# B-25 vs. Ju-88



## V-1710 (Jun 26, 2006)

A quick check of the specifications reveals these to were pretty close.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2006)

this's a very odd comparison? in what way do you mean? if they were dogfighting each other? or just comparing their stats in the bombing role? or the anti-shipping role? we're gonna need to know more about what you mean, however if it's a dogfight i'm gonna have to say Ju-88..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2006)

These too aircraft were both very versatile but I think overall the Ju-88 has the edge. It is certainly one of the most versatile aircraft of WW2. If the two aircraft were to get into a Dogfight I would have to go with the Ju-88 as well. It was used as a night fighter and had experience in a fighter type role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2006)

i don't think anyone can argue with the Ju-88 shooting the B-25 outta the sky... so what about say, anti-shipping? which would you back? do we go for a bog standard bomber 88 or soemthing with a large cannon or missiles?


----------



## Twitch (Jun 26, 2006)

The Ju 88 and the B-25 may have been equally versitle but the fact was exploited more so with the many variants of the Junkers.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2006)

I think the B25 gunship versions would be the one that could blow a JU88 out of the air. 10 .50's in the nose, two .50's's in the tail, two .50's in the upper turret and one .50 on each side would mean that no matter how well the -88 maneuvered (or where), someone on the B25 is going to get a shot at it.

They were two great medium bombers, but I would say the B25 had the edge on anti shipping and ground attack.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2006)

The Ju-88 is a formidable anti shipping plane. One of the few to carry two torpedoes or a huge payload. But I think the B-25 carried at least some of the radar guided anti shipping missiles, didn´t they?
I am sure that the Ju-88 didn´t carry Fritz-X or Hs294 (He-177 and Do-217 did), so I would put it on a slight disadvantage here. Not decisively but worth to mention.


----------



## V-1710 (Jun 27, 2006)

They were both designed as medium level bombers, and comparing them as such reveals very similar performance. Both were to prove very versitle, the JU-88 being developed into night fighter and ground attack variants, and the B-25 as a ground attack and Navy patrol bomber. I believe there were instances of B-25's shooting down G4M and Ki-21 bombers.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jun 27, 2006)

Probably, there were even reports of b-25's shooting down japanese fighters.


----------



## R988 (Jun 27, 2006)

Aggie08 said:


> Probably, there were even reports of b-25's shooting down japanese fighters.



Not surprising really with all that firepower including turrets and the Japanese fighters usually being contructed of petrol tanks wrapped with balsa wood and old newspapers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2006)

I think one would have to compare them in each roles and I think the Ju-88 has the B-25 in number of roles and most importanly maneuverability. So in that case teh Ju-88 wins.

I dont know if one can say the B-25 was better in the anti shipping roles. We would need statistics to prove this.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2006)

Agreed Adler.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2006)

The gunship B25's in the low level antishipping role would have the edge because of the massed .50's in the nose and the 75mm cannon.

I dont think the -88 had a weapons combo like that.

The -88 could carry torpedo's, but the Allies in the SW pacific found skip bombing to be more effective than torpedo attacks.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The gunship B25's in the low level antishipping role would have the edge because of the massed .50's in the nose and the 75mm cannon.



Wasn't that the gun which would pull itself loose after just 1-2 shots, instantly rendering the weapon hopelessly inaccurate ? 



> I dont think the -88 had a weapons combo like that.



How about the Ju-88P-4 armed with one 75mm Pak40 anti-tank cannon plus or two 37mm Flak-38 cannons, or what about the G-1 armed with 6x20mm cannons, I'd say thats packing a punch !



> The -88 could carry torpedo's, but the Allies in the SW pacific found skip bombing to be more effective than torpedo attacks.



Allied torpedo's = crap.

Load up a Ju-88 with a T5 Zaunkönig torpedo and watch the fireworks!


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2006)

I admit my vote is with the Ju88.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 27, 2006)

My vote is also with the Ju-88. I agree with the points you made Adler.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2006)

Soren said:


> Wasn't that the gun which would pull itself loose after just 1-2 shots, instantly rendering the weapon hopelessly inaccurate ?
> 
> 
> > No evidence of that happening, although the sheet metal near it would work loose requireing reriveting once in awhile.
> ...


----------



## delcyros (Jun 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It still has to come in slow to drop it. Skip bombing means you can come in far faster with less exposure time, drop several bombs (vs two torpedo's for the -88) that have very little chance of malfunctioning, that will skip along the water at the speed of the airplane and hit the target before it could maneuver out of the way.
> 
> For low altitude anti-shipping, the B25 s best.




This always depends on what thread scenario You estimate. Against a single, large ship, which need to be taken out, now (either merchant or not) the torpedo is more effective, against a better defended target You might want skip bombing (have to point out that Skip bombing was a particularly tatcic used by Ju88 /188 in the anti-shipping role) for the expense of accuracy and destructive force. 
By the way, T-5 Zaunkönig couldn´t have been loaded on airplanes.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2006)

delcyros said:


> By the way, T-5 Zaunkönig couldn´t have been loaded on airplanes.



The vital internal parts being too sensitive ? 

In any case the F5 would prove very destructive as-well..


----------



## Aggie08 (Jun 27, 2006)

My vote goes to the B-25, for anti-shipping at least. The Ju-88 was much more versatile though, so it takes the cake in most other places.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2006)

Hard to compare the two appropiately with my data. Maybe a B-25G vs. a late Ju88A in '43. The 88 is a bit faster (about 10mph) and a slightly better wing loading (at empty weight) and has some manuevering advantage. Don't know role rates. The B-25 has much better load carrying capability (empty vs. max) and a significantly better range. No contest in defensive armament, the B-25 was a porcupine compared to the 88. As a pure medium range bomber, with the bomb load, armament, and range, the B-25 takes the cake. If you had to fly one of these planes with max load of bombs over England in '39, I think you would be wise to select the B-25. Neither would manuever well and the B-25 armament would hold sway. As far as a dogfight between the two, I don't know. However, I doubt a Ju88 would want to be in a turning dofight with the B-25 and staring down the barrel of four Ma Deuces. Shorter turning radius of Ju88 just makes it worse. Ju88 could probably use other techniques though.

Both were great aircraft and represent the peak of WWII medium range bombers.

I guess my vote would be for the B-25 because of load, range, and firepower. Of course, since each has so many versions, this opinion could vary on mission.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

The -88 had liquid cooled engines. The -25 had air cooled engines. Operations at low levels guarentee's you will be shot at and hit. Better to have no radiators to get damaged.

My vote is the B25.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

For anti-tank purposes the Ju-88 is superior, and as a night-fighter the Ju-88 is superior, and for anti-shipping roles I'd say its superior as-well - being capable of carrying a torpedo. 

The only area(s) where I can see the B25 is superior, is in defensive armament and bomb-load, other than that there's nothing.

Oh and davparlr, about your argument that you wouldn't want to be on the B25's tail, well first of all that wasn't a problem as the Ju-88's armament allowed to engage at ranges well out of reach for the B25's defensive armament. And secondly since the Ju-88 was a far more agile machine, it could come in from nearly any angle it would like. So in a 1 on 1 the Ju-88 is clearly superior.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The -88 had liquid cooled engines. The -25 had air cooled engines. Operations at low levels guarentee's you will be shot at and hit. Better to have no radiators to get damaged.
> 
> My vote is the B25.



syscom3, later Ju-88's had air-cooled radial engines as-well, the BMW-801 engine to be exact, and these were fast as-well with a top speed of ~630km/h.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2006)

Soren said:


> Oh and davparlr, about your argument that you wouldn't want to be on the B25's tail, well first of all that wasn't a problem as the Ju-88's armament allowed to engage at ranges well out of reach for the B25's defensive armament. And secondly since the Ju-88 was a far more agile machine, it could come in from nearly any angle it would like. So in a 1 on 1 the Ju-88 is clearly superior.



As I stated, different versions of the planes could change the balance. As a bomber version, the Ju88 armament was pathetic. One can always find a combination where one plane outperforms the other. As the comment is made about the Ju-88 being far more agile, I don't know if the data supports that. The Ju-88 was indeed used in fighter roles that the B-25 was not, but I don't know if we have any data on the manueverablility of the B-25. I only have wing loading at empty or max weight. The B-25 was a rugged old bird and I suspect you could yank and bank it pretty good. For aircraft of similar speed and wingloading, the comment that the Ju-88 could attack at any angle it wanted to seems hard to imagine. It makes an image of a mockingbird chasing a crow. That's only possible because the crow flies so slowly. At similar speeds the mockingbird would be looking into those Ma Deuces.

The radial engine Ju-88s did appear to have superior performance. But by that time, the B-25 had stopped evolving for lack of need.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2006)

> but what else does it have to shoot at other angles besides "frontwards"?



for anti-shipping what other angles does it need? i'd hardly count the B-25's dorsal turret as the ideal anti-shipping weapon, and who manned it? the radio operator? 



> Maybe a B-25G vs. a late Ju88A in '43



does a late-ish B-25 Vs. an early 88 seem odd to anyone else?



> If you had to fly one of these planes with max load of bombs over England in '39, I think you would be wise to select the B-25



how'd you figure that one out? the B-25 was still in it's prototype/experimental stages as the NA-40 in 1939...........



> I doubt a Ju88 would want to be in a turning dofight with the B-25 and staring down the barrel of four Ma Deuces



aren't you putting a little too much focus on armament, let's not forget the Ju-88 was actually used as a fighter as was pretty good at it, no matter how many guns some varients of the B-25 had i'm still giving it to the Ju-88, so what if the B-25 got some bombers? that's no basis for it being a good fighter.......


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

The -88 was not a day fighter at all. Nightime, yes, but you dont need maneuverable aircraft for nocturnal missions.

B25's, had four .50's that could be brought to bear rearward. If the more maneuverable 
-88 got onto itstail, it would get a fistfull of lead shot at it.

For the last models of the -88 built in late 1944 and in 1945, it would be better compared to the A26's.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

davparlr I suggest you start reading abit about the Junkers 88, cause then you'll realise just how agile that bird actually was ! And how deadly as-well !


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jun 28, 2006)

The B-25 is a real nice flying airplane with super handling and plenty of capability in acro yet very stable. It flies slowly very well, and has a reasonably fast cruise and high speed.
I don't think that any bomber of it's size would be able to easily better it in handling, dogfighting, load carrying or practical firepower. 
There isn't any way to quantify these claims of the Junkers' Uber-Capabilities over the Bomber, so I can kind of chuckle at the notion. 
No doubt I would love to fly a Junkers to see how it stacks up against the superlative North American. I cannot help but think they are very similar, and don't imagine it was as capable as the A-26, which is a huge step beyond the B-25.

Chris...

PS, there is about "0" practical difference in performance from the B-25B to the TB-25N as far as speed and weights. In actual operation the differences were technical and effected the airplane in where the turret was and how the systems were operated. The engines, props and airframe are the same.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 28, 2006)

The B-25 served in many roles with anti shipping very high on the list most of the stats are lost in the Pacific but it destroyed whole small fleets. The same armament would do the same to any tank had it been used in Europe in that role.

The B-25 was considered very maneuverable for a bomber, how they would stack up is anyones guess and would depend on armament and loading to a large extent. Another consideration is crew seating, the B-25, in standard congiguration, had a waist gunner who would not live through violent maneuvers.

The 75mm cannon was reliable, so was the mount. The gun overall was slow hard to operate consistently and the mounts etc did have to be tightened approx every 18 missions. My uncle had first hand experiance on this.

Roles of the B-25

1. Recon, Photo - limited use here. Visual Recon w/hand cameras
2. Bomber
3. Long range anti shipping - from the Phillipines to the sea of Japan with "Bat" guided rockets. The Bat's were wing mounted and bombay tanks were used.
4. Antishipping
Never used as a dedicated fighter but one pilot got five japanese aircraft (including several fighters) and B-25 pilots got a fair number of kills
5. Transport
6. Cannon armed attack
7 Ground Attack

The B-25 was very versatile the main difference was that the AAF wasn't as desperate as the Luftwaffe and had aircraft dedicated and superior for that job at hand and available for use.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Agree'd, but what else does it have to shoot at other angles besides "frontwards"?



It had 2 other machine guns in the canopy housing the cockpit 1 facing the rear and one facing the front, it had 2 machine guns in the nose, 1 facing the left, and 1 facing the right, and it had 1 machine gun in the belly, and had provisions for 2 more machine guns, 1 on the bottom and 1 on top that could also traverse.


----------



## Jank (Jun 28, 2006)

And all 7.9mm. 

Round for round, each had less than 1/4 of the energy as the .50 BMG.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

No some of them 13mm's, and with its very efficient incendiary projectiles it was a pretty good equal to the .50 cal. In any case the forward facing armament on some Ju-88's was truly massive with up to 6x20mm cannons in the nose or two 37mm Flak38 cannons in a belly rack.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

Well here is how I look at it:

In pure bomber role: B-25
Anti Shipping: Ju-88
Night Fighter: Ju-88

Both were great aircraft and I have to agree that it depends on the mission. I give it overall to the Ju-88 though because of the versatility. There are not many aircraft built during WW2 that were as versatile as the Ju-88.

Now for those that said the Ju-88s bomb load was not comparable to that of the B-25, you are very wrong:

B-25A: 3000lb
B-25B: 3000lb
B-25C: 3200lb 
B-25D: 3200lb
B-25G: 3000lb
B-25H: 5400lb
B-25J: 2000lb

Ju-88A-4: 5511lb

Now for those that said the B-25 could not carry Torpedos you are also wrong. The B-25H and the B-25J could carry a 2125lb Torpedo.

Now having said this, both aircraft were outstanding aircraft but the B-25 does not run away with it as some people here seem to think (probably because of only one reason which I will not go into). They are about equal with some areas the Ju-88 being superior and the B-25 superior in others.

Ju-88 has the edge though, even if only by a c*** hair.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2006)

I know the point has been made earlier but why are we comparing the 1939 Ju88A4 against a 1942 onwards B25.

Wouldn't the Ju188 be a better bet or even a later Ju88?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

You are correct, but that would put the Ju-88 or Ju-188 at even a slight more edge over the B-25 and that would not be good for there argument.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 28, 2006)

When it comes on anti shipping (in which both planes recorded excellent)
other factors may play a role. Cockpit layout should be adressed first. 
Survivability and target size isn´t unimportant as well.
If it comes to the ultimate evolution of both, we should include A-26 and Ju-288/388 (the Ju-288 beeing the best medium bomber but did not reached mass production).


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2006)

Thats what I getting at.


----------



## Jank (Jun 28, 2006)

I didn't realize that some of the machine guns on the 88 were 13mm. Yes, somewhat close to the .50 BMG. I believe the MG 131 had a higher cyclic rate of fire.

MG 131 (13mm)
projectile weight - 36.2 grams
velocity - 730 ms

M2 (.50)
Projectile weight - 43.3
velocity - 880 ms


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

Just a little addition - with a 5,511 lbs bomb load the Ju-88 would have next to nothing in terms of defensive and offensive armament.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

Jank said:


> I didn't realize that some of the machine guns on the 88 were 13mm. Yes, somewhat close to the .50 BMG. I believe the MG 131 had a higher cyclic rate of fire.
> 
> MG 131 (13mm)
> projectile weight - 36.2 grams
> ...



There's no doubt that in terms of KE the .50cal was superior, but the MG131's incendiary projectiles were superior and pretty much made up for the lack of KE with a larger surface damage caused on impact.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

> 1. Recon, Photo - limited use here. Visual Recon w/hand cameras
> 2. Bomber
> 3. Long range anti shipping - from the Phillipines to the sea of Japan with "Bat" guided rockets. The Bat's were wing mounted and bombay tanks were used.
> 4. Antishipping
> ...



aren't you being a little pedantic, several of those are the same role with a different gun= same role, and taking recon pictures with hand camera's doesn't make it a recon aircraft, more could proberly be gathered from the bombing picture.........



> The B-25 was very versatile



the Ju-88 was the most versatile aircraft of the war, the only one that comes close is the mossie, i suggest you don't continue that point as an argument........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 29, 2006)

Soren said:


> There's no doubt that in terms of KE the .50cal was superior, but the MG131's incendiary projectiles were superior and pretty much made up for the lack of KE with a larger surface damage caused on impact.




