Talk:Heinkel He 177 Greif/Archive 1

Dive Bombing
Why is dive-bombing impossible with four engines? Should be explained in the article, if true. MadMaxDog 10:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because of the gyroscopic properties of four propellers causing dive instability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.158.191 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always wondered about that myself, but I have never found any explanation. Also, the "dive" we're talking about here is fairly shallow, similar to the Ju 88, maybe 20 degrees or so. Maury 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dive bombing wasn't the reason for the coupled engines - they were planned by the Günther Brothers, the aircrafts designers to reduce drag in order to meet the demanding speed and range requirements. The dive bombing requirement - which according to Alfred Price in his International Air Power Review article was a 60 degree angle, was added laterNigel Ish (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is dive-bombing impossible with four engines? - it's not really impossible, it's just that the stresses imposed on the airframe of a dive bomber are greatest at the pull-out from the dive, so the aircraft has to be very strongly-built compared to the 'normal' (horizontal) bomber. In a single-engined design such as the Stuka, Dauntless, etc. the extra weight in making it strong enough for dive bombing is only a small proportion of the overall weight of the aircraft. In a larger aeroplane, the aircraft's heavier weight (mass) itself adds to the stresses that must be allowed-for, and so the additional strengthening of the airframe required (to allow dive bombing) adds even more to the aircraft's unloaded weight. In short, the weight just goes way-up too far to be worth the effort, as the useful load able to be carried by the aeroplane is reduced by the additional weight required to make it strong enough for dive bombing. Often the aircraft ends up overweight and underpowered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.170 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. As repeatedly mentioned in the Smithsonian book Milestones of Aviation 1989, if a design is scaled up with no other change, its weight goes up as the cube of the linear dimension while the lift goes up only as (about) the square.  So, for the same speed at least, the fraction of the maximum weight needed for structure increases as airplanes get bigger.  Beyond this, the torque that a structural element must resist against weight or acceleration is proportional also to the lever arm between it and the mass, but its ability to resist is proportional to its cross section times its own lever arm, so any form will, at some scale, be unable to support itself.  That is why one can't make a big dive bomber, especially not one with long range.  Two coupled engines are worse for structure that four, because the weight is more concentrated.  The coupled engines were for aerodynamic efficiency, probably by increasing the Reynolds number of the propellers and nacelles (which is the main reason to make an airplane big in the first place).  David R. Ingham (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A 1941 explanation of dive bombing in Flight here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

England Raid
When did the mentioned raid on England take place? Drutt 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIR during Operation Steinbock. --Denniss 11:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

B29 engine reliability statement
"leading to a history of engine failures not unlike that of the failed Manchester or that of the B-29, which had most of its defensive armament removed in order to lighten the burden on its engines and thus improve reliability.".

Thats incorrect. The B29's had their machine guns removed as a result in a change in tactics, not becuase of an attempt to reduce the strain on the engines. Once the B29's were used for night bombing, there was little need for the guns and gunners. If the bomber was going to be used for day missions, the guns were reinstalled.

No, the B-29 had its guns removed to save weight and stop the engines catching fire. 20 per cent of all B-29 missions against Japan were aborted due to engine fires, often resulting in fatal crashes. As the pilots used to say, 'Thass the ole B-29 - two a-turnin' and two a-burnin'.' The only remaining airworthy B-29, the Commemorative Air Force's 'Fifi', has been re-engined with special custom-built hybrid power units, because the original engines never worked. 91.125.131.142 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle, 29 October 2010

Apparently the cylinder in the wind shadow of the distributor overheated and dropped its exhaust valve, leading to the burning magnesium crank case melting off the wing. Wasn't the main reason for removing the defensive armament that there had been no way, for some time, to get oil from Indonesia to Japan to refine aviation gasoline from? David R. Ingham (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Heinkel, Hitler and the bomb?
German article says
 * "Eine im Mai 1945 auf dem Flugplatz Prag-Kbély von den Alliierten vorgefundene, noch im Umbau befindliche He 177 erwies sich als Versuchsflugzeug für den vergrößerten Bombenschacht des geplanten, aber noch nicht fertig gestellten ersten deutschen Atombomben-Trägerflugzeugs (die entsprechende Bombe dazu kam jedoch in Deutschland bis zur Kapitulation im Gegensatz zu den USA nicht über das Planungsstadium hinaus)."

