B-25 vs. Ju-88

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Actually I like for you guys to prove your assertions.

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

 

[Jank]

 

[Nonskimmer]

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

 

[syscom3]

me annoyed?



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

 

[plan_D]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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.