The Failed Bomber That Hamstrung Germany: Focke Wulf Fw 191

In this video, we take a look at the Focke-Wulf Fw 191, a German bomber from World War II that was part of the Bomber B or B Bomber project, a competition to build a new schnellbomber that would replace the Junkers Ju 88 and Dornier Do 17. We first talk about the preceeding project, Bomber A, and the attempt to construct new, higher-power engines in the Jumo 222 and DB 604. We talk about the general concept of Bomber B, and how it was to create a sort-of "superbomber". We talk about the candidates in the competition, in the Junkers Ju 288, Dornier Do 317, Arado E.340, and the Fw 191.
We then briefly go over the other three competitors, before talking about the Fw 191's rather bland, standard appearance, which covered the fact that it had an interesting internal difference that gave it the nickname of the "Flying Powerstation". We talk about the rather quick failure of the "powerstation" system, and how both the Fw 191 and the other competitors were harmed by the failure of the DB 604 and Jumo 222 engines. We talk about the attempts to save the projects, and end by talking about how their eventual failure had a cascading effect on the Luftwaffe as a whole.

[@michaelneuwirth3414]

I am now 60 years old and I am almost addicted to propeller-driven aeroplanes, which is why I have literally spent months on the Internet. That's why it's always amazing to me when German aeroplane models turn up that I didn't know about before. Sometimes I think that every second person in Germany must have been working on aeroplane designs in their garage or tool shed back then in order to produce such a variety of models and types as they did back then.

[@jimroberts3009]

@michaelneuwirth3414 I'm 72, when you get to my age you'll know a lot more aircraft including this one.

[@janmale7767]

The European is a creator of technological marvels, and to think the evil cabal wants us to misegenate us all!

[@BearfootBob]

War thunder is crack

[@robertmaybeth3434]

I've been studying WW2 since the 1970's, and to this day I still learn something new every month about it. There seems to be literally no end to important twists in the history, nor is there ever any shortage of fascinating personalities to read about.

[@johannesheidler1632]

Today, I looked at an old set of playing cards and saw this plane in it. I thought, huh, what fantasy. Yet lo and behold... I'm now watching this not because I searched for this plane, but because you uploaded it. What serendipity.

[@ludwigfabre2019]

Yep sometimes life is really weird

[@floycewhite6991]

Both the Germans and the British rue the day their air ministries passed on the chance to beat the world to jet power.

[@Calvin_Coolage]

Oh was in an aircraft identification playing card decks? I know they gave those out to US troops at various times in history.

[@weldonwin]

You can play a drinking game with this channel. Every time a potentially promising military aircraft project gets derailed because the proposed engines aren't available, take a drink

[@stephenskierski5633]

The He-177 was a 4-engine bomber but with only 2 propellers.

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

"KISS" is not in the German engineering mindset.

[@jorgewhite6658]

The RLM obsession with dive bombing was a strangle hold on many potential designs. I wonder how much weight was on average added to strengthen the airframes so the aircraft could dive bomb?

[@wbertie2604]

The UK, in the 1930s, had an obsession with catapult launching bombers. And making them easy to break down into parts you could put on a train. And fitting tanks onto trains.

[@allangibson8494]

@@wbertie2604All WW2 tanks were designed for train transport except the German Maus (including the Tiger). The biggest limiting factor was however the crane capacity on ships to move them across the sea to the front lines. The Me109 was specifically designed for rail transport because major structural damage couldn’t be repaired in the field (they had to be returned to the factory for repair).

[@politenessman3901]

@@wbertie2604 The reason rail transport was specified in almost every tank in WW2 is that they would break down if driven long distances.

[@wbertie2604]

@@allangibson8494 the Centurion arrived before VJ day and was not designed for transport by train.

[@wbertie2604]

@@allangibson8494 British 1930s BOMBERS were sometimes designed to break down into components for ease of transport, including by rail. Taking apart a tiny fighter is amateur stuff!

[@apis_aculei]

Like Avro Manchester with its coupled RollsRoyce Vulture engines , the Heinkel He177 had 2 coupled , in fact 4 single engines.

[@tallaster-g7s]

Except that the Avro Manchester did not have coupled engines. It had only two Rolls Royce Vulture engines.

[@maxmachac9756]

The RLM looking at a promising design about to order the dumbest design change requirements

[@twoheart7813]

The flying power station would be a cool name for a rock band.