MG 131 ammo:

*13mm APT *
710 m/v 
38.5g mass 
0g HE content 
9703.93 Kinetic Energy j
0 Chemical Energy 
9703.93 Total energy j 

*13mm API *
710 m/v 
38g mass 
2.2g HE content 
9577.90 Kinetic Energy 
9482 Chemical Energy 
19059.90 Total energy j 

*13mm HEI-t with 1.4g PETN +.3g Thermite *
750 m/v 
34g mass 
1.4g HE content
.3g incendiary content 
9562.50 Kinetic Energy 
8415.68 Chemical energy 
17978.18 Total energy j 

*13mm Incendiary *
770 m/v 
32g 
2.2 g HE content 
9486.40 Kinetic Energy 
13224.64 Chemical energy 
*22711.04 Total energy*

M2 .50 Browning Ammo:

*.50 Tracer (M1)* 
872 m/v 
42g 
15968.06 Total KE 
0 Total HE	
15968.06 Total energy	

*.50 Ball *
893 M/v	
42g 
16746.43 Total KE	
0 Total HE	
16746.43 Total Energy	

*.50 AP (M2) *
880 M/v 
43.3g 
16765.76 Total KE 
0 Total HE	
16765.76 Total KE	

*.50 Incendiary (M1) *
899 M/v 
41g 
2.2g Incendiary content 
16568.12 Total KE
9482 Chemical Energy 
*26050.12 Total energy* 

Seems to me that the .50API is the best round either gun fired, HE or otherwise. It had a relatively good amount of filler, a very high M/v and excellent AP characteristics. 

The 13mm may of had a higher proportion of HE, but its rounds were lighter and slower, poorer exterior ballistics to the .50 rounds.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2006)

delcyros said:


> When it comes on anti shipping (in which both planes recorded excellent)
> other factors may play a role. Cockpit layout should be adressed first.
> Survivability and target size isn´t unimportant as well.
> If it comes to the ultimate evolution of both, we should include A-26 and Ju-288/388 (the Ju-288 beeing the best medium bomber but did not reached mass production).



Agreed 100%.



Soren said:


> Just a little addition - with a 5,511 lbs bomb load the Ju-88 would have next to nothing in terms of defensive and offensive armament.



Agreed as well, that was just not my point.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

The B25's were also carrier capable.

Dont tell me the -88 could get airborne with a usefull payload within 500 feet.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2006)

I know how you enjoy arguing with everyone, syscom. But implying that the B-25 is more versatile than the Ju-88 is worse than your Budweiser argument. For the sake of history, don't bother arguing it. 

Wrong, the B-25 was not carrier capable. Because it couldn't land again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The B25's were also carrier capable.
> 
> Dont tell me the -88 could get airborne with a usefull payload within 500 feet.



The B-25 was not able to either. It had to be completely stripped down of everything non essential and they carried minimal bomb load. If you did the same to a Ju-88 it could do the same, I promise you.

Come on syscom, now you are just getting desperate! You should even know that. That argument that you just through out was a load of ****!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

But the fact remains it flew from a carrier. With a bomb load. 

Come now, youre not suggesting the -88 could also fly off a carrier?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 29, 2006)

I've seen pics of a Hercules on a carrier, so why not a Ju-88?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But the fact remains it flew from a carrier. With a bomb load.
> 
> Come now, youre not suggesting the -88 could also fly off a carrier?



That does not make the B-25 a carrier opperable aircraft. 

Besides yes I say you could take a Ju-88 off from a Carrier. Can you prove or do you have any evidence that it could not? 

Did not think so, Im throwing that argument of yours out the window where it belongs!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2006)

A big plus I give for the B-25 is it has a co-pilot, it has a tri-cycle landing gear and how it's defensive armament is spread out. I think the B-25 is way more advanced. Just look at the cockpits...





technik




aiken

Both aircraft were loaded with all types of equipment through out their operational career, but as far as it basic airframe, I give it to the B-25.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2006)

While I agree the co pilot is a plus. I would not really go as far as saying the B-25 was more advanced.

The B-25 deffinatly has a plus in the defensive armament, that has never been argued.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> I've seen pics of a Hercules on a carrier, so why not a Ju-88?



I dont think you can compare a Hercules with 12,000 hp taking off of a super carrier with several hundred feet with a JU88 with a fraction of the power taking off in less than 300 feet.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That does not make the B-25 a carrier opperable aircraft.



If it can take off of a carrier, then its a carrier capable aircraft.



> Besides yes I say you could take a Ju-88 off from a Carrier. Can you prove or do you have any evidence that it could not?



Do you have any evidence that the -88 can take off in less than 300 feet with a usefull bombload? 



> Did not think so, Im throwing that argument of yours out the window where it belongs!



Your angry that I thought of the Doolittle raid and the B25's before you did!


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ, I think we both know how decieving 'looks' can be


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> MG 131 ammo:
> 
> *13mm APT *
> 710 m/v
> ...



Come on Jabberwocky ! What does this mean in a dogfight anyway ?? Nothing..

With a MV of 770 m/s I can guarantee you that who'ever your pointing your weapon at won't have the slightest chance to react at any range out to atleast 1000m. It takes the average human being 1.5 sec's to observe and then start a reaction on anything, by that time the round has already travelled 1km. And with the MG131's 13mm projectile's larger destructive force on impact, I'd at the very least call it the equal of the .50cal.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2006)

does a late-ish B-25 Vs. an early 88 seem odd to anyone else?
.......[/QUOTE said:


> Note that I said a "late" 88A, like in an A-4 (seems like later As were special designs). Probably a B-25C/D was more appropiate, but the arguments are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

Id give the edge to the -88 for the combat it was designed to fight in. Although I would say those liquid cooled engines were going to be a problem if it would have had to fight in the SW Pacific.

The US had three fine medium bombers in the war and all of them had their advantages and weakness's. I would say the -88 was marginally better than the B25 for 1940-44, the
A26 better than the -88 in 1945. As for the B26 compared to the -88? I dont know yet.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

> If it can take off of a carrier, then its a carrier capable aircraft



no, because it has to be able to get back onto the aircraft carrier........

wait a minute, there's an SR-71 on an aircraft carrier, doesn't that make all SR-71s fully carrier capable syscom? quick, someone tell the USAAF and Navy!

come on sys let's not get too carried away, they were stripped of almost everything, they had broom handles for guns! they couldn't land back on the carrier and the aircraft all had to be crashed, the bombs dropped were a token measure not a means of destruction, i hardly think that's the career of a carrier capable aircraft...........



> I would not really go as far as saying the B-25 was more advanced.



me neither, on account of the fact the B-25's a later aircraft............



> The Ju-88 A4 did not make the front until 1941



she saw service late in the battle of Britain.......



> if you were to fly either of these aircraft with loaded bombs over an environment like Britian in 39, you would want to be in a B-25



you'd want to be in an A1, on account of the fact it was the only version of either plane in service at the time, i see your point but it's like saying if i were in WWI i'd rather have a Eurofighter than a spitfire... the time scales are out, the point i'm trying to make is that the -88 was the only one you could choose, as she was an earlier aircraft..........

and RE defensive guns, don't blame the aircraft, each is a reflection of their country's pre-war theories, Jerry thought the -88, when designing it, would be fast enough to outrun fighters = few guns, the yanks thought lots of guns would protect it from fighters, so the B-25 had lots of guns, as it was, as with almost all pre-war theories, they were soon proved wrong as the -88 wasn't fast enough and the B-25 still didn't have enough guns not to get shot down..........



> I think this would be a big stretch for a Ju-88 A4



it was a big stretch for the B-25!!



> those liquid cooled engines were going to be a problem if it would have had to fight in the SW Pacific



just like it was a problem for the spitfire, just like it was for the hurricane, just like it was for the Tony, just like it was for the P-38, -39, -40, -51 and the mossie, oh, no, wait, it wasn't a problem for them..........

and either way, the -88 wasn't designed for use in the pacific, i for one have every confidence it would have done just fine if she had though...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2006)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ, I think we both know how decieving 'looks' can be


I know, but look at the basis of the layout - a large taildragger aircraft was basically an obsolete concept by 1940, it makes training and operaions harder. Now as far as the airframe, construction and robustness, it is on par or even superior to the B-25.

Cockpits, there's no comparisons - the Ju.88 is just plain archaic for a twin engined aircraft.

Here's Eric Brown's and Roland Beaumont's captured A-5 flighttest report, I bolded areas where I would have concerns

"Test-Flying the Ju 88

During World War II, exhaustive tests were carried out on all airworthy luftwaffe machines falling into British hands. Most major variants of the Ju 88 formed part of this collection, ranging from an A-1 acquired during 1940, and culminating with the G-1 example arriving in July 1944. Each was flown by future test pilots of post-war note who were already entering thils career on either side of VE Day.

Ju 88A-5 Capt Eric 'Winkle' Brown first got his hands on a Ju 88A-5 variant during late 1943, this aircraft having inadvertently landed at Chivenor in 1941. Brown's initial impression upon entering was that a crew of four would make for extremely cramped personal conditions. More noteworthy, given his small stature, was the very generous fore-and-aft seat adjustment. This was a positive factor compared to most Allied military aircraft, where in Brown's view the seat-to-pedal arrangement proved to be almost totally in favour of large pilots! * limitation relating to the otherwise sound controls layout involved the engine throttles. These were placed too far back and too low, requiring the pilot to change his hand action from a pull to a push position - not the best of arrangements during what was a critical phase of any flight!*

Engine start-up of the Jumo211 G-1 s could be achieved internally using the *electrically energized inertia starters,* or through use of a starter trolley, the latter sparing the draining of the Ju 88's batteries. Taxiing was easy thanks to quickresponding brakes and an unlocked tail-wheel., it was locked prior to take-off, otherwise operation of the hydraulic system was impeded. In addition the oil and coolant radiators had to be fully opened during this stage of the sortie.

For take-off the flaps were set one-third open, and the radiator gills closed to a similar degree. Rudder and aileron trim-tabs were set at 'zero', and elevator trim-tabs set for a marginal nose-heavy configuration. On opening up power Brown's experience was that differential throttle movements could easily induce a swing if power was applied too rapidly. Also, considerable forward pressure had to be applied to the control column in order to lift the tail up and gain full rudder response in so doing.

Once in flight, both rudder and ailerons proved very responsive throughout the entire range of speed applied to the Ju 88. The automatic tail incidence control was of material assistance when noticeable elevator movements were called for; this system was linked to the dive-brakes in a manner that placed the elevators in the 'dive' mode and returned them to 'level' when the dive-brakes were opened and shut. Two incidental advantages of the system lay in the fact that the pilot could avoid having to ensure the propellers did not over-speed during the dive, and did not have to rely upon muscle power to regain level flight!

A practice 'landing' with flaps and undercarriage lowered established the stalling speed to be just over 145kmph (90mph), the indication coming in the form of a sharp wing-drop. The resultant approach saw Brown put the wheels down at around 225 kmph (140 mph), and moving the flaps to an interim position. Full flap was applied with the speed reduced to 19O kmph (120 mph), and a pronounced nose-up sensation was swiftly countered by the automatic tail-incidence mechanism. Touchdown was at 18O kmph (11O mph), with the throttles having to be instantly retarded as the airfield boundary was crossed. *Premature lowering of the tail was not recommended, since rudder 'block-out' could then contribute to any swing that might develop before the aircraft had lost speed.* (Brown also commented on the emergency procedure for lowering the undercarriage should the engine-activated hydraulic-pump system go 'out'. This entailed three minutes of feverish hand-pumping that only affected the main wheels, so leading to a very pronounced nose-up touch-down and landing run, not to say a severe damage effect upon the rear fuselage in the process!)

Ju 88G-1 Wg Cdr Roland Beaumont was attached to the Central Fighter Establishment's tactics branch at Tangmere following his return from captivity. On 14 July, having read up his notes on the Ju 88G-1, he climbed up rather apprehensively into the cockpit. His initial impression was of restricted vision thanks to the canopy framing. On the other hand, the controls and instrument layout largely met with his approval excepting the fuel system, which he regarded as complex. Engine start produced a pleasant noise level, but this turned to a harsher note as power was applied. Movement of the controls displayed smooth and immediate response, but *Beaumont felt that the nose-up attitude while taxiing made him feel uncomfortable.* Once airborne, however, he quickly adapted to handling what was one of his first multi-engine experiences, most of his flying having hitherto been in single-engine fighters.

The take-off had proved surprisingly easy, Power had been gently applied to counteract any tendency to swing, but the machine lifted off before reaching 100 per cent effort, and required no further elevator action other than that previously applied to lift the tail up. Once the undercarriage was raised, the subsequent climb-rate applied was comparable to its RAF contemporary the Mosquito. Control response was very good, while, after levelling out and holding a speed around 370 kmph (230 mph), minimal rudder and elevator trimming was required.

These issues aren't showstoppers, but are based on 1930's technology incorporated into a 1940s + airframe, that's where I feel the B-25 was way more advanced.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> no, because it has to be able to get back onto the aircraft carrier........



It was origionally intended for them to fly back to the carrier and land. That idea was nixed by the navy who didnt want their carriers exposed for such a long time. The B25's were perfectly ca[able of landing on the carriers, although their landing weight might have been at the maximum designed strength of the flight decks.



> wait a minute, there's an SR-71 on an aircraft carrier, doesn't that make all SR-71s fully carrier capable syscom? quick, someone tell the USAAF and Navy!



Thats to stupid a comment to reply too. Get real.



> come on sys let's not get too carried away, they were stripped of almost everything, they had broom handles for guns! they couldn't land back on the carrier and the aircraft all had to be crashed, the bombs dropped were a token measure not a means of destruction, i hardly think that's the career of a carrier capable aircraft...........



It took off with a usuable bombload and flew quite some distance. The fact, and youre afraid to admit it is the B25 did take off from a carrier and the -88 never did, nor could have. And please note a 500 pound bomb dropped as a token does precisely as much damage as a 500 pound bomb dropped in a large raid.



> just like it was a problem for the spitfire, just like it was for the hurricane, just like it was for the Tony, just like it was for the P-38, -39, -40, -51 and the mossie, oh, no, wait, it wasn't a problem for them..........



Did you notice that all six of those aircraft spent most of their lives up at middle and high altitudes and rarely engaged in low level attacks? The three main medium and light bombers of the Pacific war that engaged in the low level stuff all had air cooled engines and all usually had damage on them after hitting well defended targets.



> and either way, the -88 wasn't designed for use in the pacific, i for one have every confidence it would have done just fine if she had though...........



but it didnt.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats to stupid a comment to reply too. Get real.


 and that is coming from someone who thinks the P-51 is better than the Harrier...

Good account Joe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

> The B25's were perfectly ca[able of landing on the carriers, although their landing weight might have been at the maximum designed strength of the flight decks.



i can counter this with something you said 



> but it didnt.







> Did you notice that all six of those aircraft spent most of their lives up at middle and high altitudes and rarely engaged in low level attacks? The three main medium and light bombers of the Pacific war that engaged in the low level stuff all had air cooled engines and all usually had damage on them after hitting well defended targets.



height was of no concern in the lanc/B-24 argument.........


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2006)

Yeah, great account FLYBOYJ ! And I agree as-well, I was just merely pointing out that photo's aren't nearly evidence enough. And truth be told, I have never heard of Ju-88 crew having problems controlling the a/c, and it was and remained an extremely accurate bomber throughout the war.

The B-25's cockpit was obviously more user-friendly however..


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> height was of no concern in the lanc/B-24 argument.........



You dont suppose theres a bit of difference between flying at 100 feet and at 10000 feet?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2006)

she saw service late in the battle of Britain.......
it was a big stretch for the B-25!!
...........[/QUOTE said:


> A couple of my references say the A4 wasn't delivered until 1941, one says lots were delivered in 1940, so I guess I can't argue your facts.
> 
> Your right about the big stretch for the B-25, probably a little less than the Ju-88, but still it took heros to try to launch that plane off the carrier, especially knowing they weren't likely to make their destination.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yeah, great account FLYBOYJ ! And I agree as-well, I was just merely pointing out that photo's aren't nearly evidence enough. And truth be told, I have never heard of Ju-88 crew having problems controlling the a/c, and it was and remained an extremely accurate bomber throughout the war.
> 
> The B-25's cockpit was obviously more user-friendly however..


Agree!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 30, 2006)

Soren said:


> Come on Jabberwocky ! What does this mean in a dogfight anyway ?? Nothing..
> 
> With a MV of 770 m/s I can guarantee you that who'ever your pointing your weapon at won't have the slightest chance to react at any range out to atleast 1000m. It takes the average human being 1.5 sec's to observe and then start a reaction on anything, by that time the round has already travelled 1km. And with the MG131's 13mm projectile's larger destructive force on impact, I'd at the very least call it the equal of the .50cal.



