carry 4000 kgs of bombs divebomb, have 2 engines function with 1, launch glide bombs, be a night fighter, and eventually have 3500 hp"
"Ja"
"I wonder why these planes are pieces of shit?"
Promo*SM 🌸
mixing miles to km, pounds to kg etc.
bloody stay in one metric or whatever.
Prerogative prerogative prerogative prerogative
the flying leaky fountain pen?
How about, "Bearly Flying Pencil"?
They should call it the ‘flying failure’
"Merely Mediocre" or "Double M" for short.
Looooftvaaafaaa
I appreciate the content but your dialog is like you're teaching little kids about this.
Do you always talk like this? I doubt it so don't do it here.
Der Fleugscheiss. 😮😊😂
I'm not deliberately trying to be mean, but God, your narration style is very tiring. Da, da, da, daah. Da, da, da, daah, Da, da, da, daah... Twenty minutes of that and the listeners are left with a headache, PTSD, possibly hospitalization.
Too much "variants and series". Tell us the story without so much A,B and Cs and 1,2,3s... please.
That’s how the Germans did things though, different versions of the plane were named with different letters
Disagree. I liked the details
What about if a bullfrog had wings ???? Huh what bout that shit??? he wouldn't bump his waterproof non-rubberized ass when he hops would he😂🤣😅😆😆😂🤣😅🤣