B-25 vs. Ju-88

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Nonskimmer]

Ah, excellent. Good link.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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]

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]

Exactly pd.

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

Agreed 100%.