Re: JU-87 with retractable undercarriage?

[Ragnar]

"rb" > wrote in message
...

> Secondly, why wasn't the original JU-87 ever given retractable
> undercarriage, it must have impinged on performance considerably?

Sure, it caused a lot of drag. I'd bet that it helped stabilized the
aircraft in a dive, though. And a stable dive-bombing platform is a good
thing.

[robert arndt]

rb > wrote in message >...
> I believe that a later model of the Ju-87 was designed with retractable
> undercarriage. Probably given a different model number as I think it
> might have been a bigger aircraft. I don't believe it ever flew (having
> been developed so late in the war). Anyone have any references?
> Secondly, why wasn't the original JU-87 ever given retractable
> undercarriage, it must have impinged on performance considerably?
> cheers
> rb

In 1941, work on improving the Ju-87 was started. The new model would
be the Ju-187 with rearward retractable gear, straight tapered wings,
and a 180 degree rotating tail unit that allowed the rear gunner an
unrestricted view for firing the auto-aiming twin MG-151 cannon
turret. Performance would increase in max speed from 186 mph to 242
mph and bombload now up to 4,409 lbs. One full scale mock-up was
completed before the RLM cancelled the project without reason in the
autumn of 1941.

Model:
http://www.hobbytek-idc.co.kr/m200/worldwar2/ju187-1.jpg
Mock-up under construction:
http://www.hobbytek-idc.co.kr/m200/worldwar2/ju187-3.jpg

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> rb > wrote in message
>...
> > I believe that a later model of the Ju-87 was designed with retractable
> > undercarriage. Probably given a different model number as I think it
> > might have been a bigger aircraft. I don't believe it ever flew (having
> > been developed so late in the war). Anyone have any references?
> > Secondly, why wasn't the original JU-87 ever given retractable
> > undercarriage, it must have impinged on performance considerably?
> > cheers
> > rb
>
> In 1941, work on improving the Ju-87 was started. The new model would
> be the Ju-187 with rearward retractable gear, straight tapered wings,
> and a 180 degree rotating tail unit that allowed the rear gunner an
> unrestricted view for firing the auto-aiming twin MG-151 cannon
> turret. Performance would increase in max speed from 186 mph to 242
> mph and bombload now up to 4,409 lbs. One full scale mock-up was
> completed before the RLM cancelled the project without reason in the
> autumn of 1941.
>

I think the reasons were fairly obvious. The new aircraft was
still nowehere near fast enough and the increase in light flak
made dive bombing more hazardous than it had been
earlier in the war. The fighterbombers such as the FW-190F
promised to be a better solution.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Hans-Joachim Maximilian]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> rb > wrote in message >...
> > I believe that a later model of the Ju-87 was designed with retractable
> > undercarriage. Probably given a different model number as I think it
> > might have been a bigger aircraft. I don't believe it ever flew (having
> > been developed so late in the war). Anyone have any references?
> > Secondly, why wasn't the original JU-87 ever given retractable
> > undercarriage, it must have impinged on performance considerably?
> > cheers
> > rb
>
> In 1941, work on improving the Ju-87 was started. The new model would
> be the Ju-187 with rearward retractable gear, straight tapered wings,
> and a 180 degree rotating tail unit that allowed the rear gunner an
> unrestricted view for firing the auto-aiming twin MG-151 cannon
> turret. Performance would increase in max speed from 186 mph to 242
> mph and bombload now up to 4,409 lbs. One full scale mock-up was
> completed before the RLM cancelled the project without reason in the
> autumn of 1941.
>
> Model:
> http://www.hobbytek-idc.co.kr/m200/worldwar2/ju187-1.jpg
> Mock-up under construction:
> http://www.hobbytek-idc.co.kr/m200/worldwar2/ju187-3.jpg
>
> Rob



Whatever close support piston-engined dive bomber they created it had
to have near perfect fighter protection. The equation always mandated
that the dive-bombers have protection.

Against badly organized aviation the Germans could be threadbare in
their fighter provision for close support escort duties.