that in May 1945 at Prague-Kbély a He 177 was found which had an enlarged bomb door to test this part of the planned airplane that should carry Hitlers Bombe which was in planning stage, too. No reference provided, though. -- Matthead discuß!    O       19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reference to the modified He 177 in German Aircraft of the Second World War by J R Smith and Antony L Kay, p286-287, which refers to He 177 v38 being modified by Letov with an enlarged bomb bay to carry Germany's Atomic bomb, work starting in 1942 and being supended in August 1944.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Heisenberg and others working on the German nuclear energy program had not actually thought in any detail about how to build an atomic bomb, but they were supported for a time by the ordinance office, so apparently they talked about it more than they thought about it. (like some people I met when I worked for Lockheed) I don't see how they could design an airplane bay for the size of a bomb with no more idea how big it would be than a (probably wrong) estimate of the critical mass of U235 and no data at all on plutonium. (There was theoretical reason to believe that the critical mass would be smaller for Pu, and they knew what column of the periodic table it would be in.) David R. Ingham (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Initially while the theoretical possibility of an atomic bomb was realised, it was thought to require several tons of Ur 235, thus making a practical weapon infeasible. The Frisch–Peierls memorandum changed all that, at least for the Allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.125 (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This could become a GA
Almost a B-class, but doesn't have references, could probably be a GA if inline citations were added. --Colputt 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4 engine
In fact, it is a 4 engine bomber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.70.123 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Four engined twin prop. might be the best description . (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Its an aircraft powered by 4 power units (Daimler-Benz DB 601s) BUT the DBs are coupled together to form two power units driving two (2) propellers hence twin engined. Think of it this way: Lets say that both the left and right engines needed to be replaced or removed from the aircraft for maintenence. The maintenence personel get the cranes and screwdrivers (lol) and remove the left and right engines from the aircraft and place them on the ground. How many engines do you think will be on the ground: 4 engines or 2 engines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.165.95 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to describe the engines as either two OR 4 is simplistic and slightly-erroneaous. According to the text itself, the "DB 606 engine" coupled 2 DB 601, and the DB 610 coupled 2 DB 605s. Thus each installation was treated as a single engine, but consisted of two coulpled engines. Were these individual engines useable in there own installations as-is? Probably not, as it seems they shared accessory components. Also, how many throttles were in the cockpit - 2 or 4? Was it possible to shut down one of the coupled engines and keep the other one running? THe text doenst say, but using one designation for both engines implies that this was probably not possible. So it all depends on how you look at it. So no one is wrong - but no one is exactly right either! It's probably best not to even try to describe this in the Lead paragraph, esp since the first paragraph in the next section explaines it all. - BillCJ (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any of the four engines could be disconnected from the other unit via coupling, so in practice it is four seperate engines, that are coupled together. AFAIK some 605s from the 610s ended up in Bf 109s and 110s, so there was defininately not any major changes compared to the "base" 601s/605s. In any case the the "four engined bomber" is rather about the prestige, and for practical purposes, the He 177 was in the same class as far as payload, span, empty and takeoff weight is concerned as other more conventional designs like the B-17 or Lancaster. Describing it as "twin engine" is rather misleading IMHO. Kurfürst (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got rid of references to engine numbers in opening paragraph to avoid annoyance and the problems with contradiction with having "twin engined" and then "twin engines in each nacelle driving..." Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Turret vs. barbette
What's the most appropriate terminology here? The article recently used "turret" for the manned turrets, "barbette" for the remote-controlled. This seems to be a fairly common convention (and in aircraft), as exemplified by Wood & Gunston's "Hitler's Luftwaffe" (WP:RS and fairly commonplace amongst editors) that uses it for the Arado Ar 240, the Messerschmitt Me 210 and the Greif.

This has now been changed (undiscussed) from barbette to turret by The PIPE, reverted and then re-edited. It's an awkward edit to undo, so before starting it again I'd seek consensus for the best wording. Although this editor's history (and talk log) seems bountiful in its original researchs, I'd suggest Gunston is the better authority to trust. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And from just over a year later, here's what I had to say about that issue very hear the end of 2010...

