Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The way the air flows over them perhaps?The twin engine Ju-88A could dive @ 90 degrees. Why would it be any different for an aircraft with twin engine pods?
No it couldn't. The only (german?) aircraft capable of doing this was the Ju 87.The twin engine Ju-88A could dive @ 90 degrees.
I stand corrected. It appears 40 to 70 degree angle was normal for the Ju-88A dive bomber.There is a multicolored dive angle scale 40Y-70Ygiving the dive angle in the left sliding window panel. There is:
40Ydive angle = red
50Ydive angle = black
60Ydive angle = white
70Ydive angle = brown
Why were USAAF fighter aircraft armed with .50 cal MGs right up to the Korean War?
Why did the Luftwaffe procure the Me-110 rather then the Fw-187?
Why did the Westland Whirlwind carry so little internal fuel?
Not all aircraft design decisions can be explained by logic and common sense.
This is what I was looking for. The really long engine nacelles don't seem to pose a problem with a strategic bomber, as its wings are already pretty wide and could accomodate longer nacelles without much of a design issue and the wings could be shorter in length to compensate to a point.It seems to work best when the propellers are a good distance between them. This means things like the extension shafts on the Do 26 flying boat, extra weight and complication, or really long engine nacelles. There is often trouble cooling the rear engine. Not necessarily the radiator but things like the accessories depended on cool airflow through the cowling and many times on liquid cooled engines special small ducts carried cooling air directly to the spark plugs.