It will not work against even a small air force which has the capacity
to task fighters to specific high value targets of opportunity.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Sure if they managed to bounce the Ju 87 however late war Ju87's had
> half the attrition rate of FW190s possibly becuase the rear crew
> member provided a very effective lookout and some return fire abillity


More likely becausethey couldnt be used in high threat
environments. The Luftwaffe was forced to withdraw them
from the BOB in 1940 as they were being slaughtered .

> but I admit because they were possibly escorted at a cost in
> resources. If employed effectively on the frontline instead of deep
> penetration with 'top cover' to plug tank break throughs and or to
> destroy fortifications during an advance it was a very effective
> aircraft able to deliver a 1500kg bomb within meters of a target or
> capable of penetrating 110mm to 140mm armour using 30mm or 37mm canon
> that was far more accurate than rocket firing aircraft.
>

True on the eastern front where the Soviets were unable
to provide the sort of air umbrella that was available in the
West from 1943 onwards. In the west JU-87's were unable
to make any real contribution from 1943 onwards.

> The need for the Ju87 was reduced because first of all the Luftwaffe
> achieved a great improvement in accuracy in 1942 With the introduction
> of the German gyroscopic reflector bombsight Lotfernrohr Lotfe 7 H,
> which automatically calculated drift during high-altitude horizontal
> bombing. Soviet bombers were outfitted with similar bombsights —
> OPB-1M or OPB-2M for daylight bombing, and NKPB-3, NKPB-4, or NKPB-7
> for nocturnal missions.
>

Trouble is the USAAF found with the Nordern in Europe you often
cant see the ground from high altitude let along targets on it.
Then there's the minor problem that vehicles and tanks can
move a long way while the bombs are in the air.

> The Stuvi computing dive bombing site made accurate delivery in 22
> degree dives possible with the aircraft descending from 8000ft to
> 5000ft at 400mph in a Ju88A thus a full 90 degree vertical screamer
> such as the Ju87 was not so important anymore. (A late war Ju88S
> could manage nearly 400mph in level flight)
>

Which was achieved by REMOVING much of its defensive
armament and the external bomb rack fittings.

> The Ju 187/287 would have been defended by 2 x 13.1mm and highvelocity
> 1 x 15mm canon in a remote controlled barbette with a tailplane the
> rotated out of the gunners field of fire and view so it would have had
> a powerfull counterpunch.
>
> http://www.luft46.com/junkers/ju187.html
>

It may have done a lot for the crews morale but it was
a pretty feeble armament compared with that carried
by any US medium or heavy bomber. It wouldnt have helped
much against a slashing high speed pass by a P-51 or
Spitfire IX.

> Clearly it wasn't worth pursuing but the Stormovik/Stuka concept since
> the allied air superiority was so great the concept lives on in
> aircraft such as the Fairchild A10 Warthog.
>

But only where air superiority can be assured and even then
standoff weapons are increasingly required.

> It seems to me that allied aircraft destroyed German logistics and
> light armour with heavy machine guns and light cannon. The rockets
> were inaccurate and often missed the tanks however a panther or tiger
> tank runs out of fuel pretty quick and it was hardly necessary to
> destroy them.

Indeed but those aircraft could defend themselves quite well
when it was required and were capable of 350 mph +
This is a quite different situation than that faced by a JU-87
pilot in 1944/5.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: JU-87 with retractable undercarriage?
>From: (Eunometic)
>Date: 8/5/2004 9:49 PM

>uftwaffe
>achieved a great improvement in accuracy in 1942 With the introduction
>of the German gyroscopic reflector bombsight Lotfernrohr Lotfe 7 H,
>which automatically calculated drift during high-altitude horizontal

All modern bombsights calculated drift and both the German and Russian sights
were variations of the Norden but neither could match US gyroscope technology
and they weren't; quite as good although they worked fairly well but with
poorer RCCTE.,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Sure if they managed to bounce the Ju 87 however late war Ju87's had
> > half the attrition rate of FW190s possibly becuase the rear crew
> > member provided a very effective lookout and some return fire abillity
>
> More likely becausethey couldnt be used in high threat
> environments. The Luftwaffe was forced to withdraw them
> from the BOB in 1940 as they were being slaughtered .