Dear Andy Dingley:

The PIPE here again - happy holidays..!

Well, from the glossary of German terms for aircraft defensive armament emplacements that are listed in the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel book on the entire He 177 series (so far. it's pretty much my "bible" on that troubled warplane!) gives the following terms "im Deutsch", in alphabetic order on pages 243 through 245, for ALL forms of defensive armament emplacements (based on their physical design) on German WW II aircraft, with the Deutsch in italics, and the English translation in regular text:

BL, or Bugstandlafette - Nose position gun mount DL, or Drehlafette - Any swivelling or rotating gun mount FDL, or Fernbedienbare Drehlafette - Remote-controlled rotating gun mount FHL, or Fernbedienbare Hecklafette - Remote-controlled rear (tail) gun mount FL, or Ferngesteuert Lafette - Remote-controlled gun mount HDL, or Hydraulische Drehlafette - Hydraulically-operated swivelling gun mount HL, or Hecklafette - Tail (position) gun mount WL, or Walzenlafette - Roller gun mount

So, from these definitions, it sure LOOKS like the terms fern, meaning "from a distance" in one interpretation, and lafette, the general German term for a gun mount of any kind (check at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafette for it im Deutsch itself) appear to be the common terms used in the German language itself, for just about all remotely-controlled defensive gun turrets used, or proposed for use, on WW II German aircraft during the era of the Third Reich's Luftwaffe.

There IS a entry im Deutsch for "barbette", at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschützbank, where it's still called a "Geschützbank" there for modern usage in the title - that entry does include the primary naval definition for "barbette", and the seemingly British English-origin convention for that word's use for a remotely-controlled aircraft gun turret.

However, the German language terms in use during the World War II years for defensive remote-controlled gun turret emplacements for aircraft conspicuously do NOT use the German term "barbett", the cognate for the naval armament term, but "fern" and "lafette" with their meanings as described previously instead. So, based on the German words used for military aviation nomenclature in World War II, regarding their defensively-armed aircraft gun mount technology, sticking to calling them "remote turrets" would seem to be a much closer translation in the English language in general, to the original German terms of seven decades previous. The term "barbette" for such remote-controlled airborne armament, though, isn't as close as "remote turret", and can be considered most likely (and quite understandably!) to be a British English convention that emerged very early in the 20th century, derived from the strong traditions of the Royal Navy as one possible source, that got applied to all remote gun turrets on aircraft in general, from a British historian's perspective.

The PIPE (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Good work on finding that exhaustive list . By the precise definition given I would suggest that turret doesn't really fit either. I would suggest that 'remote gun mounts' in fact is the closest to the German terminology. It would seem that the term turret is not used in the German either. I would suggest we use the original German terms and abbreviations in all mentions of the defensive gun emplacements with a note explaining that is the closest translation, where in mainspace the closest approximation of the types of position are described, citing the list provided Irondome (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

He-177 B-5
According book "Luděk Matějíček: Chebská křídla (Wings from Cheb), 2006, ISBN 80-86808-27-0" was destroyed in Cheb airport V-103 s/n 550036 call sing KM + TL.

The He-177 B-5 was destroyed by the 14th February 1945 in Cheb airport exactly on Compass Swing Base by US air force.

Dear "Unsigned"...

The PIPE Here - there IS an official listing in the "USAAF Combat Chronology" for a 14.2.1945-dated attack on Cheb/Eger airfield by some 38 B-17s, but strictly as a "target of opportunity" - nothing more is known of the results OF that attack, and there is still the German account that the He 177 V103 and incomplete V104 were wrecked in the July 8, 1944 USAAF 15th AF raid on the main Zwölfaxing airfield of Heinkel-Süd, some seven months earlier.

The PIPE (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.1.238 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Production
While Griehl and Dressel's book* is said to be the main source for this article, the production figures doesn't match.

For example, the figure of 826 A-5 built is mentionned twice in the article and the production table mention 349 built in total

However, Griehl and Dressel wrote that 565 were produced (enough sub-assemblies for 789 A-5 were produced though).

It would maybe worth the quote the source where the other production figures are from.