I never said anything about reacting to the shot. What it means is this: A .50 calibre round will fly to the target faster and straighter, meaning the pilot has an easier shot as he doesn't need to allow as much deflection and has a greater chance of hitting a manouvering target.

Say you fired at a target at 300m.

The flight time for a MG 131 round would be, on average, about 0.49 seconds and the round velocity would have dropped to around 500 m/sec.

The flight time for a M2 round would be, on average, about 0.38 seconds and the round velocity would of dropped to around 740 m/s.

As a plus, the .50 cal retains more kinetic energy (a significantly heavier round with higher sectional density travelling faster), meaning that it will be more likely to punch through armour protecting pilots, fuel tanks, oxygen bottles and the like.

Now, say you fire at a crossing target flying at 300 mph. In that .11 seconds of difference b/w the rounds arriving, a target moving at 300 mph will have covered around 135 meters.

If you were in combat, would you rather be firing the round that arrives first or second?

And, as the API Browning had just as much filler as a MG131 HE/Incendiary round, there isn't that much difference in the potential Chemical Energy of either round.


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 30, 2006)

I'm not sure if this has already been stated but....
from a purely personal point of view i would have to go with the 25. For the same reason that in an infantry attack you don't make every one stand together, in an 88 everyone sat up front, in a glasshouse. As soon as rounds start hitting the 'pit that plane is going down. 
Max damage with minimum effort on the aggressors part.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

Oh for Christs sake Jabberwocky I know all this, only difference is I also know that a difference of 0.1 secs means absolutely nothing in a dogfight, esp. not if you're used to shooting the darn gun! 

Also when you're behind someone, he won't change direction with 300mph, and you'll be following him(Further reducing his change in direction and place compared to you), which means you need very little deflection with a MV of 770 m/s - which btw hits 400y at 0.49 sec.

And about your claim that "in .11sec at 300mph you will already have covered 135m", well thats just totally insane ! At 300mph it takes 1 whole sec to clear 134m !


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

Oh, and Jabberwocky check up on that difference in chemical energy between the two rounds again will you... Yes, its in favor of the 13mm incediary round.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 30, 2006)

hole in the ground said:


> I'm not sure if this has already been stated but....
> from a purely personal point of view i would have to go with the 25. For the same reason that in an infantry attack you don't make every one stand together, in an 88 everyone sat up front, in a glasshouse. As soon as rounds start hitting the 'pit that plane is going down.
> Max damage with minimum effort on the aggressors part.



Ive always wondered that myself.

Any -88 experts have some data on that? Was the -88 easier to shoot down because of all the crew located in one section?


----------



## Erich (Jun 30, 2006)

not real sure here...........are we comparing the B-25 with what Ju 88 Variant ? bomber or recon or ? 

will tell you when the Soviets were using the Mitchell in the night time role and even though they were quite fast several NJG pilots flying the old Do 217 crates actually caught them and brought them down

well just two cents


----------



## davparlr (Jun 30, 2006)

Erich said:


> not real sure here...........are we comparing the B-25 with what Ju 88 Variant ? bomber or recon or ?
> 
> will tell you when the Soviets were using the Mitchell in the night time role and even though they were quite fast several NJG pilots flying the old Do 217 crates actually caught them and brought them down
> 
> well just two cents



Which is just worth that since many capable aircraft have been brought down by less worthy aircraft. We can always find examples. I'll bet you can find some Ju-88s shot down by B-17s.


----------



## Erich (Jun 30, 2006)

at night ? ........... nope ! during the winter of early 44 daylight raids, yes, NJG 2 and 3 Ju 88C's were lost attacking B-17 formations.

your comments are noted, and my first statements STAND, bomber or recon Ju 88 vs B-25 Mitchell


----------



## Twitch (Jun 30, 2006)

If it's of any use in ballistics the 12.7 mm X 99 M2 had a 48.5 gram projectile that fired at 750 RPM and 870 meters per second muzzle velocity. The MG 131 was 13mm X 64 with a 34 gram bullet at 900 RPM and going 730 m/s at muzzle. 

How about the Japanese "50s" which have even better stats? 
Ho-103 (Type 1) 12.7 x 81 (38 g) 900 rpm 796 m/s 
Type 2 13 x 64B (34 g) 900 rpm 720 m/s 
Type 3 13.2 x 99 (52 g) 800 rpm 790 m/s


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

Twitch, the MG131's 34 gram HE round did 750m/s...


----------



## Jank (Jun 30, 2006)

Soren, it's a little ridiculous to be raising a difference of 20 meters per second (about 65 feet per second). 

Truth be told, if you were to take two brand new MG131's right off the factory line and shot them across chronographs, you would likely see similar velocity differences. One might be avweraging 720ms and the other might be averaging 750 ms.

The same holds true for sporting rifles which are manufactured with much tighter tolerances and quality control than mass produced, get them out as quick as you can, military arms. 

I have read tests of two brand new 30/06 Remington rifles (same model) shoot with an average of about 40 feet per second difference. 

There are also variations in the quality of ammunition rounds. A 30/06 rifle might experience a standard deviation of 25 feet per second from bullet to bullet from the very same box of ammunition. Sporting (hunting) ammunition is of very high quality compared to military ammunition even today let alone back in WWII.

Ever so slight variations in the chamber, throat, rifling, and barrel cause such differences in velocity when a cartridge sends a projectile out of the barrel in front of more than 50,000 psi of pressure.


----------



## Erich (Jun 30, 2006)

Jank what fg does your Jug represent ?, name and the art on the cowling ?

nice touch !


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

Jank,

No its not ridiculous, its another 20m pr. sec. 

Also if the weapons are made with the same tools and with the exact same specifications, then whatever deviation that might occur during firing is 99% contributed by the fired round itself. Relatively large variations in V0 caused by the weapons themselves occur only when we're talking two different made weapons, otherwise its ammo-inconsistency. (Or a faulty barrel ofcourse, but then you'll notice real quick cause then either accuracy will be appalling or the v0 will be really low !) 

I have two K98k's myself, made in different factories in different years, and loaded with full power ammunition from S&B they don't ever vary more than 10 m/s between each other(Atleast I haven't experienced more than that the many time I've had them chrono'ed), and usually they don't vary at all really -there being only 1-3m/s between them.

So if there's a deviation from the official figure, which was the measured average for German weaponry back then (and still is), then its 99% ammo-inconsistency.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 30, 2006)

Erich said:


> at night ? ........... nope ! during the winter of early 44 daylight raids, yes, NJG 2 and 3 Ju 88C's were lost attacking B-17 formations.
> 
> your comments are noted, and my first statements STAND, bomber or recon Ju 88 vs B-25 Mitchell



That is a very good question since both of these planes were adapted to so many different missions. I tended to keep my research to bomber vs. bomber since comparison data is more handily available. Most other missions don't match up so well like the B-25 was not used as a night fighter (not due to lack of capability but rather to lack of need) or dive bomber (I'm not sure the Ju-88 was great at this anyway). However, the B-25 and Ju-88 did have an antishipping mission and I am interested in tonnage destroyed by each. Also, loss per mission on antishipping runs would also be interesting. Also, ground attack capability of both could be compared as both had success. The fact that both of these planes were so adaptable and capable, which made them great, inspires great discussions and debate.


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2006)

I am wondering at some of the statements made in this forum in particular the concept of a B25 landing on a carrier without any arrestor gear. Landing a spit on the wasp was considered close to a miracle and it stopped I think it was 40 ft from the Bows. This was an RAF spit bound for Malta that had a fault with the drop tank. 
Trying to do that with a B25 which is many times heavier and comes in much faster would be a one way trip into the ocean. Does anyone have any evidence to back up the claim.

The other statement that because the Ju88 didn't fight in the Pacific it couldn't of done I also find a little suprising. As far as I know and to the best of my recollection the Germans were not at war with Japan and had enough US and UK aircraft to fight on their own doorstep.

I suspect the Japs would have loved to have some JU88's in 1941. By Jap standards it was fast well protected and carried a large bombload.

Could a stripped down Ju88 take off from a carrier. Of course it could. It was lighter, had a better wing loading and a shorter take off run.

I have to agree with FJ in that the cockpit of the Ju88 was a bit of a mess. Most German twins from the early war period had messy cockpits. The 110 had some of the engine instruments mounted on the engine and the 111 was all over the place.


----------



## Erich (Jun 30, 2006)

the Ju 88 cockpit was crap and crowded according to the Luftw. vets.

as to anti-shipping missions, Chris Goss dual book through Classic Pubs is a nice way to go although deliberately brief in it's concept. he has tons of stuff on anti-shipping for the Luftwaffe which I have tried to "push" him in that direction for a much larger work(s)

if anything the Ju 88 in it's later variants proved to be a skilled recon and of course the G was the ideal N.F. platform for the Luftw useage agasint the RAF, all other German proposals for night fighters were failures by 1945, even the proven Bf 110G-4 was being phased out with units other than NJG 1


----------



## Jank (Jun 30, 2006)

Erich, it is Capt. Earl Miller's mount. 350th FG, 345th FS "Devilhawks" stationed in Italy.







Soren said, *"Also if the weapons are made with the same tools and with the exact same specifications, then whatever deviation that might occur during firing is 99% contributed by the fired round itself."*

No, you are wrong. Any variatons due to ammunition alone (99%)would not consistently favor one gun (1%) over another to the degree it does. Think about it.

*"(At least I haven't experienced more than that the many time I've had them chrono'ed), and usually they don't vary at all really -there being only 1-3m/s between them."*

With all due respect Soren, you are full of ****! Only 3 to 9 feet per second difference between the two? The standard deviation (SD) for the ammunition is much greater than that. 

Do you know how the standard deviation is calculated in a statistical analysis? Even if the velocity differences attributed only to the guns amounted to 3-9 fps, a SD in the ammunition of even 25 feet per second would require you to fire and record the velocities of more than 100 rounds in each gun in order to factor it out. You do understand that don't you? 

Something tells me that you have not undertaken such a experiment.

BTW - What the Hell is "full power ammunition"? As opposed to what? Do you know what the SAAMI specs are for the 8x57? (chuckling at Soren trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about)


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 30, 2006)

Glider said:


> I am wondering at some of the statements made in this forum in particular the concept of a B25 landing on a carrier without any arrestor gear. Landing a spit on the wasp was considered close to a miracle and it stopped I think it was 40 ft from the Bows. This was an RAF spit bound for Malta that had a fault with the drop tank.
> Trying to do that with a B25 which is many times heavier and comes in much faster would be a one way trip into the ocean. Does anyone have any evidence to back up the claim.



In 1992 I talked with some of the Doolittle raiders at a print signing ceremony and one of them mentioned that there was an idea of flying them back to the carrier. Of course an arresting hook would have been needed. Nothing complex about installing one.



> The other statement that because the Ju88 didn't fight in the Pacific it couldn't of done I also find a little suprising. As far as I know and to the best of my recollection the Germans were not at war with Japan and had enough US and UK aircraft to fight on their own doorstep.



I didnt say it couldnt be done. I just said that liquid cooled engines have a tendency to get damaged at the very low levels they would have een expected to fight at. And then couple it with the long ranges it would have to fly back home to and the loss rate would have gone up.



> I suspect the Japs would have loved to have some JU88's in 1941. By Jap standards it was fast well protected and carried a large bombload.



The Japanese were more than happy with their aircraft in 1941



> Could a stripped down Ju88 take off from a carrier. Of course it could. It was lighter, had a better wing loading and a shorter take off run.



But did it have the acceleration required? What about being a tail dragger? That slows a plane down for a bit.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

Jank said:


> No, you are wrong. Any variatons due to ammunition alone (99%)would not consistently favor one gun (1%) over another to the degree it does. Think about it.



What gun are you talking about ?? And what ammunition ??



> With all due respect Soren, you are full of ****! Only 3 to 9 feet per second difference between the two? The standard deviation (SD) for the ammunition is much greater than that.



Why thank you Jank for that first remark of yours, I suggest you go try it though! 

Try shooting the 8x57IS round from S&B, 5-10 at a time, record the results - there's nearly no difference! Or if your good at handloads that could be an option as-well...



> Do you know how the standard deviation is calculated in a statistical analysis? Even if the velocity differences attributed only to the guns amounted to 3-9 fps, a SD in the ammunition of even 25 feet per second would require you to fire and record the velocities of more than 100 rounds in each gun in order to factor it out. You do understand that don't you?
> 
> Something tells me that you have not undertaken such a experiment.



I didn't say I did scientific study did I now ?  All I'm saying is the V0 hasn't varied more than 10 m/s between my two guns during any chronograph test of mine, and *why* is simple - they are of the EXACT same design and specifications.

The S.D. of the S&B 196gr round is around 11 fps. - This is for properly stored ammunition however I feel I must add.




> BTW - What the Hell is "full power ammunition"? As opposed to what? Do you know what the SAAMI specs are for the 8x57? (chuckling at Soren trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about)



Hahaha ! You mean you don't know oh wise gun-expert ?? 

+50,000 CUP, std.German military load my friend, try it ! Heck it'll even go higher than a 30.06 at the top ! So scrap those pussie SAAMI loads ! 

A 12.8 gram projectile will hit around 795-800 m/s through the Karabiner Kurz at that pressure, now thats smoken !  

Make sure its not a 1888 Mauser model you're firing the full-power 8mm ammunition through however, or it'll blow your face off - there's a reason SAAMI loads are so low, there's allot of dumb folks out there...


----------



## Jank (Jun 30, 2006)

Soren,

The 99% figure came from you as in *"Also if the weapons are made with the same tools and with the exact same specifications, then whatever deviation that might occur during firing is 99% contributed by the fired round itself."*

So what gun and ammunition were you referring to? Sounds like you were making a sort of blanket statement in general.

I do handload. I have a Springfield M1A and an Armalite AR-15 and handload for both. I also handload for .45ACP and 12 GA shotgun.

*"All I'm saying is the V0 hasn't varied more than 10 m/s between my two guns during any chronograph test of mine"*

You said that *"usually they don't vary at all really -there being only 1-3m/s between them."*

I think usually means most of the time as in 10m/s would be out of the norm from the usual 1-3 m/s. As I have already said, you are full of crap. Since we're on the subject of crap though, where did you get your 11 fps SD on the 196 gr load at 2,600 fps -- cause that's crap too.

50,000cup is no different than a 30/06. The case capacity of the 8X57 is 5 grains less than the 30/06. No, it won't "go higher" than a 30/06. The limiting factor is the strength of the action and not the cartridge.

As you may know (although we both know you don't), the hotter you load a cartridge, the more radical the SD becomes. Again, you are full of **** if you are saying that your 2,600 foot per second load at 50,000cup is varying by only 11 feet per second.

Soren, why don't you just admit that you have never fired a real gun and at any rate, don't own a chronograph and don't handload.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2006)

That last statement was alittle steep Jank... Ease up a bit and try to converse it through...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

Good post up there Glider and I agree with you on everything.

I too am interesting in Ju-88 shipping tonnage as well as B-25. I know that info is out there somewhere, maybe someone has it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 1, 2006)

Actualy the B-25 could and did land on an aircraft carrier. The Navy did tests of several aircraft including B-25s for arrested landing trial and cat shots. The B-25s did great except for one occasion where the pilots seat was not locked and the seat moved during the launch.

I belive it was R Lenard who posted those pictures, and they are on this forum.

BTW: a C-130 was also landed WITHOUT arresting gear on a carrier (the Oriskany, I think) in the early '60s.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2006)

Syscom
Putting an arrestor gear on any plane may not be complicated but does involve the one thing the raiders could not afford, weight. 
I was always taught the base line, that if you add a pound of weight to the airframe and want to maintain the same performace, speed, range, climb etc then you ended up adding ten pounds to the take off weight. Wouldn't take much to get through another 1000lb.

The arrestor gear and hook is but one component the, the additional strengthening of the airframe would be a major contributor to the gain in weight. They may well have thought about it but it wouldn't have got much further.

As for the Japanese being happy with their aircraft in 1941, they had good reason to have confidence in their aircraft. However I know they had a huge admiration of the Fw190 (and who wouldn't in 1941) and had mixed feelings about the 109E liking its speed and armour but not being so keen on its agility. What I don't know, is what they thought of the German Bombers but the Ju88 carried around 5,000 lb of bombs and most Jap bombers only carried around 2000Ib so a certain respect was likely.

Wmaxt
I remember the post about landing various types of plane on a carrier and would to have seen it. Do you have any idea what it did to the weight of the aircraft in question?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

Agreed as well Glider.