[@allangibson8494]

Like the “Electric Light Orchestra”? (ELO as they were also known).

[@robertmaybeth3434]

...I made a comment on this too and OP deleted it (so he'll probably delete this one too but whatever). I am wondering now, if you're reading this, OP, why did you delete my comment? Vis: "So would the 'HE-177 'Grief'". I'm not angry just curious - seems an innocuous enough comment to me! If you are deleting comments like mine, why not just turn them off altogether.

[@oxcart4172]

Power Station were a kind of supergroup, but they weren't around long

[@jimh4375]

The German obsession with dive brakes is beyond madness.

[@AndrewGraziani-k7d]

Allow me to offer the rather generic "I agree".

[@randallkelley3600]

And twin engine aircraft.

[@z3r0_35]

I think they had the right idea going for high performance, but they should have ditched the dive bombing requirement and just made it as fast as possible in a straight line. If you need to hit a target accurately, fly lower, but stay fast. That's what made the Mosquito so effective for the RAF. Had they done this, the airframe wouldn't need to be as heavily built, which means it can be lighter, and they wouldn't need these stupidly complicated engines to power them.

[@robertmaybeth3434]

The idiotic luftwaffe requirement that every bomber (including the HE-177 Grief that at first showed so much promise) had to dive-bomb on demand, was mainly the fault of Ernst Udet. Udet was of course a very skilled pilot from WW1, and one of Goering's war comrades. Udet had no technical background nor education but defying all logic, he was placed over aircraft firms from Focke Wulf to Junkers. But when Goering put him in charge of procuring new aircraft, Udet knew he was way out of his depth and tried to resign, but Goering refused to accept it. This no doubt led to his suicide in 1941 as Goering had practically pressed the pistol into his hand - yet the stupid requirement that German bombers must dive-bomb was kept!

[@ronbutler3431]

I thought the He177 had four engines in two nacelles. Not a 'twin-engine' airplane?

[@robertmaybeth3434]

Heinkel's design was meant to get the power of two engines and the wind resistance and weight of one engine. Of course it didn't work like that, not for a long time. To do that all the parts were crowded together with literally no way for a mechanic to get a wrench inside. And that's why the engines were fire-prone as well, too much heat and no way to cool it.

[@BV-fr8bf]

@@robertmaybeth3434 The Germans fixed the He 177's 20+ engines design problems just in time to run out of fuel for bomber operations.

[@robertmaybeth3434]

@@BV-fr8bf That's awesome, did not know that! Was ever a plane's name more fitting than the HE-177 "Grief"? If Heinkel had perfected the design sooner, it might have made a significant difference to German fortunes, particularly on the eastern front. But I think less than 1,000 HE-177's were built in total, not nearly enough. And as bombers are offensive weapons, and Heinkel's Franken-plane was not ready until well into 1944 - by which time the Germans were on the defensive on all fronts.

[@stscc01]

​@robertmaybeth3434 I agree, "Grief" would have been a fitting name for the He-177, at least for English-speaking people. But it actually was named "Greif," a somewhat antiquated German word for bird of prey. 😅

[@ptonpc]

The background picture kept throwing me! A very interesting video, thanks :)

[@Andy_Ross1962]

The British produced the Napier Sabre X engine that powered the Hawker Typhoon and Hawker Tempest. These were also unreliable at first but were developed in to reliable power units. Rolls Royce also had the Eagle, a similar design.

[@DanRyan-v5y]

Interesting that so many aircraft designs from several countries failed due to the engines not performing as expected

[@Diego-zz1df]

2:13 Six rows of cylinders make it an in-line radial engine.

[@Dysfunctional_Reprint]

So they overengineered V engines by trying to recreate radials but accidentally invented hyperengines with even worse cooling. Only Germany man,

[@gort8203]

They were not trying to create a radial engine, or they would have made one. On a per cylinder displacement basis liquid cooled engines have advantages, and more cylinders meant more power, which is why Napier pursued an H-24 design. A lot of development went into the DB V-12s. Given the stress the German aero industry was under, mating two of them to produce a 24-cylinder engine was a shortcut to developing an H-24 rather than a radial. Cooling the engine itself wasn't really the problem, the problem was oil leaks that pooled in the nacelle. That's what caught fire. I suspect that two V-12s mated to a combination drive unit had a lot more potential oil leaks than a single V-12.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

The U.S. pursued development of the Allison V3420, an engine comprised of 2 Allison V1710 12 cylinder engines. The Italians built a 24 cylinder engine in the late 1920s and early 1930s, IIRC. The Russians tried a lot of odd engine designs, too. I think just about everyone tried _something_ along this line.