 * Griehl, Manfred and Dressel, Joachim. Heinkel He 177 - 277 - 274. Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife Publishing, 1998. ISBN 1-85310-364-0.

JanMasterson (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * German wiki has data from RLM reports - 350 A-5 built/accepted. The 565 figure in Griehl's book is for 1944 production of all variants which includes A-3. 1944 production/acceptance are 347 A-5, one A-3 Kehl IV from Arado and 163 Heinkel-built A-3. I don't know where the other missing 54 come from - maybe destroyed prior to acceptance? --Denniss (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bombsights
I read that, as one would expect, German bomb sights were at least as good as ours, similar accuracy and simpler to use. High altitude bombing was not effective against ships underway, because they move unpredictably. Ships hit ships because they held more rounds than an airplane did bombs. David R. Ingham (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Surface evaporation cooling
Is this about steam cooling (i.e. boiling in the engine), surface cooling, or evaporation at the radiators? All three are majorly different and have been used elsewhere. If it's about allowing superheated water from the engine to boil elsewhere, that's a novel system, not covered in existing links. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Engine rotation direction ?
"The V1 through V3 prototype airframes were all equipped with two counterclockwise rotating DB 606 A powerplants, while the V4 prototype and all later aircraft, throughout the production run of the A-series, used a DB 606 A or DB 610 A engine on the starboard wing and one clockwise rotating B-version of the same powerplant on the port wing, so that the propellers rotated "away" from each other at the tops of the propeller arcs". Huh ? If we are "looking forward" (??) which is the normal way to view this, if the right engine is anticlockwise and the left engine is clockwise, the propellers actually rotate towards each other at the top, not away. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo in the center of page 22 of the Griehl/Dressel book (ISBN 1-85310-364-0) shows the counter-rotating props quite clearly on the He 177 V4 as seen from "nose-on" during take-off (the easiest way for a ground observer to see both props) and even though the prop-blades themselves are "blurry" from being in motion during takeoff, their sense of "rotating "away" from each other at the tops of the propeller arcs" is QUITE clearly visible.

The PIPE (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Designer’s Name
Is there any particular reason why the name of the He 177’s designer, Dr. Siegfried Günter, is misspelled as "Gunter"? 213.61.58.164 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably simply that the contributor was using an English keyboard that lacks the umlauts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dive-bombing and low drag

 * Moved from article space

The idea that the quest for a low-drag design was driven by the dive-bombing requirement makes no sense. Dive bombing is typically carried out with high-drag devices deployed to limit the dive speed. The desire for a very low drag design and the dive bombing requirement both influenced the design of the He 177, but a draggier design would not have negatively impacted the plane's dive-bombing capabilities.
 * Steve seibel (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Try to dive-bomb with additional engines at the mid/outer wing sections, they will most likely cause the wing to break upon dive recovery. Or you would have to massively strengthen/enlarge the wings. The low-drag design wording may be misleading and may have come from experience with the draggy and dead slow Ju 87. --Denniss (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved from article space

"Flag-- I would like to see a source for this idea that the desire for a low-drag design was largely driven by the dive-bombing requirement. This makes no sense.  Dive bombers deploy high-drag devices during their dive, and are not overly penalized by high-drag design features like fixed landing gear (consider the Ju. 87.)  The original design He-177 possessed high-drag devices for dive bombing; these were removed from the later versions of the design after the dive-bombing requirement was rescinded.  See: "With the introduction of the Lotfe 7, which offered an average error of 20 m to 30 m (65 ft to 98 ft) from a release altitude of 3,000 m to 4,000 m (9,842 ft to 13,123 ft), and Hermann Goering's rescindment of the dive attack requirement in September of 1942, the barred-gate type dive brakes were omitted from all He 177 built after the initial pre production batch."  (http://plane.spottingworld.com/Heinkel_He_177)   --end flag"


 * The relevancy of the engine installations to dive bombing is likely nil. The coupled engine design was used because it has an advantage in drag reduction, i.e., it gave the power of two engines with the nacelle drag of only one. So it should have improved the He 177's range and speed over that of one with four separate engine nacelles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See my info above, especially regarding structural wing failure upon dive recovery. --Denniss (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I may have worded my reply better. The He 177 was designed with coupled engines before the dive bombing requirement was issued, so the original choice of engines could not have been influenced by a need to be able to dive bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Origin dates for Daimler-Benz twin-crankcase "power system" subtypes
The origin dates for each model of Daimler-Benz-crafted, twin-crankcase "power system" for large German aircraft requiring over-1,500 kW top-output aviation powerplants run as follows, for versions used in airworthy WW II large German aircraft:


