The navalized Ju.87C, a rare variant, had landing gear that could be dispensed with for at-sea ditching via explosive bolts, which is understandable, but the feature was also adopted for the Ju.87D, which was largely a ground-attack weapon rather than a dive bomber and which, on the Eastern Front, wouldn’t be ditching in any case.
Anybody know why this unusual feature was adopted for a landplane that if anything would be force-landing on the Russian steppes where fixed gear wouldn’t be that much of a disadvantage?
By: Chad Veich - 29th September 2012 at 23:09
I would agree that being able to jettison the gear could be just as important over certain types of ground as it might be in a water landing. I’m no student of Stuka history so I must ask, are there any documented cases of this particular feature being utilized over either land or water?
By: Chad Veich - 29th September 2012 at 23:09
I would agree that being able to jettison the gear could be just as important over certain types of ground as it might be in a water landing. I’m no student of Stuka history so I must ask, are there any documented cases of this particular feature being utilized over either land or water?
By: Graham Boak - 29th September 2012 at 17:17
Can’t imagine adding a somewhat complex, potentially dangerous pyrotechnic system to an airplane just because it was on the shelf…
And by the time the Dora went into combat, it was a land war. The Stuka’s days as a ship-buster were over.
Your first point is well made – your second completely wrong. The Allied navies continued operating within range of German air power right up to the end of the war.
However, the decision about including the system will have been made in 1940 when it was realised that the Me210 was not going to replace the Ju87, so a development of this aircraft was required. If safety had later become a problem, then any pyrotechnic cartridge could surely be removed fairly readily and stored for replacement if desired?
By: Graham Boak - 29th September 2012 at 17:17
Can’t imagine adding a somewhat complex, potentially dangerous pyrotechnic system to an airplane just because it was on the shelf…
And by the time the Dora went into combat, it was a land war. The Stuka’s days as a ship-buster were over.
Your first point is well made – your second completely wrong. The Allied navies continued operating within range of German air power right up to the end of the war.
However, the decision about including the system will have been made in 1940 when it was realised that the Me210 was not going to replace the Ju87, so a development of this aircraft was required. If safety had later become a problem, then any pyrotechnic cartridge could surely be removed fairly readily and stored for replacement if desired?
By: Bager1968 - 29th September 2012 at 03:44
Indeed… sticking those gear legs into a bog upon touchdown could result in a forward-somersaulting Stuka… which would not end well for aircraft or crew!
By: Bager1968 - 29th September 2012 at 03:44
Indeed… sticking those gear legs into a bog upon touchdown could result in a forward-somersaulting Stuka… which would not end well for aircraft or crew!
By: Napper Bantock - 28th September 2012 at 23:09
I’d say simply because it sported fixed undercart.
Not an appealing situation to force land on soft or boggy ground with the Dunlops permanently dangling. In fact does any type with retracts call for gear down as an action item in the pre forced landing checklist?
I for one would want my belly baby smooth if a dead donkey lead me to pancake in a Russian wilderness!:eek:
By: Napper Bantock - 28th September 2012 at 23:09
I’d say simply because it sported fixed undercart.
Not an appealing situation to force land on soft or boggy ground with the Dunlops permanently dangling. In fact does any type with retracts call for gear down as an action item in the pre forced landing checklist?
I for one would want my belly baby smooth if a dead donkey lead me to pancake in a Russian wilderness!:eek:
By: Stepwilk - 28th September 2012 at 23:01
Can’t imagine adding a somewhat complex, potentially dangerous pyrotechnic system to an airplane just because it was on the shelf…
And by the time the Dora went into combat, it was a land war. The Stuka’s days as a ship-buster were over.
By: Stepwilk - 28th September 2012 at 23:01
Can’t imagine adding a somewhat complex, potentially dangerous pyrotechnic system to an airplane just because it was on the shelf…
And by the time the Dora went into combat, it was a land war. The Stuka’s days as a ship-buster were over.
By: Graham Boak - 28th September 2012 at 23:01
It may have ended up being largely used as a ground-attack aircraft on the steppes, but it was designed as a divebomber for wider use – as indeed it was so used. I suspect that the maritime option was always in mind, so it was easier to build it in from the start.
By: Graham Boak - 28th September 2012 at 23:01
It may have ended up being largely used as a ground-attack aircraft on the steppes, but it was designed as a divebomber for wider use – as indeed it was so used. I suspect that the maritime option was always in mind, so it was easier to build it in from the start.
By: GEK - 28th September 2012 at 22:55
Maybe as the mod was available, they adopted it for the Dora in case one leg was lost/damaged by flak etc. Don’t imagine a forced landing with only one intact leg would be too pleasant.
Geoff
By: GEK - 28th September 2012 at 22:55
Maybe as the mod was available, they adopted it for the Dora in case one leg was lost/damaged by flak etc. Don’t imagine a forced landing with only one intact leg would be too pleasant.
Geoff
Sign In
September 28, 2012 at 10:40 pm