[@robertmaybeth3434]

I really like your narration style, you have got it down to near perfection, and it is MUCH better than AI voices! You sound like you've done the homework backwards and forwards, and the liberal use of still images is interesting. I wish you could occasionally mix in film of the aircraft too with all the still images, it would really lighten the video. Plus please mention more interesting points like production figures, nick-names (i.e. the HE-177 Grief was called by Hitler the "Flying Panther" due to massive problems with both weapons), what pilots, and their enemies, thought of the planes, et. al.,and then your videos would be even more interesting.

[@AtomicBabel]

All that electric drive! Shall we call this the Porche Tiger of the luffwaffer?

[@wolfsoldner9029]

Porsché

[@janmale7767]

My goodness i thought i know about all the reasonable regular aircraft of WW-2 (not all the experimental late war wunderwaffe) but seems one is never to old to learn!!

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Another Great video, keep 'em coming. :D

[@ppszthunder]

Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish pzl.23 karaś light bomber? Fun fact it was the first plane to bomb german soil in ww2 :)

[@johninnh4880]

I can't imagine just how many hours at night I wasted playing Wolfenstein. I loved that game!

[@kidmohair8151]

the algo-deities of the tube'y'all made me do this...

[@stevehofer3482]

The tale of the FW 191 reminds me of the Avro Manchester/Lancaster. The Manchester was designed to take advantage of two new-generation, super-powered engines - but the engines didn't work out. Instead of trying to force it forever, the powers that be quickly decided to substitute 4 proven Merlin engines, and the Lancaster became the most successful British bomber, and one of the most successful bombers overall. If FW would have done the same thing in 1942, they might have had a decent bomber.

[@wordsisnukes]

cool logo, my dude

[@stephenmeier4658]

(hears reference to something called "darkly comedic"): oh, honey, no

[@300guy]

Kurt Tank was a trained electrical engineer, not an aeronautical engineer, which he just kind of picked up along the way and I am sure the reason the FW190 had electrical rather than hydraulic systems.

[@BoomVang]

drag in the front gives squirrely handling - ask a twin prop pilot about carrier landings

[@GR46404]

I stopped listening at "24 cylinder liquid cooled inline engines". That would be one heck of a crankshaft.

[@robertneal4244]

Germany hasn't kept it simple since the 1870s. Sometimes this worked in their favor and the rest of the time it didn't.

[@JohnSmith-pl2bk]

Please get rid of the bot voice. There are millions of native English speakers: use one to narrate this wonderful subject content.

[@southronjr1570]

Yeah, hate to break it to you but I am pretty sure that's actually his voice, not a bot. I can recall a video some time back when he had been sick and his voice was a bit different, hence the reason I don't think he uses a bot

[@ds-il7ik]

These bot commenters are getting out of hand.

[@JohnSmith-pl2bk]

@@southronjr1570 Sorry, almost every word shows inflections that are not human... every word is broken into a single non- flowing part of the sentence... each word also has a rise and fall from the start of the word to the "back end" of the word.... completely artificial/mechanical/bot.

[@kentl7228]

I wonder if the companies could have simultaneously designed alternatives with hydraulics (Focke Wulf) and four standard engines. Like the Manchester to Lancaster...

[@stephenhaupt5672]

U r hilarious! Subscribed.

[@uingaeoc3905]

The HE 177 was FOUR ENGINED with two in each cowling - this caused more problems.

[@Bigrednumber77]

Ironic and darkly comedic. Exactly as all things should be.

[@BV-fr8bf]

Focke-Wulf (Kurt Tank) used electrical motors instead of hydraulic fluids, in order to increase reliability/functionality of a damaged aircraft and reduce weight. FW-190 did not have hydraulics...

[@greghardy9476]

Seriously, though, I’m surprised they never tried a electric aircraft. Single power plant centrally mounted inline engine driving a generator powering twin electric motors. It could be very streamlined, but, the technology just wasn’t there.

[@KevinBower-gy5be]

Can anyone identify the wacky-looking vehicle standing behind the bomber at 14:47 please? And what's with the stripes?

