dark light

  • MSW

Junkers Ju87 Stuka

I Just wondered if there are any examples of this aircraft still flying anywhere in the world.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,053

Send private message

By: contrailjj - 28th October 2007 at 21:29

Ju87 flying replicas

There had been 2 7/10 scale replicas flying in the US…

The first (N87LL), built by Louis Langhurst in 1979, still has an airworthiness certificate and is owned by Mitchell Sammons in Belgade, Maine.

The second N87DK (T6+KL) was built in 1986 by Richard Kurzenburger and crashed in 2000 and had been based at Horsehead NY – FAA lists its status as ‘In Question’.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 28th October 2007 at 16:49

I disagree. Many museum aircraft have been restored to an airworthy condition, even though there were never any plans to fly them. They are there for (IMHO) ‘virtually airworthy’. When only a piece of paper stands in the way of an aircraft being able to fly, then I would agree with Creaking Door and say that the aircraft is “Virtually Airworthy”.

Whatever you say, but in my experience its the ‘piece of paper’ or rather obtaining it that can be the biggest challenge in restoring aircraft. I do understand what you are saying though. I think the suggestion is that an aircraft can be restored or preseved in a functional state, it can, but the reality is that the unless all aspects of its systems are regularly exercised, ideally in flight and there is paperwork, permits etc to allow that to happen the aircraft cannot be considered ‘ airworthy’. If you want to adopt a term ‘virtually airworthy’ to cover this functional state than fair enough but its not something that is widely recognised.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

790

Send private message

By: VX927 - 28th October 2007 at 13:59

No aircraft can be considered ‘virtually’ airworthy. It either is or is not.

I disagree. Many museum aircraft have been restored to an airworthy condition, even though there were never any plans to fly them. They are there for (IMHO) ‘virtually airworthy’. When only a piece of paper stands in the way of an aircraft being able to fly, then I would agree with Creaking Door and say that the aircraft is “Virtually Airworthy”.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

7,646

Send private message

By: JDK - 28th October 2007 at 12:49

I heard Viv Bellamy considered flying the RAFM Stuka for The Battle Of Britainfilm, but even he backed down! Large scale models were used instead.

Two stories muddled there. The RAFM Stuka was considered, and IIRC was got running, but had electrical problems, and never moved.

Viv Bellamy rebuilt a couple of Proctors into ‘Stukas’ which became known as ‘Proctukas’. The first one exhibited some scary flying characteristics, was considered unsafe to dive and didn’t look very like a Stuka anyway, so they were abandoned, and models used throughout. (A good article by Gary Brown in the first issue of Warbird Digest BTW.)

Because the RAFM machine was expected to be used, the models were intended to ‘double’ for it, so are the later version, not the type used in the Battle.

* * *

As well as the same letters, the scale Stuka ‘lookalikes’ in this thread ‘both’ have the same camouflage pattern… Most likely the same machine re-engined and with minor colour changes.

Cheers,

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,672

Send private message

By: pagen01 - 28th October 2007 at 11:27

I heard Viv Bellamy considered flying the RAFM Stuka for The Battle Of Britainfilm, but even he backed down! Large scale models were used instead.
Wouldnt like to see the RAFM Stuka fly (or indeed any of their German types), just to rare and prized.

That scale replica looks very good though.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 28th October 2007 at 11:01

Isn’t the Stuka at Hendon virtually ‘airworthy’ – complete and with a ‘run-able’ engine?

No aircraft can be considered ‘virtually’ airworthy. It either is or is not. This machine is certainly very complete and was considered for flight for the BoB film in 1968, but that was thirty-nine years ago!

What is the state of the airframe corrosion-wise (has it spent much time outside) considering how strongly-built it must be?

It would need a full in-depth survey to reveal that information.

How much of a rebuild would be required for a limited flying career?

Anything less than a full and comprehensive re-build would be very unlikely considering the age of the aircraft.

Not really seriously considering this viable given limited funding and other priorities but what do others think given the ‘value’ of it as a rare intact example?

As one of the rarest aircraft in the RAF Museum collection any suggestion to fly it (even with funding in hand) would not get very far I am afraid.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

195

Send private message

By: Rich82 - 28th October 2007 at 10:59

RLM Stuka?

What about the Stuka that Glenn Lacey was restoring at the now ex-RLM Aviation?

What happened to that project of his? Come to think of it, what happened to the 109 he had and the 190?

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

12,419

Send private message

By: Creaking Door - 28th October 2007 at 10:44

Isn’t the Stuka at Hendon virtually ‘airworthy’ – complete and with a ‘run-able’ engine?

What is the state of the airframe corrosion-wise (has it spent much time outside) considering how strongly-built it must be? How much of a rebuild would be required for a limited flying career?

Not really seriously considering this viable given limited funding and other priorities but what do others think given the ‘value’ of it as a rare intact example?

It would certainly pull the crowds at a display! 🙂

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,029

Send private message

By: Flanker_man - 28th October 2007 at 10:08

Ken, if you compare the different noses – they look different in many details…

Martin

I did notice that – and the props are different.

I assume that there might have been an engine change ???

If they are completely different aircraft – maybe made from the same plans? – it is interesting that they both have the same German code letters!

Maybe the originator of the scale replica in the Ukraine then sold his plans to a Russian???

No doubt someone will have an answer……

Ken

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,573

Send private message

By: wieesso - 28th October 2007 at 10:04

They look very similar….. 😮
Edit:- I have just noticed that the have the same ‘German’ code – DA + 6T – the one at MAKS also has a Russian reg RA-0565G
They may be the same machine :confused:
Ken

Ken, if you compare the different noses – they look different in many details…

Martin

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,029

Send private message

By: Flanker_man - 28th October 2007 at 09:39

As far as I know there is no Stuka flying. There was word on one on rebuilt to fly. Maybe there is a scaled one flying?

Herman

There was a scale replica of a Ju-87 in Moscow – at Zhukovsky for MAKS 07:-
http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/moscow_2007_files/day03_060.jpg

I’m not sure about it’s provenance though.

In 2004 I photographed this one at the Moscow ‘Flying Legends’ show held at Monino – I was told that it is from the Ukraine…

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/moscow_2004_files/day02_36.jpg

They look very similar….. 😮

Edit:- I have just noticed that the have the same ‘German’ code – DA + 6T – the one at MAKS also has a Russian reg RA-0565G

They may be the same machine :confused:

Ken

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

263

Send private message

By: flyingcloggie - 28th October 2007 at 08:00

I Just wondered if there are any examples of this aircraft still flying anywhere in the world.

As far as I know there is no Stuka flying. There was word on one on rebuilt to fly. Maybe there is a scaled one flying?

Herman

Sign in to post a reply