<snip>

To be more precise, they withdrew them so that they would be available to
support the invasion. "Slaughtered" is an over-used and inaccurate term,
and RAF Ju-87 kill claims during the BoB, while heavy, were very
exaggerated. But the point is, any a/c carrying bombs has to operate in an
environment of air superiority if it's to keep the loss rate acceptable over
the long term, unless its performance is such that it's impossible (or
nearly so) to intercept. That holds true for fighter-bombers as well as
anything else. Sure, the Jabos can jettison, but at that point they're no
longer fighter-bombers, just fighters who's primary mission has been aborted
by the defenses.

Guy

[The Enlightenment]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hans Rudel had fun too IN the Ju-87:
> > >
> > > http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm
> >
> >
> > I ready his book:- a good read. The determination of the man has to be
> > admired. When he gets his legs amputated and goes of and flies
missions
> > with the stumps still bleeding I thought it was a bit much.
> >
>
> How did he coordinate his turns?

He had temporary artificial tin legs. I don't think he could even walk in
them. As I recall he took of within 2 weeks of the amuputation and flew at
least 15 missions and shot up quite a few tanks. (I think his total was
about 500 tanks). He was a one man heavy bomber squadran.

[Bill Shatzer]

ArtKramr ) writes:

> Good thing they never made the JU 187.From what my fighter friends tell me the
> JU-87 was a lot of fun to shoot down.

Did American fighters ever face the Ju87?

Apart from North Africa and some limited use in Italy as night
harassment bombers, I had thought the Ju87s were restricted to
the Eastern Front and anti-partisan activities in the Balkans post-
1942.

Certainly not an aircraft the 8th or 9th AF would encounter at all
frequently.

Cheers and all,
--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Guy Alcala]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> ArtKramr ) writes:
>
> > Good thing they never made the JU 187.From what my fighter friends tell me the
> > JU-87 was a lot of fun to shoot down.
>
> Did American fighters ever face the Ju87?

<snip>

In North Africa and the MTO, sure. US/USAAF pilots flying P-38/39/40/Spitfires and
maybe A-36s could/did encounter them. Like any attack a/c the Stuka needed to
operate in an environment of air superiority if it weren't to suffer unsustainable
losses. Although well armored, it was too slow and underarmed to have any chance
against a fighter, barring a lucky shot.

Guy

[Cub Driver]

>
>Did American fighters ever face the Ju87?

The last airplane shot down by the (U.S.-built) Brewster "Buffalo"
fighter was a Ju-87, one of two destroyed in Finnish Lapland by the
Finnish Air Force as part of its surrender agreement with Russia.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Krztalizer]

>
>Did American fighters ever face the Ju87?
>

They were used all over, all through the war. During the 1945 massed jet raids
against the bridgehead at Remagen, over 75 jets (Ar 234s and Jabo 262s)
attacked the bridge, in concert with a sustained but uncoordinated attacks by
level and dive bombers, including the hapless Ju 87. People were shooting down
Stukas almost to the last day of the war, and production continued far too late
into the war.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Old hoodoo]

P-51's encountered a gaggle of ground strafer ju-87's at least once, I
think over Romania or Russia in 44 or 45. It was pretty much a massacre,
but 3 P-51's were purportedly lost...it is possible the heavily armed
ju-87's may have taken down these P-51's in the low altitude melee or maybe
they stalled and crashed, perhaps the 51's had reduced speed in order to get
at the slow Stukas in the unusual engagement.
I read about this in a P-51 book, maybe my memory is bad.

Al
"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
>
> ArtKramr ) writes:
>
> > Good thing they never made the JU 187.From what my fighter friends tell
me the
> > JU-87 was a lot of fun to shoot down.
>
> Did American fighters ever face the Ju87?
>
> Apart from North Africa and some limited use in Italy as night
> harassment bombers, I had thought the Ju87s were restricted to
> the Eastern Front and anti-partisan activities in the Balkans post-
> 1942.
>
> Certainly not an aircraft the 8th or 9th AF would encounter at all
> frequently.
>
> Cheers and all,
> --
>
>
> "Cave ab homine unius libri"