[@99somerville]

Looks like the rear of a Kubelwagen? The white stripes are probably to aid pilot visibility while taxing.

[@DanRyan-v5y]

Is it striped or is it corrugated? A close up suggests corrugated if you look at the sign/ badge on the back(?) still don't know though.

[@chrishartley4553]

Glad I'm not the only one to wonder this. As per the other replies its definitely not a (VW) Kubelwagen. The only curves on those are the wheels. And the stripes are painted on. I would guess its a commandeered civvy car that is a bit too out-dated for the officers to drive about in and so a better another use for it was found.

[@dubyacwh7978]

Sadly, I will no longer be watching any more videos on KZbin. KZbin has decided that they want to monetize everything to the point where you’re watching a car show every four minutes unless you buy a subscription well you know what KZbin you can pound sand

[@aabumble9954]

The fw 191 look like it stole the cockpit from a b-29 to me.

[@gort8203]

The He-111 and other German designs might beg to differ.

[@gort8203]

Can someone explain why the drag of two more propellers would make dive bombing too difficult. Dive bomber were equipped with powerful dive brake because they needed extra drag to control speed in a near vertical drive. Maybe extra propellers would eliminate the need for sperate dive brakes all together, and you can reduce propeller drag by increasing power, so I suspect there might be some other reason than simple excess drag.

[@gratefulguy4130]

How the drag gets distributed is very important

[@wbertie2604]

It's also the weight of two additional engines further out that's an issue.

[@gort8203]

@@gratefulguy4130 Why?

[@gort8203]

@@wbertie2604 Why?

[@wbertie2604]

@@gort8203 because wings flex. Weight further out needs sufficient structure to avoid, on pulling out of a dive, the wings failing in the outboard section unless you use an incredibly strong and thus heavy outer wing structure. And then, with more weight outboard due to the heavier structure, you need to strengthen the inner wing more. Before long, the wing gets too heavy and the thing can barely fly. If the weight is inboard, you can make a strong centre section, which is short and also relatively thick, without excessive overall weight. There are some options with less conventional structures such as very thick skins and using steel, but very few aircraft have used such techniques because they haven't really been all that successful. At least for subsonic aircraft.

[@georgivanev7466]

''Babe, wake up. IHYLS just dropped a new vid.''

[@randallkelley3600]

Just how many models of twin engine aircraft did the Germans have?

[@erikc.1087]

24 minutes where y'all at

[@banditkfk1463]

I hope this is ai voice speaking

[@clockdva20]

Nazi Germany's long Range Bomber program and other better thought out Aircraft really die when Walther Wever was killed in an Aircrash in 1936. He championed strategic Bombing as a means to defeat an Enemy, he supported servearl long range Bomber programs he knew the importance of having long range Bomber in any future War with Russia or Europe, Those that replaced him though championed short range Bombers and Dive Bombers, they all fell for the quick victory, and failed to see the short coming of their Medium Bombers once they were no longer tied to combined support of ground forces, those short comings would first surface during the Battle of Britain, and then amplified in the East against Russia whom quickly moved all its production factories out of range of the Luftwaffe's Bomber Forces the other side of the Ural Mountians. Even once they realised their mistakes instead of just building a larg Four Engined Heavy, they instead tried to turning the tried and tested Meduim format into a fast medium with a larger payload. If building multi cyclinder engines had been possible I am the USA would have tried the same and even they ran into the same sort of issues with the Later Pratt and Whitney multi cylinder engines in the B29 Bomber. The other limiting factor even if they had the equivalent of a Lancaster if B17. Then they would have needed the equivalent Me or FW version of the Mustang escort fighter. Like most plans German military planners came up with in the inter war years, all were unravelled once the Nazi's came to power. German military re-arming never reached its planned completion date because Hitler was a gambler when his Gamble invading Poland set WW2 rolling the Military was not really ready for the forthcoming conflict especially and long conflict on serveral fronts ,luckly for the world it was that way though millions had the pay with their lives. Thanks for another intresting insite into Aircraft that never really mad it into combat 😮

[@Sacto1654]

Interestingly, the Ju 288 technically won the _Bomber A_ competition, but Junkers ran into a lot of issues getting the Jumo 222 delivered for the plane and by late 1942, the later Ju 288 prototypes were using the Daimler-Benz DB 610 engine. Had the Jumo 222 actually worked correctly by early 1942, it's likely the first Ju 288 units would would have started operations by early 1943.