You can not just add most components like that to an aircraft without strengthening and modifying the airframe. With the force that the plane is landing without the strenghtening it would rip the airframe apart.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

> Syscom
> Putting an arrestor gear on any plane may not be complicated but does involve the one thing the raiders could not afford, weight.
> I was always taught the base line, that if you add a pound of weight to the airframe and want to maintain the same performace, speed, range, climb etc then you ended up adding ten pounds to the take off weight. Wouldn't take much to get through another 1000lb.



An arrestor hook does not weigh 1000 pounds.



> The arrestor gear and hook is but one component the, the additional strengthening of the airframe would be a major contributor to the gain in weight. They may well have thought about it but it wouldn't have got much further.



The -25 airframe proved very robust and it could have handled a couple of carrier launch/land cycles. 



> As for the Japanese being happy with their aircraft in 1941, they had good reason to have confidence in their aircraft. However I know they had a huge admiration of the Fw190 (and who wouldn't in 1941) and had mixed feelings about the 109E liking its speed and armour but not being so keen on its agility. What I don't know, is what they thought of the German Bombers but the Ju88 carried around 5,000 lb of bombs and most Jap bombers only carried around 2000Ib so a certain respect was likely.



The Japanese had no desire for the German aircraft in 1941 or 1942. The Japanese had their own doctrine and tactics that the German aircraft couldnt do. Their "Betty" bomber was faster and longer ranged than the -88, and they had no interest in it. More than one German military attache's were told that the IJAAF/IJN types were perfectly capable of handling allied aircraft in the PTO.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed as well Glider.
> 
> You can not just add most components like that to an aircraft without strengthening and modifying the airframe. With the force that the plane is landing without the strenghtening it would rip the airframe apart.



General Doolittle and the NAA engineers thought it was perfectly feasable to add an arrestor hook to the -25 to allow it to return to the carrier. 

But the idea was dropped when the navy said they were not going to wait around for the bombers to return.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

I am not saying that it could not be done. On the contrary it is very likely that it could have been done, what I am saying is you can not just install a damn arrestor hook. You have to strengthen the fuselage.

Hell even when we install a new antenna to our helicopters we have to double and strength the fuselage, what makes you think it would not have had to be done for an arrestor hook on a B-25.

Trying to land a B-25 with an arrestor hook without doing that would have caused damage to the airframe.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 1, 2006)

In addition, a one shot deal is different than doing it on a regular basis.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

Exactly.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not saying that it could not be done. On the contrary it is very likely that it could have been done, what I am saying is you can not just install a damn arrestor hook. You have to strengthen the fuselage.
> 
> Hell even when we install a new antenna to our helicopters we have to double and strength the fuselage, what makes you think it would not have had to be done for an arrestor hook on a B-25.
> 
> Trying to land a B-25 with an arrestor hook without doing that would have caused damage to the airframe.



B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> In addition, a one shot deal is different than doing it on a regular basis.



So an arresting hook is added. I suppose the plane willno longer be airworthy. Maybe in the RAF your airframes couldnt handle the stress's of carrier landings. To the folks at NAA, no big deal. B25 had lots of extra strength to handle the stress's.


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2006)

Soren the 88P series never flew in action they were prototype test pieces that failed miserbaly on the test field

the 88G-1 Nachtjäger had 4 forward firing 2cm in a underfuselage tray like the G-6, not 6 2cm unless you are counting SM installation which many times was not fitted to the G-1


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> An arrestor hook does not weigh 1000 pounds.
> 
> The -25 airframe proved very robust and it could have handled a couple of carrier launch/land cycles.
> 
> The Japanese had no desire for the German aircraft in 1941 or 1942. The Japanese had their own doctrine and tactics that the German aircraft couldnt do. Their "Betty" bomber was faster and longer ranged than the -88, and they had no interest in it. More than one German military attache's were told that the IJAAF/IJN types were perfectly capable of handling allied aircraft in the PTO.



Re the weight
I know the hook wouldn't weigh 1000lb, but that is why I explained the 10-1 rule of thumb. If it weighed 100lbs (which is more than likely) then 1000lb woud be added to the take off weight if you wanted to keep the same performance

Re the B25 being strong enough to take one or two life cycles, No it wouldn't. The plane would have touched down, the hook would be ripped out of the aircraft and the plane go over the side. 
Has been known to happen today. The arrestor gear is set for the weight/speed characteristics of the plane comming in to land. In the 70's if you set it for an F4 and an A4 came in, the same thing would happen. The settings would be too stiff, the A4 would lose its arrestor gear as it was over stressed and the A4 would have to go around and the pilot eject.

The B25 would lose the hook because it wasn't stressed. 

As for the Japenese needing German Planes. Be fair, I did say that they had every confidence in their own aircraft but The Japanese did admire the 190. As for the Betty having a long range. It certainly did but the Betty was only one of many Japenese bombers and we all know how the Betty achieved such a range and the penelty they incurred for doing so.


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins
> 
> Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins
> 
> Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?



No technology, not even 1930's NAA technology would allow a none load bearing member to take the stress of an aircraft the size of a B25 going from touchdown speed to zero in say 200ft without breaking.

In case your wondering, I was an aircraft engineer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising on Airframes and Engines, and am old enought to have seen and be briefed on the arrester / catapult gear fitted to the old Ark Royal.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

Glider said:


> No technology, not even 1930's NAA technology would allow a none load bearing member to take the stress of an aircraft the size of a B25 going from touchdown speed to zero in say 200ft without breaking.
> 
> In case your wondering, I was an aircraft engineer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising on Airframes and Engines, and am old enought to have seen and be briefed on the arrester / catapult gear fitted to the old Ark Royal.



If in 1942 the NAA engineers determined that an arresting hook could be attached to a B25 with little fanfare, then accept it as such.

Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins
> 
> Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins
> 
> Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?



Note to Syscom......Since when did you become a specialist in anything having to do with airframes? Atleast I have experience working on aircraft. Jack ***!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.



Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!

Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!
> 
> Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!



If Jimmy Doolittle said they were origionally going to land the planes back on the carriers then thats an unimpeachable source.

Just add an arresting hook and some plates to the frame and theyre in business. If it wouldnt work the NAA engineers would have nixed the idea.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!
> 
> Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!



It sounds like you have lots of experience with modern airframes, but have you ever worked on an old 1940 b25 airframe?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Have you? I did not think so. Shut up!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2006)

> Just add an arresting hook and some plates to the frame and theyre in business.


Its not quite that simple sys... And since they never tried installing an arrestor hook into a B-25 and land it several times, the engineers and Doolittle himself honestly were guessing...

Contrary to ur obviously biased opinion, engineers dont know everything, and theoretical hypothesis and guesstimating dont count for jack sh*t...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Thats what we have been trying to tell him, but he is stuborn as a mule and knows everything!


----------



## Soren (Jul 2, 2006)

Jank said:


> Soren,
> 
> The 99% figure came from you as in *"Also if the weapons are made with the same tools and with the exact same specifications, then whatever deviation that might occur during firing is 99% contributed by the fired round itself."*
> 
> ...



Oh please, spare me your whining Jank ! :rolleyes 

Obviously you're the one who hasn't shot a gun in life, or just doesn't know s*** about whats going on inside of them.

A variation of 5-10-20 fps between 10 rounds at supersonic velocities are very common, something you'd know if you actually ever chronograph'ed more than just a couple of rifles in your life - Ofcourse your excuse could be your handloading skills might seriously hamper such attempts 

I shoot 7.92mm Turkish surplus allot, and its a 154gr S* projectile propelled at around 2,900 - 3,000 ft/min (Depending on which rifle you're using ofcourse - 600mm or 740mm barrel), heck some rounds even having an extreme spread easily reaching +3,100 ft/min! (And yes these are VERY high pressure rounds!) But even these by far tend to have a S.D. of only 10-20 fps, with extreme spread rarely surpassing 60-70fps, and they were made in the freaking 40's and 50's !! Even with me and my buddy(s) Turkish M48's (590mm barrel), the v0 will very rarely deviate more than 15-20 fps shooting Turkish ammo.

And about your little theory that because the 30.06 cartridge has a slightly larger powder capacity than the 7.92x57mm cartridge(100 vs 97%) then it must be better, well, incorrect ! The small advantage the 30.06 might have in its charge is totally and utterly negated by the fact that the 8x57mm's charge has more surface area to shove against ! (Less pressure the heavier the round) - Thats why at the same pressure the Turkish 8mm surplus will usually seriously kick the 30.06's *** in terms of v0 at the same projectile weight ! And lets see if a 30.06 will shove a 200gr projectile at the same speeds as the 7.92x57mm without the cartridge having been heavily modified, shall we ?!  Thats right, it won't !

Oh and just incase you don't know where to start with the handloading(Which you don't), here's the recipe for some hot 8mm loads  : Real Guns - Handload Data - 8x57mm JS Mauser (Oh and note these are at 56,000 psi only)

So Jank, why don't you just admit it, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about !


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2006)

I bet after every landing with a hooked b25 you have to locate a new center of gravity because i think the 25 would stretch a little with every landing not even thinking of a reniforced undercarriage


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

And perhaps it wouldnt.


----------



## Jank (Jul 2, 2006)

Soren said, *"A variation of 5-10-20 fps between 10 rounds at supersonic velocities are very common, something you'd know if you actually ever chronograph'ed more than just a couple of rifles in your life ..."*

Soren a variation of 5 fps would be very, very rare even at about 1,100 fps which would be "supersonic velocity." Supersonic velocity, Soren, is achieved at about 1,100fps. Hell, my .45ACP will easily achieve "supersonic velocity." The fact that you would use the term "supersonic velocity" in an argument about the SD of rifle artridges really establishes that I'm dealing with a dolt.

*"And about your little theory that because the 30.06 cartridge has a slightly larger powder capacity than the 7.92x57mm cartridge(100 vs 97%) then it must be better, well, incorrect?"*

And what "theory" was that? It was you who said, *"+50,000 CUP, std.German military load my friend, try it ! Heck it'll even go higher than a 30.06 at the top!"*

I never said the 30/06 was better. Both cartridges were really quite equal in terms of terminal effects and effective range. I said the 8x57 couldn't be "loaded higher" which is what you said and pointed ou that the 30/06 case has 5 grains more capacity. Soren, the maximum cup on the 8x57 cartridge will not "go higher" than the 30/06. Again, you are a dolt. The cases of both the 8x57 and the 30/06 must be fully supported because they will blow apart. The strength of a rifle's action will dictate the maximum pressure that can be safely achieved. You can produce no evidence (because none exists) that the action on a K98 is any stronger than that of a Springfield M1903.

I stand by my assertion that you do not handload, have never chronographed a load, do not own a chronograph and are making up your claim that usually, the SD between your "full power" (still chuckling over that one) 8x57 loads are only 1-3 meters per second. That's a joke.

Your quick internet research on this subject does not cloak your ignorance.

Back to the original point though, as you have caused me to stray, the standard deviation in velocity between two identical MG131 fresh off the assembly line would not be 99% attributable to ammunition and 1% attributable to the guns themselves. You are such a retard that you haven't even noticed that the arguments you advanced in your last few posts have undercut your original position. Can you see it now?

You are basically saying that the SD of ammuniton is very, very small. Well, that necessarily means that the amount of variance due to the guns would have to be correspondingly larger. It's like a pie Soren. Let's call it a Standard Deviation pie. If you slice up the pie so that less of the standard deviation goes to ammuntion, more of the standard deviation is left to the gun. 

As I have indicated, brand new sporting rifles (same make and model) vary between one another outside the parameters of the SD attributable to the cartridges often by 30 or more feet per second. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would know this. 

I just purchased (last month) a Ruger GP100 and am disatisfied with the cylider gap which I have measured at .007". My brother has the same gun (I liked his which is why I bought one myself) and his cylinder gap is a very nice .004". After doing some research I discovered that the allowable variation in the industry is from .002" to .010". 

Military rifles have greater tolerances than sporting arms to facillitate reliable operation. Do some internet research on the difference between the .223 Remington and the 5.56 NATO. Then do some research on the .223 Wilde (which is an attempt to split the difference). You can't let powder residue, dirt, sand and such stop your rifle from functioning. The larger tolerances in the chamber and throat give rise to greater velocity fluctuations than with sporting arms. Now, I'm just talking about today's military rifles. In WWII, the realities of mass production and lack of quality control meant more and greater variations in tolerances from manufactured piece to manufactured piece than those of the military rifles that are manufactured today. 

I feel like I'm trying to teach a brick wall here so why don't you just go ahead and have the last word and we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And perhaps it wouldnt.



And that is the point, unless you have a source that says the whole thing can be done, dont bring it up at all.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.

Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2006)

The reason they probably discontinued the project was after you would have carrier readied the B25 its useful payload would've gone down by a least a thousand pounds making it uneconomical as a combat aircraft when compared to other options like the Helldiver plus you can hanger more Helldivers on carriers . To upgrade to carrier standards the Brewster Buffalo was neutered by the additional weight required so imagine how much weight the B25 would've required upgraded undercarriage strengthing the frame even the mid upper would have required work


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Note to Syscom......Since when did you become a specialist in anything having to do with airframes? Atleast I have experience working on aircraft. Jack ***!!!!



Seconded.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.
> 
> Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.



Syscom no where did I say it could not be attached. Get your head out of your ****ing *** and read the posts and maybe we would not be getting into these damn arguements.

It is not whether it is possible or not to do it is the forces applied to the fricken airframe when the things lands. It does not roll to a slow stop, it is jerked and stopped with a fierce force. That will cause cracking, binding, and warping of the airframe, stringers, longerons, etc...

The airframe would have to be reinforced. If you look at aircraft that were designed for that purpose they are built reinforced in those areas. The B-25 was not built in that manner and would have to be modded and reinforced and strengthened.

Is that really so hard to understand, or you just being complicated so that people will think that you are stupid.

Trust me on this syscom3, I dont claim to know everything there is to know about aircraft but I do have experience working on them, fixing them, and modding them. 

The forces applied by students laning the plane hard are not the same forces that would be applied to the area of the arrestor hook on a carrier landing. I really dont understand how you come up with this stuff, it really shows lack of knowledge and worse not wanting to learn. 

Atleast I will owe up to things that I am wrong in when I am corrected or proven wrong....


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.
> 
> Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.



Think it through Syscom. Hard landings are fairly easy to stress for in as you are beefing up parts of the plane that are doing what they are designed to do in particular the undercarridge and the mountings.

That is a whole world of difference from stressing the aircraft to do what it wasn't supposed to do ie stop 10 tons of aircraft in 200ft (roughly). Almost every part of the plane will need strengthening. It doesn't matter if the weight is at the front, back or anywhere else. What matters is that the weight exists, and needs to be slowed from flying speed to zero in a couple of seconds.

Re your 'observations' about the difference in technology comparing B25B to the planes that I worked on and the modern aircraft of today. It might suprise you but the rules of Physics haven't changed in that time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.
> 
> Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.


WRONG - you cannot simply put an arresting hook on any aircraft designed from the ground up as a land based bomber, especially a B-25. When naval aircraft are designed every bulkhead and longeron are designed to include arrestor loads and that's been the norm since the 1930s, I invite you to read Aerodynamics of the airplane by Millikan, Clark Blanchard (p1941). It's an old book but it provides a lot of stress analysis to aircraft loads and if I remember correctly there's a considerable amount of information given to loads applied to naval aircraft. For the B-25 to be completely navalized I could bet dollars to donuts that a design team would of reviewed every nut and bolt of that aircraft to see if it could withstand continual carrier operations. A twin engine carrier based aircraft stayed on North American's mind as after the war it came up with the AJ-1 Savage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Thankyou FBJ that is what I have been trying to explain to him the whole time. He will not believe us though, because he is the upmost athority on aircraft design.


----------



## Jank (Jul 2, 2006)

Testing


----------



## rogue7t6 (Jul 2, 2006)

hi all i would go with the ju 88 in most roles

anti shipping- the ju 88 was designed so that it could b used as a level bomber or dive bomber the b24 wasnt.

tactical bombing as above

as a fighter i am not sure as your posts on here are the first i heard of the b24 being used as a gunship

but if was as ya say then i would say prob an even tie there with the manouverability of the ju 88 and the weaponary of the b24 i would say that the weaponary makes up for the ju 88's manouverability


----------



## rogue7t6 (Jul 2, 2006)

hi all i would go with the ju 88 in most roles

anti shipping- the ju 88 was designed so that it could b used as a level bomber or dive bomber the b25 wasnt.



as a fighter i am not sure as your posts on here are the first i heard of the b25 being used as a gunship

but if was as ya say then i would say prob an even tie there with the manouverability of the ju 88 and the weaponary of the b25 i would say that the weaponary makes up for the ju 88's manouverability


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 2, 2006)

B-25, not B-24. slight difference


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thankyou FBJ that is what I have been trying to explain to him the whole time. He will not believe us though, because he is the upmost athority on aircraft design.