 * DB 606V experimental, or Versuchs-series examples: February 1937
 * DB 606A-0 service test and A-1 production examples: February 1937
 * DB 606B opposing-rotation production examples: August 1938


 * DB 610V Versuchs-series experimental examples: June 1940
 * DB 610A-1 and B-1 opposing-rotation production examples: November 1940

Thw first flight date for the initial airframe meant to use such a twin-crankcase "power system", the Heinkel He 119, was in July 1937, within an appropriate timeframe to use a "production example" of the DB 606A, the conventional "couterclockwise-rotation" version of that engine. . The Messerschmitt Me 261 twin-propped long-range recon platform design first flew in December 1940, allowing it to have the counter-rotating A/B pairing of DB 606 "power systems" for its first flight, with the "sense of rotation" being identical to that of the He 177 V4 and onwards. The Me 261 V3, first flown in early 1943, allowed it to be flown only with counter-rotating DB 610A/B "power system" engines. .

The PIPE (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Surviving Aircraft
Please refer to WP:CRYSTAL when editing this section about legends of sunken He 177 in Russian lakes. - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

He 177 engine reliability stuff (.jpg excerpts from books)
http://s7.postimg.org/aqjfae9rf/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/xk7s5w92j/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/j7ixlbegb/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/jvrs49d63/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/n17sgq6ej/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/g9hddvhez/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/awsizqtij/image.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/fdphc5x4b/image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.83.52 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heinkel He 177. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824031912/http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Focke-Wulf%20Ta%20400/Focke%20Wulf%20Ta%20400%20Projekt.pdf to http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Focke-Wulf%20Ta%20400/Focke%20Wulf%20Ta%20400%20Projekt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216134921/http://usaaf.net/chron/44/apr44.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/chron/44/apr44.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527104023/http://www.usaaf.net/chron/44/jul44.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/chron/44/jul44.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Fowler flaps picture
I would like to replace this picture of the flaps:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7161-31A%2C_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg/180px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7161-31A%2C_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg

with this better one from E. Creek's book: Heinkel He 177 Greif Heinkel's Strategic Bomber page 34:

https://s31.postimg.org/6eu0w0nhn/image.jpg

Is this possible to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMMEL 34 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To do that you would need to demonstrate that the replacement photo is copyright expired or public domain, both where the photograph was taken (possibly Germany) and in the US, where Wikipedia's servers are.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"much higher figures for its cruising and maximum speeds"
The lede previously said that "the He 177 was the only operational strategic-range heavy bomber available to the Luftwaffe during the war years, that had a payload/range capability similar to the four-engined strategic heavy bombers of the USAAF and RAF, although it had much higher figures for its cruising and maximum speeds." (italics mine) The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was an operational strategic-range heavy bomber available to the USAAF during the war years, with a larger payload/range capability than the He 177 and a higher maximum speed (570 km/h versus 565 km/h). So this sentence is patently false. I removed it earlier, but it was undone - I've changed it to be more accurate, but I'm leaving this here in case the user undoes it again. 128.223.223.131 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no B-29 in ETO. --Denniss (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Denniss: The PIPE Here...NO B-29, not even one?" There IS a section in the B-29 article that mentions USAAF s/n 41-36393, a service-test YB-29, "being in the UK" for "confusive" purposes, I'd suppose... The PIPE (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The offending sentence never specified where the USAAF and RAF bombers operated. 128.223.223.131 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I am going with the IP on this one - the statement simply says USAAF/RAF - it does not say where those bombers had to be, and so yes, it is false.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to this, once the numbers had been corrected to match the published specifications (someone had changed it to a number radially higher than anything I can find - way back in 2006, without any references being given, and despite thousands of edits, no-one fixed it - or even caught it. The He 177 isn't radically faster than contemporary aircraft, being within ~10 mph of many of them, and actually slower than the Vickers Windsor.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)