[@dziban303]

maybe you should watch the video before commenting

[@wbertie2604]

He-177 was Bomber A, Ju-288 was Bomber B.

[@lycossurfer8851]

@2:32......maybe a different shape would have caused fewer issues....just sayin'.

[@peterpreble7500]

HE 177 was not a twin-engine.

[@weldonwin]

It had four engines, two per engine nacelle and because they were packed in so tightly, they overheated rapidly, which was a major cause of the near constant engine fires

[@oxcart4172]

You could say that it tanked!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

It's funny how people question why the RAF stuck with rifle calibre defensive armourments on its bombers but remain silent of the Germans doing the same.

[@malusignatius]

Germany didn't though. It's not universal, but there's a few German mid to late war bombers with 20mm cannon as defensive weapons.

[@gratefulguy4130]

Because they switched to 13mm pretty early & even used 20mm. The Brits just rocked rifle only for way too long

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@malusignatius He177 - still had 1 7.92mm machine gun, alongside 213mmhwchine guns and 2 20mm cannon, and the Do 317 still had 2 7.92mm machine guns plus 3 13mm machine guns and a 15mm cannon.the Fw181 had 4 7.92mm machine guns plus 2 20mm cannons. So, although they were moving to the larger calibre guns, they were still relying on the smaller calibre weapons. Only Junkers had ditched the 7.92mm guns.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@gratefulguy4130 only Junkers, of the major design companies, dropped the 7.92mm guns, the rest of them kept them.

[@vinceely2906]

@@gratefulguy4130 I think it was because British just had so much .303 plus no real chance (at the time) of getting anything else.

[@DerDude1977]

I really dislike those AI voices. And wasn't the HE-177 a four engine bomber with just two propellers?!

[@paulhelman2376]

The He 177 was four engined not twin engine

[@wbertie2604]

Technically, the DB 610 is one engine, even if functionally barely so.

[@richmorg8196]

I thought it had a twin propeller set one behind the other that spun in different direction

[@wbertie2604]

@@richmorg8196 no. There are a few engines like that, such as the Double Mamba of the Fairey Gannet, but the DB-610 has only one prop.

[@paintnamer6403]

The He 177 was a four engine, one engine infront the other hence overheating and catching fire.

[@EngineEnginer]

they were packed in pairs side-by-side and geared together

[@gort8203]

@@EngineEnginer Thank you for that. I don't know where the myth that these engines were connected in tandem comes from but this is the second time I've seen it today.

[@dallesamllhals9161]

Avro Manchester FTW ...

[@polocathmhaoil9141]

Why is this guy incapable of pronouncing the name of the German airforce?

[@cnfuzz]

Dornyeah no , Dorni-er yes

[@iankemp2627]

KISS = Keep It Simple Stalin?

[@dougscott8161]

What a mess!!!

[@scootergeorge7089]

KISS does not translate to German.

[@samaguirre3283]

KISS is an acronym for Keep It Straight and Simple not keep it simply stupid

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

That's not what I was taught. Straight had nothing to do with the acronym.

[@samaguirre3283]

@@WALTERBROADDUS straight mean nothing fancy just plain even boring, but a safe bet

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@samaguirre3283 the kiss principle was taught to me many decades ago as, "Keep it simple and Stupid." It's also the Google definition and Wikipedia one.

[@ramjet4025]

This video drones on and on, its just too long on this subject.

[@mathewkelly9968]

In defence of Japanese Kamikaze planes they typically didnt burst into flames themselves .......... so much for superior German Engineering , but as anyone whose owned a German Car will tell you "over engineeered" isnt the same as "superior engineering" . The moral of the story ? Buy Japanese

[@garypoulton7311]

Luffftwaffe!

[@TheRedMartian]

First! Hehehehe

[@FRiT1001]

:

[@dindrmindr626]

LUFT waffe for fu*** sake not LOFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@weldonwin]

This didn't bother me, it's not like Found and Explained making me physically wince every two minutes as they butcher every vaguely foreign word

[@dindrmindr626]

@@weldonwin but it's such well knows word and used sooo often. it's impossible to f** it up.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Obviously, when they were designing this stuff, they weren't thinking about the poor mechanics who would be forced to service it in sub-zero temperatures on the Russian Front. Same with tanks. Coupled engines-the British tried it, the Germans tried it, and then the American$$$$ tried it. They needed a 2000hp engine, fast, and could have simply built the R-2800, reverse-engineered, from a captured Thunderbolt. They were just wedded to the Schnellbomber concept, and couldn't shake it. 4 BMW 801's would have made a nice high-speed bomber if you leave off all the 'accessories' like turrets and dive brakes. You might lose a few more planes that way, but you're not losing a large crew of gunners in the process.