My wrong on the Book - it was Fundamentals of Aircraft Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 2, 2006)

Was the Corsair designed from the outset to be a carrier plane? Wasn't the Spitfire used in carrier operations? Did they modify it for arrestor landings?

Interesting firearm discussion up above. My brother and I both have identical .22 rifles that we bought on the same day and we noticed that his was a lot more accurate even with the same ammunition. 

Phew. At first I thought he was just a better shot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

The Corsair was designed from the onset I believe as a Carrier aircraft. The Spitfire was not and therefore would require modifications and strengthening.


----------



## Jank (Jul 2, 2006)

Sal said, *"Interesting firearm discussion up above. My brother and I both have identical .22 rifles that we bought on the same day and we noticed that his was a lot more accurate even with the same ammunition."* 

I neglected to mention that besides velocity, accuracy very often varies between guns of the same make and model. I suspect that my GP100 is not as accurate as my brother's as a result of what also appears to be excessive cylinder play (the larger cylinder gap would also contribute to a loss of accuracy).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> Was the Corsair designed from the outset to be a carrier plane? Wasn't the Spitfire used in carrier operations? Did they modify it for arrestor landings?
> 
> Interesting firearm discussion up above. My brother and I both have identical .22 rifles that we bought on the same day and we noticed that his was a lot more accurate even with the same ammunition.
> 
> Phew. At first I thought he was just a better shot.


The Seafire was modified for carrier operations and there were structureal mods. It's a lot easier to convert a single engine aircraft than a large (over 12,000 pounds) multi engine aircraft for carrier ops.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> The reason they probably discontinued the project was after you would have carrier readied the B25 its useful payload would've gone down by a least a thousand pounds making it uneconomical as a combat aircraft when compared to other options like the Helldiver plus you can hanger more Helldivers on carriers . To upgrade to carrier standards the Brewster Buffalo was neutered by the additional weight required so imagine how much weight the B25 would've required upgraded undercarriage strengthing the frame even the mid upper would have required work



The reason it was discontinued was there was nowhere to stow the plane on the carrier. I dont even think the Roosevelt class carriers had elevators big enough to handle them even with folding wings.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Syscom no where did I say it could not be attached. Get your head out of your ****ing *** and read the posts and maybe we would not be getting into these damn arguements.
> 
> It is not whether it is possible or not to do it is the forces applied to the fricken airframe when the things lands. It does not roll to a slow stop, it is jerked and stopped with a fierce force. That will cause cracking, binding, and warping of the airframe, stringers, longerons, etc...
> 
> ...



I'm sure if Doolittle thought the plane was not strong enough to take a landing then he wouldnt have quashed the idea right then. Of course he was listening to the NAA engineers. but what did they know.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

Glider said:


> Think it through Syscom. Hard landings are fairly easy to stress for in as you are beefing up parts of the plane that are doing what they are designed to do in particular the undercarridge and the mountings.
> 
> That is a whole world of difference from stressing the aircraft to do what it wasn't supposed to do ie stop 10 tons of aircraft in 200ft (roughly). Almost every part of the plane will need strengthening. It doesn't matter if the weight is at the front, back or anywhere else. What matters is that the weight exists, and needs to be slowed from flying speed to zero in a couple of seconds.
> 
> Re your 'observations' about the difference in technology comparing B25B to the planes that I worked on and the modern aircraft of today. It might suprise you but the rules of Physics haven't changed in that time.



The plane was built solid. I'm sure you remember that back in the days of slide rules (you do know what a slide rule is dont you?), the engineers fudged a lot of calculations to make sure they were stronger than figured "just in case". 

And I'm sure you do realize that the design methodology in aircraft have changed a bit between 1940 and 2000?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'm sure if Doolittle thought the plane was not strong enough to take a landing then he wouldnt have quashed the idea right then. Of course he was listening to the NAA engineers. but what did they know.


show us where Doolittle, the USN or USAAF was planning sustained B-25 carrier ops?!?!?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

Syscom, what experience have you had in structural engineering of aircraft? Be it World War II or modern day? You seem to be going on and on about how the other members are wrong because they haven't been mechanics on the World War II craft, but you haven't either. Yet you seem so sure that the B-25 could handle the stresses. But you've proven your complete lack of knowledge when you claim that all you have to do is add an arrestor hook to an aircraft to make it able to land on a carrier. At least these other lads have hands on experience on the structures of aircraft, and more than one has been in some form of the Navy ! I find it a shame that you're too stupid to even learn off other people.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2006)

Jank, is ur brother Sal???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The plane was built solid. I'm sure you remember that back in the days of slide rules (you do know what a slide rule is dont you?), the engineers fudged a lot of calculations to make sure they were stronger than figured "just in case".
> 
> And I'm sure you do realize that the design methodology in aircraft have changed a bit between 1940 and 2000?



Sure it was built solid and there was usually a 2.5x fudge factor built into the aircraft. Bottom line a B-25 was not going to last structurally if it was subject to sustained carrier operations without major modifications or redesigns to it's structure.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

I've read a few little snippets on the internet, and most point towards the tail of the B-25 which was mostly likely to fail during any kind of carrier landing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

There were carrier trials for the B-25. There is no evidence however that anyone involved in the Doolittle raid ever though of returning to the carriers after the fact, but I'm sure it was in the back of some folks mind, 2 1/2 years later it was decided to try it...

PBH-1H 43-4700 (BuNo 35277) was *modified for aircraft carrier catapult launch and arrest retrievals.* The first landings and catapult takeoffs took place aboard the USS Shangri La (CV-38 ) on November 15, 1944. Although the experiment was successful, no further work on a carrier-based Mitchell took place since American advances in the Pacific made such an aircraft unnecessary.

This was an experiment, it showed it could be done, but sustained operations would of involved major modification to the aircraft. I'll bet dollars to donuts this aircraft was heavily modified structurally to complete this. Bottom line, you just don't throw a tail hook on the aircraft and go land on a carrier...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out.


Agree!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> show us where Doolittle, the USN or USAAF was planning sustained B-25 carrier ops?!?!?



They werent planning on sustained carrier ops. The origional plan was for the B25 to fly back to the carriers and land.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Syscom, what experience have you had in structural engineering of aircraft? Be it World War II or modern day? You seem to be going on and on about how the other members are wrong because they haven't been mechanics on the World War II craft, but you haven't either. Yet you seem so sure that the B-25 could handle the stresses. But you've proven your complete lack of knowledge when you claim that all you have to do is add an arrestor hook to an aircraft to make it able to land on a carrier. At least these other lads have hands on experience on the structures of aircraft, and more than one has been in some form of the Navy ! I find it a shame that you're too stupid to even learn off other people.



Actually flyboyj is the one I listen too because unlike any of you, he has worked on the old warbirds AND HE QUOTED a source that could prove me wrong.

Just because YOU claim to know better dont mean anythign UNTILL you show a source.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out.



How can you look at a picture and say it looks bulkier? You have x-ray vision?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> They werent planning on sustained carrier ops. The origional plan was for the B25 to fly back to the carriers and land.


Show me that! i don't believe that was ever part of the plan...


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> WRONG - you cannot simply put an arresting hook on any aircraft designed from the ground up as a land based bomber, especially a B-25. When naval aircraft are designed every bulkhead and longeron are designed to include arrestor loads and that's been the norm since the 1930s, I invite you to read Aerodynamics of the airplane by Millikan, Clark Blanchard (p1941). It's an old book but it provides a lot of stress analysis to aircraft loads and if I remember correctly there's a considerable amount of information given to loads applied to naval aircraft. For the B-25 to be completely navalized I could bet dollars to donuts that a design team would of reviewed every nut and bolt of that aircraft to see if it could withstand continual carrier operations. A twin engine carrier based aircraft stayed on North American's mind as after the war it came up with the AJ-1 Savage.



For the record, the AJ-1 Savage was a three engined aircraft. There was a turbojet in the rear fuselage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

yep!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The reason it was discontinued was there was nowhere to stow the plane on the carrier. I dont even think the Roosevelt class carriers had elevators big enough to handle them even with folding wings.



Which means it would not be carrier operable! Read your own post!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Actually flyboyj is the one I listen too because unlike any of you, he has worked on the old warbirds AND HE QUOTED a source that could prove me wrong.



You dont quote sources either! You bring up crap that shows your lack of knowledge and dont show a source but it requires a source from someone else!

Come on now Syscom as I said before, atleast the majority of us members will admit to being wrong or learning something that we do not know, or the fact that we dont know at all.



syscom3 said:


> Just because YOU claim to know better dont mean anythign UNTILL you show a source.



Go get an A&P Liscense or Aeronautical Engineer Degree and then come back and talk to me.

You right I have never worked on WW2 warbirds but atleast I work, fix, and fly on planes and not simulators and claim to know everything.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

I never said you had to listen to me, although I know I'm right because it's common sense. But you do not listen to Adler, Glider or anyone else with aircraft experience. And Glider was in the FAA! As Glider says, physics hasn't changed. And Flyboy has never worked on the B-25. 

You haven't provided a single source, syscom. And just look at the B-25, look at the depth of the fuselage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

Its no use pD.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2006)

Jank,

I have reached the point where I really don't care discussing this with you anymore, cause you obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You sound like some dumb hunter who has tried chronograph'ing his two completely different rifles with soft point hunting ammunition. Well wake up Jank, we're talking military rifles and ammunition here.

Your ignorance on this subject also completely shines through when you try to compare pistols with rifles, something only some dumb texan gun-nut/hunter would do. (And even worse its revolvers which you are comparing rifles with !)

And about your dis-satisfaction with my mentioning of Supersonic velocities, obviously all you're looking for is to be right, and the more brutal your posts sound the better, well that's just childish and stupid Jank ! What would you have wanted me to say ? Hypersonic velocities ? 

Also don't try to lecture me on military small-arms, you can perhaps attempt to discuss it with me when you've tried operating them for three decades, otherwise I suggest you just keep your hands off the keyboard.

I also suggest you get out abit Jank, talk to people who shoot full power military rifles and ammunition on a daily basis, learn about their experiences, cause then you'll realize that even a variation as small as 5 fps between 5-10 rifle rounds is in reality a common event - and between two identically designed and good quality rifles, a variation of just 5 fps is common as-well. (As I said me and my buddy's M48's usually don't vary any more than 15-20 fps between each other with the old turk stuff)

And to your last comment; Yes Jank, I completely disagree with you.

Oh, and go ahead and have the last word, I don't give a rats a**, cause I'm out this discussion, period.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 3, 2006)

To get this thread back to some original discussions, does anyone have a break down on the Ju-88A-4 bomb load verses range data? I have couple of points for the A-1, 620 miles w/3600lbs and 1550 miles w/2200lbs, but only max for the A-4 of around 5500lbs (with no range). I know the A-4 has larger engines but also has a higher empty weight. I kind of suspect that the A-4 would still fall a bit short of the 2000 miles and 2000lbs of bombs that was the requirement of the Tokyo raid.

Also of note, I understand that the B-25 was not really stripped (defensive armament removed) and loaded with max fuel until they had to launch 300 miles short.

Another note, launching from a carrier was greatly aided by the ship itself. Airflow over the wings on the carrier deck had been measured at 45 kts. during a test run. I suspect that the take off speed was not a whole lot faster than that. Indeed, most of the B-25 jumped off the deck, except one who had forgotten to set the flaps (you can see pictures of this one settling towards the water until finally gaining altitude).


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which means it would not be carrier operable! Read your own post!



The navy had the option of stowing them on deck.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I never said you had to listen to me, although I know I'm right because it's common sense. But you do not listen to Adler, Glider or anyone else with aircraft experience. And Glider was in the FAA! As Glider says, physics hasn't changed. And Flyboy has never worked on the B-25.
> 
> You haven't provided a single source, syscom. And just look at the B-25, look at the depth of the fuselage.



As I mentioned, my source was one of Doolittle raiders who mentioned that they were origionally going to fly back to the carriers untill the idea was nixed by the Navy.

He was talking to me (among others) at a 50th anniversary gathering.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

Soren, just say theres a standard deviation in all wepaons, whether ammo or the bore of a rifle (or cannon).

Its all mathematics and statistics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> As I mentioned, my source was one of Doolittle raiders who mentioned that they were origionally going to fly back to the carriers untill the idea was nixed by the Navy.
> 
> He was talking to me (among others) at a 50th anniversary gathering.


Go to the Raider's site and half a dozen other sites about the raid and that's never mentioned. Maybe he knew something Doolittle didn't?!?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2006)

Well it aint in Doolittles book, nor the other 2 members of the raiding party whose books I have read....

I think someone was telling Sea Stories....


----------



## Jank (Jul 3, 2006)

View from Soren's driver's side window:


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The plane was built solid. I'm sure you remember that back in the days of slide rules (you do know what a slide rule is dont you?), the engineers fudged a lot of calculations to make sure they were stronger than figured "just in case".
> 
> And I'm sure you do realize that the design methodology in aircraft have changed a bit between 1940 and 2000?



Unlike you and most, if not all the people on the thread, I have used a slide rule to do my stress analysis calculations. Still keep it and use it to confuse my son when he gets a bit too big for his boots. Suggest you don't insult those engineers of any nation, who used such tools to design such capable aircraft by accusing them of fudging things

As I recall, my instructors were not that keen on fudging things, so don't belittle those of us who have used them for serious work. Remember we flew in the planes that we fixed and I am very confident that anyone who has flown off the back of a small frigate during heavy weather in a single engined Wasp will tell you that fudging things wasn't a basis to work on. 

Design methodologies have actually stayed pretty constant Syscom, its the materials that have changed. As I said earlier the rules of Physics haven't changed, unless you know better.

In case anyone is wondering just how old I am in case you think I am all Grey hair and false teeth, I joined the RN as an Artificer Apprentice at 16 in 1973 and am just the right side of 50. I took and passed the entrance exam at 15 but had to wait, my mother didn't know if she should hug me or deck me when I asked her to sign the release. 
It wasn't a Junior Unit and I was the youngest in the unit by two years, no favours were granted and it wasn't easy keeping up with the others at work or at play.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

You did the same thing as my dad to get into the forces, Glider. He was straight out of school and into the RAF as an aircraft electrician. I take your opinion to mind everytime, even if I did disagree on the Rapiers in Falklands discussion. But my dad was there, and he tells me that he saw them bounce off ... I take his word on that one. 

Back to the discussion, there's no proof that the B-25 without extensive modification could land on a carrier time and time again. There has not been one single strip of evidence. The pictures of one landing are there, but it only did it once and it's stated to be heavily modified. 
If the B-25 could operate successfully off Carriers, and it was proven as such then I would give it. Until then, no it can't.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

And there is no proof, because people like myself, FBJ, and Glider who by the way have all worked on aircraft not that it is not that easy as syscome who by the way has never worked on aircraft and has all his knowledge from a). books or b) so called sources.

Have you noticed that it is just more bull after bull right now coming from him. No more lengthy non sourced comments. He knows he is wrong but his pride wont let him give him.

I will admit that is one of the reasons why I like syscom though.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will admit that is one of the reasons why I like syscom though.



I have to agree with that as well, but why Syscom, do you have to make it so easy for us?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2006)

Actually I like for you guys to prove your assertions.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2006)

You cannot prove that something didn't happen. 
You can only prove that something, was going to happen, did happen or that something failed. You can also provide evidence or logic as to why something would fail if it was tried.

In this case the person who said it was going to happen was you and you have provided no evidence to support anything that you have claimed. 
The whole basis of your argument is that a Veteran said that they were going to land back on the carrier, but the navy were not going to hang around long enough for that to happen. So prove it, prove that this was going to happen.
1) What tests were carried out, presumably some were undertaken or planned.
2) What plans were made, flight plans, range payload tests, navigation plans alternative routes. Supply them?
3) What training took place. An absolute must would have been to train the pilots to land on a carrier, were they trained in this difficult skill?.
4) What modifications were undertaken. The arrestor gear would need significant modification to take the load of a B25 landing, was it beefed up?
5) You state that its easy to sling a hook on a B25. Prove it, what plans were in place to do this. Where were they going to attach it? where they going to upgrade the Landing Gear.
6) Finally you state that the navy were not going to hang around. Prove that statement, there must have been discussions ad decisions.

