B-25 vs. Ju-88

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

Testing

 

[rogue7t6]

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]

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]

B-25, not B-24. slight difference

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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]

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]

Jank, is ur brother Sal???

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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...