[@alanpennie8013]

Amusing that FW's final design was effectively an imitation of British 4 - engine bomber. The Germans were always inclined to get too fancy.

[@wbertie2604]

Even in the UK, they had the Halifax swapped to a four engined design prior to any prototype due to scepticism about the Vulture. Not that HP wanted to use the Merlin either. The RAF was very keen on putting Sabres in things, though, although in the end only the Typhoon and Tempest actually did.

[@chrishartley4553]

@@wbertie2604 And the Lancaster was just a straight up 4 Merlin engined version of the twin Vulture Manchester. The scepticism was well placed. Napier seemed to be one of the few companies that had success with multi-bank aero engines.

[@wbertie2604]

@@chrishartley4553 and Napier had issues

[@onenote6619]

Yet another WW2 German airframe designed around non-existent engines.

[@madigorfkgoogle9349]

Jesus, Heinkel He-177 a twin engine bomber? What the hell, it was four engine bomber, do your research before making historical videos. Now how can we take for granted the rest of the video?

[@wbertie2604]

It was a twin engined bomber. Whilst the design of the DB-610 was barely beyond two DB-605s lashed together, it still counts as one engine, and the He-177 a twin-engined plane.

[@madigorfkgoogle9349]

@@wbertie2604 which means it was four engine design with two engine nacelles and two propellers. DB-610 was two DB-605s separate engines connected at the crankshaft front via reductor to single prop shaft. That means it was two engines not one, the "solution" was called DB-610 but it was still two standard DB-605s engines. So the He-177 was a four engine airplane, not two engine.

[@MisterOcclusion]

Arguing semantics does not make you correct. The 610 was a single, non-divisible power unit. It was installed, operated, serviced, and replaced as a single power unit. It is one engine. Do you also argue that the Chrysler multi bank tank motor was 5 engines?

[@madigorfkgoogle9349]

@@MisterOcclusion again, the DB-610 engine is NOT a single engine, in fact in German its called Doppelmotor (which translates into English as DoubleEngine). This is from the German manuals not my invention. Also tell me, why the He-177 has four throttle levers, actually 4 for the pilot and another 4 for the board engineer? Isnt it to synchronize all 4 engines to same RPMs not to destroy the reductor (since two DB-605 never run same)? Why are there four clutch adjustment levers? Why are there four RPMs gauges, why are there 4 boost gauges? Why are there 4 primers... Just because it is a two engine plane, right? Do you know the plane at all? Also you are wrong with non-divisible power unit, you can pull out any single DB-605 out of the DB-610 pack and fit it inside any other plane that was based on DB-605 without any change, same is true in opposite. The only difference is that on one DB-605 inside the DB-610 pack different booster has to be fitted so it is not interfering with the other DB-605 in the pack. So yes, it is fully divisible pack of two engines connected with reductor block with clutches. Do you argue that Arsenal VB-10 was a single engine airplane? Do you argue that LearAvia LearFan 2100 was a single engine airplane? And while you might think that the Chrysler Pentastar engine is same concept as the DB-610, you are very wrong. The Pentastar is based on 5 Chrysler flatheads, but those are modified, some parts are removed, like the bottom crank case cover or the oil pump, and all engines tops are mounted on special purpose crank shaft bottom with five pans, but all as a single unit. If you disassemble the Pentastar, you cant use it as five flatheads and mount them into five Chrysler cars, that would never work. The Pentastar is as you called it non-divisible unit, but its very different to DB-610 concept.

[@wbertie2604]

@@madigorfkgoogle9349 the Double Mamba counts as a single engine (for the reasons noted above) and you could turn one half off and they powered separate halves of the contra rotating prop system. But it still counts as one engine. The DB-610 is not as integrated as something like the Vulture, but is more integrated than the Double Mamba.

[@RaisedbyaWildPackofCigarettes]

I'll tell you what, the cockpit visibility is not so good. I fly one in VR all the time, they tried to go with this maximum range visibility look, but they put way too many struts in it. It's like you're flying a giant set of Kanye shades, but too far to see through them.