Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm pretty sure my math is right.
The SC2500 is made of aluminium according to the link you posted so presumably it was a blast bomb. The British HC 4,000lb cookie is probably the equivalent.
It would have been interesting to see what the He177 would have been capable of doing had more reliable engines been available.
Unfortunately the alternative engines weren't going so well either. The Jumo 222 was also unreliable and never made it to production, The DB604 was less powerful, and cancelled. The DB603 was less powerful and running late.
I agree with riacrato in his statistical analyze.
Juha
I don't follow your math. but a 1 in three chanch of surviveing 10 missions are not good odds.
Numerical difference probably involves early model He-177s which were later modified to He-177A3 or He-177A5 configuration. So higher figure is counting some airframes twice.918 were built based on their research, though the official German records put that at 1,170.
Stored Me 210 fuselages were completed as Me 410, they have never been a Me 210 so they weren't counted twice.Numerical difference probably involves early model He-177s which were later modified to He-177A3 or He-177A5 configuration. So higher figure is counting some airframes twice.
Early Me-210s have the same issue. Many were converted to Me-410 so it's easy to count the aircraft twice if you don't note difference between new construction and conversions.
I may be wrong because my statistics courses were a long time ago but if the chance to go down on a mission is 10%, that means the chance to survive 10 missions ist still 34.8%.