[Graham Boak]

That's the familiar story. But, if it is true, why wasn't the He177 strong enough to do dive-bombing missions? Why did it fail to meet the structural requirements for conventional missions?

If Heinkel hated it so much, why was it ever built? Surely it was Heinkel who pushed the entire twin-engine principle? Not that there was anything wrong with the principle, although there were considerable problems with the DB606 and the detail design of the He177 installation. The later DB610 does not seem to have been anywhere near as troubled, but by then the dog had been given a bad name - and Germany could no longer afford a strategic bomber programme (not that it ever could, probably).

Heinkel's comments have the ring of self-justification after the event. After it had failed, he wanted to wash his hands of it and be seen as the one who had it right all along. OK, but had he not been pushing it in the first place it would never have been built. A prime cause of the failure of the He177 was lack of adequate attention in the design stages, not something Heinkel would have wished to highlight. Blaming the OKL - and the dead Udet - was mightily convenient.

Obviously there is something in the traditional story, but not in the black-and-white way it is told. Yes, Udet did have an obsession with divebombing, but there is no suggestion that this carried over to other 4-engined bombers like the Me264. Was it even a requirement of the twin-engined Bomber B programme?