As I said, the onus is on you to supply the information that it was going to happen.

There have been multiple statements made and examples given at to why it would be impossible to do without significant modification to the B25. People with experience in this field have made statements, pointed you to books, given examples as to what happens if arrestor gear is used incorrectly and the price of an incorrectly stressed aircraft.

So to sum up.
A) You have provided nothing of any evidence to say this was going to happen.
B) We cannot prove that it didn't happen because that cannot be proven.
C) A number of people have said why it would only happen with significant modification to the plane and the arrestor gear. None of which you have refuted.

The ball old son, is in your court. Prove that it was going to happen.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2006)

Glider said:


> You cannot prove that something didn't happen.
> You can only prove that something, was going to happen, did happen or that something failed. You can also provide evidence or logic as to why something would fail if it was tried...



You havent proved the idea was not going to work.



> In this case the person who said it was going to happen was you and you have provided no evidence to support anything that you have claimed.



I utterly aplogize to the depths of my heart and beg for your humble understanding and forgiveness that 14 years ago, I forgot to bring a notebook to a picture signing event and record verbatum what this crewman said. I know it was a compete oversight on my part, something that I hope never will be repeated again, ever. If only I could have forseen the future where the internet, broadband and forums about WW2 aircraft would exist, I would have made damn sure I was prepared to document everything. 




> 1) What tests were carried out, presumably some were undertaken or planned.



Practice takeoffs were done at Eglin AAF. If I remember correctly what the crewman said, they had the outline of a carrier deck mainted on one of the runways, including some markings where the landing point would be.



> 2) What plans were made, flight plans, range payload tests, navigation plans alternative routes. Supply them?



Stupid question as they bombed their assigned targets, even took a few pictures of it. I suppose they had some maps with them, dont you think?



> 3) What training took place. An absolute must would have been to train the pilots to land on a carrier, were they trained in this difficult skill?...



The plan never got out of the idea stage. Not enough time to do it. They had only enough time to learn how to take off. There were probably plenty of top notch naval aviators who could have done it though.



> 4) What modifications were undertaken. The arrestor gear would need significant modification to take the load of a B25 landing, was it beefed up?



None of us know the structure of the B25B Maybe it was a simple as bolting on an arrestor gear, maybe not. There never was an arrestor gear designed for the B25, but as American industry proved it could handle problems on the spot, a suitable gear could have been forged with in days. Not an issue.



> 5) You state that its easy to sling a hook on a B25. Prove it, what plans were in place to do this. Where were they going to attach it? where they going to upgrade the Landing Gear.



I had a seance last night and invoked the spirits of the long deceased NAA B25 design engineers and they told me that they too need to see the blueprints to determine the optimal attachment points and to look at where things might need to be beefed up. Unfortunatley they also reported that in heaven there are no NAA archives for them to refer to.



> 6) Finally you state that the navy were not going to hang around. Prove that statement, there must have been discussions ad decisions.



Adm King and Nimitz said they would bring the carriers as close to Japan as practical, and for them too hightail it out of there once the bombers were airborne. They didnt want the chance to lose two of the remaining five carriers in the fleet



> As I said, the onus is on you to supply the information that it was going to happen.



Fair enough. I have some e-mails out and when (or if ) they respond to me, I will report back.



> There have been multiple statements made and examples given at to why it would be impossible to do without significant modification to the B25. People with experience in this field have made statements, pointed you to books, given examples as to what happens if arrestor gear is used incorrectly and the price of an incorrectly stressed aircraft.



As I said, none of us have the blueprints for the plane, let alone the expertise to interpret them correctly. So all we have to go on for facts, is the B25 airframe was proven to be quite strong. And the fact that it could take a pounding by student pilots means it was stronger than most. 



> So to sum up.
> A) You have provided nothing of any evidence to say this was going to happen.
> B) We cannot prove that it didn't happen because that cannot be proven.
> C) A number of people have said why it would only happen with significant modification to the plane and the arrestor gear. None of which you have refuted.



A) You havent provided any evidence through a technical analysis that the B25 couldnt have survived a carrier landing
B) I reported that the origional plan was for them to return back to the carrier. Whether that was due to the plane couldnt do it is conjecture. The fact it wasnt done is most probably because the navy didnt want to hang around for six hours or so in range of Japanese aircraft and warships.
c) All i hear is people saying it cant be done, even though they have no blueprints available to prove it cant be done. So many negative vibes. Its amazing we actually won the war.



> The ball old son, is in your court. Prove that it was going to happen.



I will try. You see I'm an optimist. Your a pessimist.


----------



## Jank (Jul 4, 2006)




----------



## Jank (Jul 4, 2006)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 5, 2006)

I just find it amusing at how annoyed syscom becomes when someone plays his own game on him. Priceless.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

me annoyed? 

 

If I was annoyed, I wouldnt respond. But since you all need educating, I will do my darndest.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

You haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence for your case. So, you're just wasting time, yours and ours. Glider said you can't prove something didn't happen, but you haven't provided the slightest slither of evidence that it could or did happen. 

Your whole argument is based off "The U.S could do it". Prove it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

Actually guys, Sys is right - here's a copy of a report written by Doolittle in June, 1942 - 

*"The original plan was to take off from and return to an aircraft carrier. Take off and landing tests conducted with three B-25B's at and off Norfolk, Virginia, indicated that take off from the carrier would be relatively easy but landing back on again extremely difficult.* It was then decided that a carrier take-off would be made some place East of Tokyo and the flight would proceed in a generally Westerly direction from there. Fields near the East Coast of China and at Vladivostok were considered as termini. The principal advantage of Vladivostok as a terminus was that it was only about 600 miles from Tokyo against some 1200 miles to the China Coast and range was critical. Satisfactory negotiation could not, however, be consummated with the Russian Government and the idea of going to Vladivostok was therefore abandoned."

Doolittle Raider Reports Interviews

There is no evidence that the B-25Bs were modified for carrier landings at that time, I believe all testing was accomplished from land bases.

BTW - the test shown on the earlier thread were conducted on the USS Shangri-La. Compare it with the deck of the Hornet...

Displacement: As built:
27,100 tons standard 
Length: As built:
888 feet (overall) 
Beam: As built:
93 feet (waterline) 
Draught: As built:
28 feet 7 inches light 

The original Hornet...

Displacement: As built:
19,900 tons light
25,600 tons full load 
Length: As built:
761 feet (waterline)
824 feet 9 inches (overall) 
Beam: As built:
83 feet 3 inches (waterline)
114 feet (overall)

Again I make the staement that the 1944 tests with a PBH-1H was an experiment - basically a B-25J modified for this mission. It is quite obvious that this later model of the Mitchell was a hell of a lot more robust than the "B," just look at cut aways of both aircraft and even the most novice could see that.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

Thanks Flyboy. I wasnt sure if the B25's had actually been modified for the landings, but you confirmed it for me.

Theres some substantial differences between the -J and -B models though. A stripped down -B model still might be strong enough (conjecture on my part) with some modifications.

You know a bit about aircraft structures, so do you have any idea if an aircraft with a high wing mounting like the B25 would be weaker in the center section for high "G" loading in the vertical plane? Im curious on why naval aircraft designed for carriers have low wing designs and not high wing designs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thanks Flyboy. I wasnt sure if the B25's had actually been modified for the landings, but you confirmed it for me.
> 
> Theres some substantial differences between the -J and -B models though. A stripped down -B model still might be strong enough (conjecture on my part) with some modifications.
> 
> You know a bit about aircraft structures, so do you have any idea if an aircraft with a high wing mounting like the B25 would be weaker in the center section for high "G" loading in the vertical plane? Im curious on why naval aircraft designed for carriers have low wing designs and not high wing designs.


If it was a one shot deal for a B-25B to be launched and return to the carrier, I could see it being done with some modifications. For prolonged operations, I would bet major structural modification would have to be incorporated. 

I believe the g loading would be about the same for low wing aircraft most fighters were +8.0 -4.0, a bomber like the B-25 would be about half that - I also believe many naval WW2 aircraft were low wing for several reasons.

1. Easier to load bombs on
2. Visibility
3. Ease of maintenance and servicing

There were multi-engine carrier aircraft that did have high wings, especially in the post war years - the AJ-1, the S-2 Tracker, and in later years the S-3 - if it was designed as a carrier aircraft from the outset, I don't think its a problem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2006)

Now how hard was that syscom. 

Thankyou FBJ for that information. Very interesting and something that I had never heard of until this point.

Now having said that Syscom, you need to start doing the same thing when you post stuff because not proving anything just makes this so much harder.

2nd you still have not admitted that the B-25 would require modification and strengthening to land on a carrier. I am waiting for you to say that we are all correct and an apology in order for the people that know about working on aircraft and you discredit for it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ...
> 
> 2nd you still have not admitted that the B-25 would require modification and strengthening to land on a carrier. I am waiting for you to say that we are all correct and an apology in order for the people that know about working on aircraft and you discredit for it.



I am awaiting the results of some e-mails I sent out to some aircraft museums.

If I get a respose back, I will post it verbatim. if I'm wrong I will admit it.

But yes, the B25 would need some modifications to land on a carrier. Whether extensive or not so extensive is the question.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2006)

I am telling you that it would require more than likely some extenise structural strengthening. You can not just drill a couple of holes in the skin and bolt up an arrestor hook and not damage the structure of the aircraft from the forces of the landing. 

Now having said that, I have not worked on a B-25 but I do work on aircraft and have an understanding of what it takes. I wish you would understand that and realize that there are people on this forum that know what they are talking about.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 5, 2006)

As an engineer, the transfer of the force isn't very hard or extensive what makes it complicated is the possibility of side/vertical loadings and impact loads to the main gear. In an aircraft the tail em panage impart those same loads As an arrestor imparts so its factored in to some extent already and only needs to be confirmed/uprated for the new loads. The redesign would be pretty extensive because they would go through the entire structure like wing spars and landing gear. The actual aircraft as built in the factory the changes would not be very great maybe around 250 - 500lbs is likely. That is a lot of aluminum though and would be located primarily around the wing spar/landing gear attach points. The weight would go up if the landing gear themselves needed to be beefed up. The B-25 was tested with 2,800s and they found out that the wing spars could not take a high speed pull out at the speeds the 2800s could get it to. This was in '44 and a redesign for 2,800s was deemed not worth it.

Thats my guess.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am telling you that it would require more than likely some extenise structural strengthening. You can not just drill a couple of holes in the skin and bolt up an arrestor hook and not damage the structure of the aircraft from the forces of the landing.
> 
> Now having said that, I have not worked on a B-25 but I do work on aircraft and have an understanding of what it takes. I wish you would understand that and realize that there are people on this forum that know what they are talking about.



But how do we know that? What is the thickness's of the structure at various places? What were the stress margins that were designed into the structure to begin with? Too many unkowns to say offhand it was carrier capable or not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But how do we know that? What is the thickness's of the structure at various places? What were the stress margins that were designed into the structure to begin with?


It was probably stressed to +4.5 - 1.5 Gs, like most multi-engined aircraft of the era - it is quite obvious it was not designed to go from 100 knots (it's approx. landing speed) to zero in 3 seconds, at least on a consistant basis. Skin thickness? In the tail probably between .030 to .050.



syscom3 said:


> Too many unkowns to say offhand it was carrier capable or not.


Not at all, it wasn't designed as a naval aircraft, plain and simple. It was shown that a later model B-25 accomplished a carrier landing more than likely after great modification....

BTW - ground based aircraft of WW2 were also manufactured with little or no corrosion protection within the structure - this was an another factor that would of had to be condiered for B-25 carrier operations...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW - ground based aircraft of WW2 were also manufactured with little or no corrosion protection within the structure - this was an another factor that would of had to be condiered for B-25 carrier operations...



Right you are on that. Salt water corrosion would be a serious concern. Glad you brought that up.


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2006)

FJ Thanks for the info re the planning of the raid. Like others have said, something new that I hadn't heard before.

Syscom Can you say where the bit about blaming the USN for not wanting to hang around as the reason for not continuing with the plan came from?
I know that I was RN but us Navy types sometimes have to support each other.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

Glider said:


> FJ Thanks for the info re the planning of the raid. Like others have said, something new that I hadn't heard before.
> 
> Syscom Can you say where the bit about blaming the USN for not wanting to hang around as the reason for not continuing with the plan came from?
> I know that I was RN but us Navy types sometimes have to support each other.



Think about the implications for staying within range of the Japanese land based bombers as well as their warships. They would have to stay around for several hours in which case they could have been attacked and sunk. Also, if the planes were to return back to the carrier, that means they would have needed nav aids which would have exposed the ships to exact location, or the planes might simply have not found the carrier and dissapear into the ocean.

In April 1942, there were only four usable carriers in the whole Pacific, of which two were enroute to Australia (Lexington and Yorktown) and one in drydock getting repaired (Saratoga). The Wasp was active in the Atlantic and would need a month to be able to get to Hawaii if required.

Admirals King and Nimitz were correct in not wanting to risk loosing two carriers for an admitted "stunt" mission. Bigger battles were coming up and they had to be available.

In addition, there was the training window, which was only long enough to train the pilots in takeoff, let alone landing. And thats assuming the B25's were able to land on the ships without extensive modifications.

In a "what if scenario".... I wonder how the battle of Midway would have played out if the planes did return to the carriers and then dropped off at Hawaii, to then be shipped up to Midway.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

_"Too many unkowns to say offhand it was carrier capable or not."_

If this is the case, why did you say that the B-25 was carrier capable?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

plan_D said:


> _"Too many unkowns to say offhand it was carrier capable or not."_
> 
> If this is the case, why did you say that the B-25 was carrier capable?



Because they could take off from a carrier, and there are some indications the engineers of the day thought they could have returned to the ships. Whether they needed major mods or were already strong enough to handle the landing hasnt been settled yet.

And even if we fast forward to 1945, modified B25's did take off and land on the Essex class carriers which made them carrier capable.

Now consider this. We know B25's did take off and land on carriers. the Ju-88 didnt. Perhaps its airframe wasnt even close to being carrier capable. Who knows.

That said, I still consider the -88 the superior of the two for mid altitude bombing missions.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

Make up your mind, syscom. 

First you said with no evidence or pause for thought, "The B-25 is carrier capable..." 

It then took another member to prove that A) The B-25 did land on a carrier. B) There was a plan for B-25s to land back on the carrier after the Doolittle Raid. 
Then you said, there's "too many unknowns" for us to be certain if the B-25 was carrier capable or not. And now, you're saying "B25's did take off and land on Essex class carriers which made them carrier capable". 

Make up your mind! 

We know now that the B-25s that did land on a carrier were modified beyond merely attaching an arrestor hook, as you'd like to believe. We also have recognised that the B-25s that did land were not proven to be able to sustained continued operations on a carrier. Also, several other factors of a naval aircraft were lacking on the B-25. 

Telling us all, that the B-25 as history informs us was *not* carrier capable. It, however, *may* have had the potential to become a carrier capable plane _but_ there was no need for it as carrier bombers already present were superior.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Make up your mind, syscom.
> 
> First you said with no evidence or pause for thought, "The B-25 is carrier capable..."



I heard what the crewman said, Flyboy found the proof that I was correct. And it was a logical extension of thought that if it was planned to land them on the carrier OBVIOUSLY someone in charge of the operation GAVE it some thought that the planes were carrier capable. Didnt it occur to you that the B26 or A20 was not selected because it WASNT carrier capable?



> It then took another member to prove that A) The B-25 did land on a carrier. B) There was a plan for B-25s to land back on the carrier after the Doolittle Raid.



Flyboy is a wealth of information isnt he. I always learn something new from him. I always wonder how he finds this information while I always chase down leads that go nowhere.

(syscom3 bows down to flyboyj and exclaims "Im not worthy, I'm not worthy")



> Then you said, there's "too many unknowns" for us to be certain if the B-25 was carrier capable or not. And now, you're saying "B25's did take off and land on Essex class carriers which made them carrier capable".



Aside from a possible few landings, the -B model is still an unknown whether it could handle a few landings and takeoff's without considerable mods. Maybe they did, maybe they didnt. We dont know. Now as Flyboy pointed out, there was probably no corrosion control for ocean ops, and they would have had some maintenece issues quite soon after all the exposure. You saw the same pics of the PBJ's. They took off and landed. Carrier capable.



