Chris Goss's Do.17 picture book

[Graham Boak]

Lovely collection of photos, but the text doesn't seem to be up to the standard of CG's specialist researches.

I thought that the propaganda story of the Do 17's origins had been discarded, but here it is again. In the midst of the highly militaristic 3rd Reich, Dornier produced a low-drag fast twin with a totally unsuitable passenger compartment. It was rejected by Lufthansa, until a passing airline pilot saw it and thought "Ah. That might make a good bomber. I must tell the Air Ministry about it!" Yeah, pull the other one!

More seriously - surely this fairy tale has been corrected?

There are a couple of other minor items requiring additions/corrections. Bulgaria was another operator of the Do 17M. Romania also had Do 17Ps. T5 is not just the code for a weather unit but the ObdL's experimental reconnaissance unit - Kommand Rowehl, operator of many secret overflights. Sadly the excellent collection of photos does not include the now familiar ones of an S-0 shot down by French fighters in the Phoney War.

The book is well worth buying for the photographic content: well produced large images of an often-neglected type. The captions are usually informative.

[Chris Goss]

Graham and All

Thanks for your constructive comments and for buying it! I agree that the text was not on a par with, say, 'Bloody Biscay' but the idea was to follow previous books in the Red Kite series (concentration on good photos with enlightening text only) and that this one being the first German one (and was a little different than the RAF/USAAF predecessors).

As to the reasons for its adoption as a bomber, I did give the party line as well as the 'oh, its not suitable as a Lufthansa aircraft' story-I could find no firm evidence to support it was a propaganda spin but the initial versions did have the ability to carry passengers and mail (even though it would have been very uncomfortable!).

Agree that Romania had a few (this was passed to the publisher) and thanks for the Bulgarian info. Agree also that T5 was OBdL-I have photos of this on the S-0 and Do 215s; did not include the S-0 crash-landed photo as it was just another crash landed Do 17 (we could have put in 100s of these!) and did not show the camera installations.

Thanks also for your final comment-I wanted to do the Do 17 as it was almost obsolete by the Bof B and there appeared to be little published on it showing good photos

Chris

[Pawel Burchard]

Originally Posted by Chris Goss

I could find no firm evidence to support it was a propaganda spin but the initial versions did have the ability to carry passengers and mail (even though it would have been very uncomfortable!).

I personaly do not find it a crucial problem - but Chris, I believe there is enough firm evidence in excellent articles by Karl Kössler in Luftfahrt International on Do 17 early development.

Kind regards,
Pawel

[Franek Grabowski]

Chris
In such cases it is hard to find any evidence. A very nice comparison may be to M-15 Belphegor, a jet crop duster. While it was officialy designed for agricultural work and you will find no document stating otherwise, everyone involved in the project knew it was a combat aircraft. At the time, WaPac was very impressed by US use of chemical weapons against Viet-Cong and started very own programme. Of course, commies could not admit, they were developing weapon system of mass destruction, hence crop duster legend.
To be frank, however, it was a very common excuse used by everyone.
Regarding Do 17, I understand similar excuse was used in case of Ju 86 and He 111. Perhaps presence of seats had more to a bomber-transport concept of the period (eg. Stirling), rather than any civilian use?

[mrtn001]

Originally Posted by Pawel Burchard

I personaly do not find it a crucial problem - but Chris, I believe there is enough firm evidence in excellent articles by Karl Kössler in Luftfahrt International on Do 17 early development.

Kind regards,
Pawel

Hello Pawel,
would you be so kind to send me a scan of this Kössler's articles? I'm preparing a profile book about the Do 17/215/217/317 and I urgently need more precise information about the early development of the Do 17 (especially the prototypes in span of V1 - V21). In a variety of books I found a variety of informations and it is very hard to say which source is near to truth. It seems that these articles may be the credible source. I will very appreciate your help.

Thanks in advance
Martin Nový

[Pawel Burchard]

Sure, give me your email address.

regards,
Pawel

[pstrany]

Since there seem to be a number of people of knowledge regarding the Do 17 present, I will take advantage of this to ask a few questions that you perhaps might be able to answer.
First, does anyone have a clear picture of the engine intake for the Bramo-engined variants? It is an interesting shape, with what appears to be a baffle of some sort in the throat?
Next, has anyone ever mapped out the tubes and rods in the engine face? visible are the engine pushrods, but also what appears to be quite a few rods that appear to be bracing the front of the cowling. I so far have not been able to map out a pattern for these.
Lastly, there are what appears to be 4 skylights in the bomb bay, one over each bomb rack. Are these indeed skylights, and what is their purpose?

Paul

[Pilot]

This additional rod are actually holder to the cowling. They are placed on the cylinder. But there is also pair of small tube air intakes. Bomb bay is visible from the cockpit and only purpose of this light is ti indicate bomb release in the night condition. But this could be on later version of the Do17, maybe M.