> We know now that the B-25s that did land on a carrier were modified beyond merely attaching an arrestor hook, as you'd like to believe. We also have recognised that the B-25s that did land were not proven to be able to sustained continued operations on a carrier. Also, several other factors of a naval aircraft were lacking on the B-25.



patrially correct. We know a modified -J model did the landings and takeoffs. We still dont know if the -B models did have some mod's and where they extensive or not. The idea seems to have been abandoned because of the difficulties of landing and not because of structural concerns.



> Telling us all, that the B-25 as history informs us was *not* carrier capable. It, however, *may* have had the potential to become a carrier capable plane _but_ there was no need for it as carrier bombers already present were superior.



the fact that a -J model did land and takeoff from the carrier does prove it was carrier capable. The idea was discarded for operational reasons.

So if it makes you happy, I will say the -J model proves my point.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

Once again, there's a time to make up your mind. You stated at first that the B-25 was carrier capable. But now, once again, you're saying it may have, or may not have been carrier capable. 

Merely taking off and landing on a carrier once or twice does not make the plane carrier capable. Being able to perform operation after operation off a carrier. The B-25B or J never proved it could perform combat operations off a carrier.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Merely taking off and landing on a carrier once or twice does not make the plane carrier capable. Being able to perform operation after operation off a carrier. The B-25B or J never proved it could perform combat operations off a carrier.



Agree!




syscom3 said:


> Flyboy is a wealth of information isnt he. I always learn something new from him. I always wonder how he finds this information while I always chase down leads that go nowhere.
> 
> (syscom3 bows down to flyboyj and exclaims "Im not worthy, I'm not worthy")


Many Thanks!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Once again, there's a time to make up your mind. You stated at first that the B-25 was carrier capable. But now, once again, you're saying it may have, or may not have been carrier capable.
> 
> Merely taking off and landing on a carrier once or twice does not make the plane carrier capable. Being able to perform operation after operation off a carrier. The B-25B or J never proved it could perform combat operations off a carrier.



The B25B flew off a carrier to bomb japan. Thats a military mission isnt it?

I'm glad Flyboy found the pics of the PBJ. I need to read up more on it. I wonder why they didnt convert it to a cargo plane to deliver goods or people from carrier to carrier. that would have been something, wouldnt it have been.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'm glad Flyboy found the pics of the PBJ. I need to read up more on it. I wonder why they didnt convert it to a cargo plane to deliver goods or people from carrier to carrier. that would have been something, wouldnt it have been.


 "CODs" became popular after the war and I believe the TBM was the first aircraft to be used in this role - there were many of them around..
TBM-3R


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

Here's a great site about Marine Corp PBJ's...

Marine Bombing Squadron Six-Thirteen (VMB-613) - Introduction


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 6, 2006)

Ah, excellent. Good link.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Good site there FBJ.

Syscom I dont think you realise that there is more to it than landing and taking off from a Carrier that makes an aircraft Carrier operable.

As plan_D put it has to be capable to do more than just land and take off. There were no US Carriers with elevators large eneogh (if I am wrong, then someone please correct me) to allow B-25s to go into the Hanger spaces below. Even if they were big eneogh, the Hanger spaces would be to small to house a sufficient amount of them for maintenance to keep them flying. 

You allready said they could house them on the deck. That is correct however not for sustained periods of time, such as a whole cruise of 6 months and use them as standard carrier aircraft. You can not do the maintenance required on the deck. There will be bad weather, you can not allow water to get into the oil, hydraulic fluids, etc... and take it from someone who maintains aircraft (and the way that is done in principle has not changed since WW2.) and has done so in some of the harshest conditions available on this planet, you will not be able to do that on a day to day basis if the planes were only housed on the carrier deck.

Another thing you have to look at is this. If they are all housed on deck how much space does that take off for the landings? A lot.... I dont think all the planes would have been able to land. Besides one mishap and one B-25s rolls at full speed into all the others and then you have a big flaming mess!

Having said all that, the B-25 would still require modifiations and strengthening as stated by myself, FBJ, Glider and wmaxt, 4 people with some kind of experience in the matter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Point to the above post:

No matter how much your church it up, the B-25 was not a Carrier Operable Aircraft.

You can land a C-130 on a carrier but is it Carrier Operable? No.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2006)

Flying off an Aircraft Carrier on one mission does not make the plane carrier capable. The point everyone is making, and you're obviously missing, is the B-25 couldn't continue operations off a carrier for a prolonged period of time due it lacking all the parts vital to a naval aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Exactly pd.

Does that make the B-25 a bad aircraft? Absolutely not. She was a great aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2006)

Agree - A navailized B-25 was/ is a "could of - should of."

Although it *would of* been kind of cool to see a B-25 with folding wings!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Agreed 100%.


----------



## Jank (Jul 6, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Wouldnt have to if someone would just finally see the light.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 6, 2006)

The other thing to consider is just how stripped down and lightened up those B-25's of the Doolittle raid were.... They sacriced so much for less weight, they used broomsticks for guns...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2006)

Yep! I believe a good portion of amour plating was removed as well...


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 6, 2006)

As mentioned before the storage problem exists and in fact is probably the biggest and maybe only real issue. 

Wing fold etc were standard items by '43. Modifications including strengthening of the magnitude required are also standard for naval aircraft or any other aircraft in its production run. Catapult launches were accomplished by those tests so thats not an issue either. 

However, the Midway and Esex classes were straight deck carriers. Storage was always problematic as there was NO spots on the deck that were not flight orientated and retrofits of the required elevators would be a major issue. Also being the size of two fighters or Avengers would reduce the aircraft available by almost half. Landing with aircraft spotted in front of the barrier, nothing more that a steel net, would be a huge problem to.

Really not effective for that time and place.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2006)

Thats why the idea was probably abandonded.

But what if you use the carriers for staging? have the planes on board for an attack, fly back and refuel and then continue on to an airbase?

Note - the B25's used by the Doolittle raiders had three .50's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats why the idea was probably abandonded.
> 
> But what if you use the carriers for staging? have the planes on board for an attack, fly back and refuel and then continue on to an airbase?


Been done with fighters exept they kept fying to their bases....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2006)

I mean make it a shuttle bombing concept. Planes take off from an airbase, land on the carrier to arm and refuel, and then fly to their targets. Maybe even come back for more fuel and bombs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Because then you still have the problem that we just talked about up there. There is no room for all the planes on the deck while the others are landing and there is no room for the planes to land while too many are on the deck. If some stay aloft and fly around while the other refuel, then you run into the problem of planes running out of fuel and ditching into the ocean.

Still not a very good idea and would not work very well.


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2006)

A) without modification they couldn't land.
B) Modified they probably could land (as long as the arrestor gear was modified and that isn't a job to be done in a few days. Design, build, test, install maybe 3-5 months) but cannot be struck down into the hanger
c) If they cannot be struck down into the hanger the deck cannot be used for anything else, including fighters to defend the ship
D) All the other points raised by everyone else. It wasn't going to work.

Earlier a question was asked about why the A20 or B26 were not used. My understanding was that the A20 was too small and the B26 with its higher takeoff speeds was an unnecessary risk with the B25 available.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Glider said:


> A) without modification they couldn't land.
> B) Modified they probably could land (as long as the arrestor gear was modified and that isn't a job to be done in a few days. Design, build, test, install maybe 3-5 months) but cannot be struck down into the hanger
> c) If they cannot be struck down into the hanger the deck cannot be used for anything else, including fighters to defend the ship
> D) All the other points raised by everyone else. It wasn't going to work.




You pretty much hit the nail right on the head there, but I disagree with the 3 to 5 month time frame.

The US could build Liberty Ships like they were toy boats, I am sure at full capabilities they could have built and tested one pretty quick.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2006)

Glider said:


> A) without modification they couldn't land.
> B) Modified they probably could land (as long as the arrestor gear was modified and that isn't a job to be done in a few days. Design, build, test, install maybe 3-5 months) but cannot be struck down into the hanger
> c) If they cannot be struck down into the hanger the deck cannot be used for anything else, including fighters to defend the ship
> D) All the other points raised by everyone else. It wasn't going to work.



Ok,
A) they are modified, no big deal. Theres picture proof a PBJ did land and takeoff from a carrier.
B) It could have been done in days, considering how fast the US aviation industry could work.
C) for a shuttle type operation they dont need to be struck down.
D) American industry always found ways to make something work. 

And the reason the B25 was selected for use was it had a demonstrated capability for very short takeoff rolls.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2006)

He still does not get it though.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2006)

Well, when the center point of his argument is "American industry can do anything, and do it within days," you can't really get through to him.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Well, when the center point of his argument is "American industry can do anything, and do it within days," you can't really get through to him.



Maybe in WW2 the RAF and the British aviation industry would need weeks or months to do it, but the US aviation industry didnt need that long.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

If you dont like the thread, then dont read it.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If you dont like the thread, then dont read it.


Seconded, Something we agree on!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 7, 2006)

Jank, enough is enough already. Nobody gives a sh*t how much of that forum banner crap you've got stored on your hard drive. Cut it out. Thanks, bud.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2006)

Oh boy...


----------



## Jank (Jul 9, 2006)

It stopped didn't it?


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 11, 2006)

Flyboy, what's the story on those P-40's on the USS Ranger (says that on the filename)? I wasn't aware they were ever made "seaworthy."


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

I think the Ranger was ferrying the P40's to N Africa as part of OPeration Torch. They were capable of taking off from the carrier to captured airfields, but were never intended to land back on board.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 12, 2006)

Cool. Very neat picture. Were any other non-navy aircraft ferried like this?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Exactly, I posted something about them here a while back. I can not remember which thread though.


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 12, 2006)

If I may make a few comments on the previous posts in this thread, your patience would be appreciated.

The B25 could theoretically be made into a carrier based bomber/anti shipping aircraft. This would have involved extensive modification to the airframe. 

Syscom's comments that it is a rugged aircraft that can take the abuses of novice pilots have been taken into consideration as a valid point, however one of the factors that has been overlooked is that carrier landing using arrestor hooks subjects the aircraft to far higher deceleration forces than a novice pilots heavy landing. The plane needs to have the airframe and landing gear strengthened in order that it does not break apart.

The B25 would also need to be modified with regard to salt water corrosion.

Given that the B25 could be converted to carrier based, it must be taken into account that the majority of 1942 aircraft carriers would not have been able to support such a big aircraft. The Doolittle raid aircraft where lashed to the deck already fueled and armed and had no opportunity for additional maintanence.

The Doolittle raid was primarily designed as a propaganda mission in response to Pearl Harbour and had little military value. Please note Doolittle Raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as a nice article.

If the raid was carried out as originally thought, I would imagine that the B25's would have either landed on deck and then jettisoned to the sea or they would have ditched close to the carrier.

If the B25 was used as a carrrier based aircraft there would have needed to have been a major re-think of the USN tactical and strategic policy with regard to big carriers.

Also, with regard to the Ju88 never being made into a carrier based aircraft, it should be remembered that Germany did not complete their aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, I am sure that if they had, the Ju88 would have been considered.

We are getting into the realm of "what if, maybe, and should have been"


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 12, 2006)

Did bombers truly ever dogfight in WWII in an actual situation? The best instance I can imagine is a Bounce where one bomber comes up behind or out of the sun and gets the enemy bomber unawares.


If they did develop tactics, would it have looked something like 2 Naval warships going along side each and blasting away till one sinks? 

Or better yet, try and slice the other plane with your wingtips and end up in a unflyable piece of junk yourself?


(Sorry, this thread is long.....Didn't see anything about actual combat.....)


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 12, 2006)

There were several brutal mfights between Liberators/Sunderlands etc and FW 200s that I've heard of out in the Bay of Biscay but that's all I know of


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 12, 2006)

there was one instance of a b-17 and japanese flying boat (forget the designation) that went head to head. that's a bunch like navy boats, each one is bristling with guns. i stole this pic from someone else's post on the forum.

sorry for getting off topic... thought it would be cool though.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 12, 2006)

Cool drawing of that event.


In one computer game I tried going again'st a betty in a B-25. He was faster and more manuverable than me, but I found I could get him in the end.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2006)

I think B-25s and A-20s did some air-to-air in the PTO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> The B25 could theoretically be made into a carrier based bomber/anti shipping aircraft. This would have involved extensive modification to the airframe.



Already been said by many others.  



daishi12 said:


> Syscom's comments that it is a rugged aircraft that can take the abuses of novice pilots have been taken into consideration as a valid point, however one of the factors that has been overlooked is that carrier landing using arrestor hooks subjects the aircraft to far higher deceleration forces than a novice pilots heavy landing. The plane needs to have the airframe and landing gear strengthened in order that it does not break apart.



Same as above 



daishi12 said:


> The B25 would also need to be modified with regard to salt water corrosion.



Same


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 13, 2006)

> Were any other non-navy aircraft ferried like this?



hurricanes and spitfires were transported like this for the RAF i know that much.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

I am sure there were quite a few different aircraft that were ferried like that. I know P-40s, Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-47s were and I am sure that others were as well.


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 13, 2006)

The point I tried to make to Syscom was that theoretically the B25 could have been made into a carrier based aircraft with extensive modification. This was not done on a production basis due to the fact that American aircraft carriers of the time were simply too small.

The Doolittle raid had very little military impact, but was a hugely successfull propaganda message. I am sure that I have seen a quote from a senior USN captain that although the B25 could be launched relatively easily, it would have been extremely difficult to land on a carrier. This was the reason the Doolittle raiders diverted to Russia and China.

I am sure that if the Graf Zeppellin had entered service there would have thought into putting a couple of suitably modified Ju88's onboard.

My vote would be for the Ju88 because even though the B25 performed better in some areas, the Ju88 was an incredibly versatile aircraft which was modified extensively under combat conditions from the start of WW2 to the end of hostilities. 

Syscom's comment that the B25 could be modified to perform every possible thing that was asked of it seems to forget that the factories that produced the B25 where never at risk of continued bombing and did not, on the whole, suffer from poor quality materials or part shortages that front line nations suffered.

On a personal note, the Ju88 was a much nicer looking aircraft than the B25 (profile that looked like a barn door), but the Mosquito was the real looker


----------



## davparlr (Jul 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> The Doolittle raid had very little military impact, but was a hugely successfull propaganda message.



I think this has been spread mostly by Naval air power supporters. I have seen information that indicate that the Japanese were significantly impacted by the attack and it helped sway the Japanese from Westward emphasis (India, Madagascar) and concentrate on protecting their sea approaches, prioritizing an attack on Midway. In other words, it caused them to reassess and modify their strategic objectives. This implies a significant impact.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> Syscom's comment that the B25 could be modified to perform every possible thing that was asked of it seems to forget that the factories that produced the B25 where never at risk of continued bombing and did not, on the whole, suffer from poor quality materials or part shortages that front line nations suffered.



I don't fully understand this comment. What does poor quality and shortages have to do with modifying the B-25. With a better range/load capability of the B-25, and similar speed, it obviously could be a adapted to any role the Ju-88 could be adapted, well, maybe not dive bombing. Whether it would be as successful as the Ju-88 in each role is subjective. We know the Ju-88 was quite manueverable. We don't know much about the B-25 as a comparison. The reason the B-25 was not configured in as many roles as the Ju-88 was that there was no need to. 



> On a personal note, the Ju88 was a much nicer looking aircraft than the B25 (profile that looked like a barn door), but the Mosquito was the real looker



Neither plane would make the best looking list. The mosquitohawk nose of the Ju-88 is certainly not something a mother would be proud of. Your comment on the Mosquito is right on the money. It made my list of best looking aircraft.


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 13, 2006)

With regard to Dav's comment, I would like to clarify a little. The Doolittle raid was designed to show the American public that America could and would mount a strike against the Japanese homelands in retaliation to Pearl Harbour. The raid consisted of 16 B25's each carrying 3x500lb HE and 1x500lb incendiary. There were at least 5 towns targeted.

The expectations of the raid were I believe to "fly the flag" as opposed to delivering either useful tatical or strategic damage. The fact that there was a large impact on Japanese strategic thinking was a bonus. I would however contend that there were imminent plans to invade India or Madagascar, given the fact that there was nearly full commitment to Burma, China and the Phillippines.

I brought up the material shortages and quality statement in response to Syscom's statement that because the engineers could modify the B25 at will they would do so. The German engineers where working under much greater constraints than their American counterparts. The Germans had to work with what they had. If the Germans had the same industrial base as the USA I believe there would have been even greater improvements to the Ju88.

I'm glad you agree that the Mosquito was much better looking than either B25 or Ju88


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> With regard to Dav's comment, I would like to clarify a little. The Doolittle raid was designed to show the American public that America could and would mount a strike against the Japanese homelands in retaliation to Pearl Harbour. The raid consisted of 16 B25's each carrying 3x500lb HE and 1x500lb incendiary. There were at least 5 towns targeted.
> 
> The expectations of the raid were I believe to "fly the flag" as opposed to delivering either useful tatical or strategic damage. The fact that there was a large impact on Japanese strategic thinking was a bonus. I would however contend that there were imminent plans to invade India or Madagascar, given the fact that there was nearly full commitment to Burma, China and the Phillippines.



As it was once said, for the US, Pearl Harbor was like getting hit with a sledge hammer, for the Japanese, the Doolittle Raid was like having a long needle driven into their eye.


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 13, 2006)

I agree Flyboy, both hurt, but in very different ways


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> The point I tried to make to Syscom was that theoretically the B25 could have been made into a carrier based aircraft with extensive modification. This was not done on a production basis due to the fact that American aircraft carriers of the time were simply too small.
> 
> The Doolittle raid had very little military impact, but was a hugely successfull propaganda message. I am sure that I have seen a quote from a senior USN captain that although the B25 could be launched relatively easily, it would have been extremely difficult to land on a carrier. This was the reason the Doolittle raiders diverted to Russia and China.
> 
> ...



Yes I understood that and agree with you. I was just making a point that it has been tried over and over by every one of us and it would not sink in to him.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> The point I tried to make to Syscom was that theoretically the B25 could have been made into a carrier based aircraft with extensive modification. This was not done on a production basis due to the fact that American aircraft carriers of the time were simply too small.



WE dont know how extensive the modifications would have been. And yes, the carriers were to small. 



> The Doolittle raid had very little military impact, but was a hugely successfull propaganda message. I am sure that I have seen a quote from a senior USN captain that although the B25 could be launched relatively easily, it would have been extremely difficult to land on a carrier. This was the reason the Doolittle raiders diverted to Russia and China.



Flyboyj posted some material that indicated tht there was a plan to land them back aboard, but it was scuttled due to the difficulties in teaching the pilots to land them. Plus the USN was not about to expose two carriers close to Japan for several hours.



> I am sure that if the Graf Zeppellin had entered service there would have thought into putting a couple of suitably modified Ju88's onboard...



Look at the performance figures of the -88. Could it carry a 2000 - 3000 lb payload on a takeoff run of 300 feet?



> Syscom's comment that the B25 could be modified to perform every possible thing that was asked of it seems to forget that the factories that produced the B25 where never at risk of continued bombing and did not, on the whole, suffer from poor quality materials or part shortages that front line nations suffered.



Irrelevant to this discussion, and untill the last few months of the war, the Luftwaffe didnt have many quality issues with their planes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> WE dont know how extensive the modifications would have been. And yes, the carriers were to small.



Its a hell of lot more modifications than you think it is. Every person here with experience working on planes has told you this and you dont care to listen. 




syscom3 said:


> Flyboyj posted some material that indicated tht there was a plan to land them back aboard, but it was scuttled due to the difficulties in teaching the pilots to land them. Plus the USN was not about to expose two carriers close to Japan for several hours.



Not without modifications they were not.



syscom3 said:


> Look at the performance figures of the -88. Could it carry a 2000 - 3000 lb payload on a takeoff run of 300 feet?



Just like your argument up there. Can you prove that it could not without modifications? Nope. I am sure with modifications it could be done.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Its a hell of lot more modifications than you think it is. Every person here with experience working on planes has told you this and you dont care to listen.



Noone here has owned up to being a bona fide B25 mechanic, or have the blueprints of the plane PLUS being a structural engineer.



[qoute]
Not without modifications they were not. [/quote]

Agree. The question is what modifications were necessary, if they were minor, or indeed extensive enough to warrent it being a whole different airframe.




> Just like your argument up there. Can you prove that it could not without modifications? Nope. I am sure with modifications it could be done.



That was more a question. I have no idea. So if someone does have some performance figures for the -88, please let us know. The only difference between the two for carrier landings is the -88 was a tail dragger and it might be far more unsafe for it to be landing with the pilot having restricted forward vision.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Noone here has owned up to being a bona fide B25 mechanic, or have the blueprints of the plane PLUS being a structural engineer.
> 
> The question is what modifications were necessary, if they were minor, or indeed extensive enough to warrent it being a whole different airframe.



Well I could tell you this - I worked on an aircraft that started out as a land fighter and was then used by the Navy, and I also worked on it's Air Force brother, that being the FJ-4 and the F-86. Now I know they're jets, designed after the war and were completely different aircraft than what we're comparing, but the amount of modification that went into the Fury was massive when you compare it to the F-86 and evident to this argument....


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2006)

Back to Basics i.e. B25 vs Ju88.

Comparing the aircraft as far as I understand it.

The Ju88 had
Lower wing loading 52.5lb/ft to 54.9
Faster acceleration stall to 200mph 32 seconds to 36.5 seconds
Lower stall speed 90mph to 95 (Full Flaps)
Better Climb 
and if all else failed, had been tested with RATO packs

So to awnser the question, could it take off from an Aircraft Carrier YES would seem to be the reply.

Tail Dragger is irrelevent seen as most carrier planes were tail draggers. The Ju88 cockpit is well forward and would appear to give an excellent view. Better in many ways than a B25.

Re Modifications
My guess would be that the Ju88 would need less modification as it was stressed for divebombing. It would still need mods but less than a non stressed B25.

Which Brings us back to Syscoms fav observation. Its hardly a suprise that non of us are trained in B25's, (but I did do a little on a non flying Swordfish if that counts, well I did help take a torpedo off one ).


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2006)

Glider said:


> Back to Basics i.e. B25 vs Ju88.
> 
> Comparing the aircraft as far as I understand it.
> 
> ...



I should also add that I did do a lot of work on the Seahawk that is now on the display circuit. A plane that used the same materials and technology of the war era. When I worked on it, it was non flying but 'hot' as it was used to train the deck crew for the Ark Royal.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2006)

Glider said:


> ......
> Re Modifications
> My guess would be that the Ju88 would need less modification as it was stressed for divebombing. It would still need mods but less than a non stressed B25.



Good point.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 13, 2006)

Glider said:


> Back to Basics i.e. B25 vs Ju88.
> 
> Comparing the aircraft as far as I understand it.
> 
> ...



I have difficulty with this data. Based on the B-25B (Doolittle's model), compared to a Ju-88A-4, the following data was obtained

B-25B, empty wt. 20K lbs, max gross, 28,460, wing area 610 sq ft, hp at TO 3400.

Ju-88, empty wt. 19K lbs, max gross, 26,729, wing area 565 sq ft, hp at TO 2820.

With this data, I calculated the following:
Empty wt. wing loading (lbs/sq ft) B-25, 32.8, Ju-88, 33.6 Advantage B-25B 
Max gross wing loading B-25, 46.7, Ju-88, 47.3 Advantage B-25B
Power to Weight empty (lbs/hp) B-25, 5.9, Ju-88 6.7 Advantage B-25
Power to Weight full B-25 (lbs/hp), 8.3, Ju-88, 9.5 Advantage B-25

Couldn't find stall speed for the B-25

Acceleration from stall to 200 mph!!! Holy cow, I have never seen this statistic anywhere. Where did it come from? Especially for the B-25. Note however that the B-25 had a slightly better power to weight ratio (which means little). 

Time to climb is always difficult. My data indicates a B-25C (heavier than a B) could go to 15000 in 16.5 min. and a Ju-88A-4 could go to 17,700 ft. in 23 min. Certainly doesn't support your argument that the Ju-88 could outclimb a B-25 in April of 1942 (assuming all my data is correct).



> So to awnser the question, could it take off from an Aircraft Carrier YES would seem to be the reply.



In spite of what I said above, I believe you are correct here. The wind over the deck of the carrier was probably 50+kts. These planes did not have to accelerate very much. Now, would a Ju-88A-4 be able to fly the specified 2000 miles with 2000 lbs of bombs. I'm not sure about that. The B-25 would certainly have more margin for success.



> Which Brings us back to Syscoms fav observation. Its hardly a suprise that non of us are trained in B25's, (but I did do a little on a non flying Swordfish if that counts, well I did help take a torpedo off one ).



This is how I imagine it went down. 

"How can we strike at Japan?" was the Presidents question.

Carrier planes? No, not enough range to keep our most valuable asset in the Pacific, the carrier, safe.

Can longer range planes be launched from a carrier? Maybe, but recovering them would be very difficult and dangerous for the carrier. Modifications would be difficult.

Can something else be done? Hey! How about launching a bomber from a carrier and land it in China. Can that be done? Let's investigate! The rest is history.

Of course, it may have been different.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Noone here has owned up to being a bona fide B25 mechanic, or have the blueprints of the plane PLUS being a structural engineer.



Your right I grew up in the wrong area, but I will tell you that I do structural modifications and structural repairs on aircraft as part of my job, so I am not an idiot to this subject....



syscom3 said:


> Agree. The question is what modifications were necessary, if they were minor, or indeed extensive enough to warrent it being a whole different airframe.



No one ever said that it would almost end up being an entire new airframe, but it would require more extensive modifications than you seem to think.



syscom3 said:


> The only difference between the two for carrier landings is the -88 was a tail dragger and it might be far more unsafe for it to be landing with the pilot having restricted forward vision.



The Ju-88 would certainly require modifications as well. No one ever said it would not. Besides the arguement is not about the Ju-88 it is about the B-25.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

davparlr said:


> In spite of what I said above, I believe you are correct here. The wind over the deck of the carrier was probably 50+kts. These planes did not have to accelerate very much. Now, would a Ju-88A-4 be able to fly the specified 2000 miles with 2000 lbs of bombs. I'm not sure about that. The B-25 would certainly have more margin for success.



Certainly not, if both aircraft were modified for carrier operations the B-25 would deffinatly do better in that role because it had better range to payload qualities.



davparlr said:


> This is how I imagine it went down.
> 
> "How can we strike at Japan?" was the Presidents question.
> 
> ...



I agree with you and I think that is pretty much how it went down as well.


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 14, 2006)

I have had a quick look at plans of the B25 and it looks to me to be a case of the following mods would need to be completed to allow an arrestor hook installation:-

The arrestor hook would probably need to be installed just aft of the waist guns where the fusalage starts tapering toward the tail, this would involve longitudinal strengthening to the airframe.

Main landing gear to be strenghened, possibly including strengthening engine mounts as gear retracts into engine nascelles.

Strengthening and stiffening nose gear. (This would need to be done as an arrestor hook landing with a tricycle configured aircraft pivots the nose of the aircraft down. The length of the nose wheel would probably need to be increased to allow a greater margin of space to stop the props hitting the deck on landing.

Double folding wings (Z shape)

Increase size of flaps to try to lower landing speed.

And finally shock absorbers in the seats and/or rubber cushions to try to stop the crews backsides being bounced out of their ears


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 14, 2006)

I found this which might be interesting to everyone..

See B-25 Mitchell WW2 Training Film Pilot's Manual Live Online

it has a few very interesting comments...

namely the B25 could dive bomb - max dive speed of 340mph indicated airspeed at what looks to be about 30 degrees,

normal landing speed of approx 130mph with full flaps.. oh and keep the balance to the rear of the plane during landing, the nose wheel isn't designed for high stress..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

Nice find on the B-25 there.


----------



## Erich (Jul 14, 2006)

curious if any of our illustrious membership has ever seen, touched or been inside a B-25 ? I have a great pic of my son in the pilots seat in a B-25J some years back on the 50th anniv. of D-day

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

I have seen B-25s before but never been in one.


----------



## Erich (Jul 14, 2006)

it's interesting how small of a craft it really is


----------



## davparlr (Jul 15, 2006)

Erich said:


> it's interesting how small of a craft it really is



I've been in a B-17 and it too is very small. I guess growing up an imagining all these planes made them grow in stature.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2006)

I noticed that about the B-17 and the B-24 as well. I remember climbing into them and thinking damn you can not be clostrophobic!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2006)

I've never been in any WW2 plane, but comparing them in size to modern planes, they were all small. Look at the P-51 next to a F-15!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 15, 2006)

Smaller target.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 15, 2006)

I've been inside a Catalina but that was relatively big inside- the cockpit looked a little small though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I've never been in any WW2 plane, but comparing them in size to modern planes, they were all small. Look at the P-51 next to a F-15!



Look at an F-14 next to a B-17! B-17 was not much bigger!


----------



## WolfPackB25 (Feb 6, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> Probably, there were even reports of b-25's shooting down japanese fighters.


 Thanks for that quote. In fact, B-25s, especially when outfitted for a "strafing" role, were deadly to enemy shipping in the Pacific and to Zeros. Here's some direct qoutes from my Dad's logbook (He piloted a B-25 out of New Guinea that had been outfitted as a "strafer"--the words used at the time)
His words: "July 14, 1943, Picked up our plane. Has been converted into a strafer, 8-.50 caliber machine guns facing forward....August 18, 1943, my first mission-longest distance strafer has been. Caught many ships. Jumped by 25 Zeroes. Ran into flaming wall of Ack-Ack and MG fire-I was scared stiff-First ship ahead shot down in flames. We shot down 11 Zeroes in less than a minute and a half-P38's got 12. Roughest since Bismarck Sea Battle. Total Jap ships destroyed and in air-over 200 now."
There's lots more where Jap fighters were shot down. What's alos interesting is that around Kavieng, Alexshafen and Rabaul is that the B-25s were (at least in this Bomb Group, 5th Army Air Corps.)often accompanied by P8-38s. Now this bunch would be hell to take on headon!!!


----------



## twoeagles (Feb 6, 2007)

A very interesting post, Wolfpack! Ever read the story of the B-25
Tondalayo? Sounds very much like what your Dad experienced.

I once owned a B-25J-32 that had the 8 .50's in the nose plus the two side
mounted fuselage guns for a total of 10. Of course, there were no guns
on her, just patches over the openings. I always wondered what it would
feel like to squeeze the trigger and have 10 fifties come to life! Cockpit must have had quite a burnt powder tang!

On the subject of size, the cockpit of the B-25 actually felt roomier than 
a B-17's to me. I, too, was struck by the tight fit of the B-17. Some of it may have been the way the fuselage curved around the shoulders, whereas
the B-25 had a boxier arrangement. (I am not small at 6' 1" and 210 pounds, and certainly most young pilots in WW2 were smaller than me.)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

What did you do to with you B-25.


----------



## twoeagles (Feb 6, 2007)

Sold her to Doug Hazel of Warrenton, VA, who had deep enough pockets to
do a total restoration. He also put a glass nose on her. She is now at a flying museum in Galveston, TX: Lone Star Flight Museum,Galveston,Texas,warbirds,military planes


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 6, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> A very interesting post, Wolfpack! Ever read the story of the B-25 Tondalayo?



I remember seeing a B25 strafer painted in the 345th BG colors at a Chino Airshow back in the 80's.

It was the 499th BG I believe, the "Bat-Out-Of-Hell" squadron.Had the big blue bat on the nose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> Sold her to Doug Hazel of Warrenton, VA, who had deep enough pockets to
> do a total restoration. He also put a glass nose on her. She is now at a flying museum in Galveston, TX: Lone Star Flight Museum,Galveston,Texas,warbirds,military planes



Wow that is awesome! I would love to own an original warbird.


----------



## WolfPackB25 (Feb 10, 2007)

*To TwoEagles:, and thanks by the way*As soon as I figure out how to post a good quality picture, I post the one of the plane I'm talking about. They were highly recognizable because of the 8 '.50s (plus cannon) in the nose but more so because the .50s stuck out of a Wolf's gaping mawl--hence the name. Dad named the squadron after his highschool football team, the Williamson "WolfPack", so each plane had a wolfs head on the business end of the nose. They were in 71st Bmb. Sqd., 38th. Bmb. Grp, 5th Army-Air Corps. I'll post some arials of the Wolfpack in formation and some "censored" shipping damage (as soon as I figure out how to post pics on here!!).


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2007)

Wolfpack, I have quite an interest in the 38th BG.

Anything you have will be appreciated.


----------



## Jank (Feb 11, 2007)

Well, maybe not relevant but a nice picture anyway.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2007)

Not relevant at all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

How is that. The discussion is about the B-25 vs. Ju-88. That is a picture of a Ju-88 and rather nice picture.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2007)

You're right, I was looking at his signature. My internet connection was slow this morning and his picture wasnt loading.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Ahh I see, said the blind man.


----------



## Jank (Feb 11, 2007)

Apology accepted. (even though it wasn't addressed to me)


----------



## YakFlyer (Feb 11, 2007)

B-25.


----------

