Stuka With Retractable Landing Gear: What If?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

stug3

Staff Sergeant
1,101
798
Sep 2, 2010
Pittsburgh
Would it need an entirely new wing?
Would it retain its trademark gull wing?
What kind of performance with less drag?

 
There were several WWII era dive bombers with retractable landing gear. None could match Ju-87D overall performance for payload and weapons accuracy. I cannot help but wonder if fixed landing gear contributed to Ju-87Ds outstanding accuracy.
 
Val dive bomber could probably match Ju-87D accuracy but it routinely carried only 1/4th the payload (250kg rather then 1,000kg). That's a huge difference in capability.
 
Historical IJN D4Y.
500kg bomb bay.
2 x 7.7mm forward firing machineguns.
1,400hp Aichi Atsuta V12 engine. Essentially a modified DB601 clone.
342mph max speed.

D4Y was a nice aircraft but I would make it a bit larger. Might not fit on a CV elevator but that's not a problem for land based German dive bomber.

Hypothetical D4Y writ large.
1,000kg bomb bay. Matches Ju-87D but bomb is carried internally to improve speed and range.
3cm Mk103 high velocity hub cannon.
DB603 or Jumo213 engine. 2,000hp Jumo222A engine would be better still.
Optimum performance @ 3,000 meters.
~350mph max speed.
Armor protection at least as good as Ju-87D.
Internal fuel capacity adequate for combat radius of 250 miles with 1,000kg bomb. Can be extended further with drop tanks under wings.
Rear firing remote control barbettes similar to Me-210.
 
Getting back on track and away from the bomb load, which wasn't the question, then 1) Yes. 2) Probably not and 3) probably no significant change.
 
davebender said:
There were several WWII era dive bombers with retractable landing gear. None could match Ju-87D overall performance for payload and weapons accuracy. I cannot help but wonder if fixed landing gear contributed to Ju-87Ds outstanding accuracy.
Click to expand...

Interesting that the Val also has fixed LG which supports your theory.
 
Last edited:
Junkers Ju 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project was cancelled by the Reich Air Ministry in autumn 1943 because the aircraft's projected performance, when fully loaded, was estimated to be no better than the latest Ju 87 D variant (estimated maximum speed: 248 mph (399 km/h)).

Maybe a different wing would be needed to reduce drag, but still carry an adequate load.

Ju187
 
does anyone have a cut away of the wing? to put a well for the wheel to retract could cause problems with routing other components. or the wing might need to be made thicker. how does what you gain in the reduction of drag compare to the weight added with the addition of hydraulics and retractable gear? and more importantly what do you expect to gain? the plane was a slower ac by design....what will gaining 10 to 25 mph do for the mission of the plane?
 
You have to have a wing cross-section that would allow the gear to retract. Even creating a faired gear housing, like on the Il-2, introduced a certain amount of drag...so you'd probably end up creating a whole new airframe.

Your best bet is to stick with what works, and create a safe environment for it to operate in by holding air supremacy...
 
As a bit of a reality check a Fairey Fulmar had a wing 1 sq ft smaller than a Ju-87, that is ONE not ten or even two. With a 1300 hp engine it could do 272mph at 7250ft CLEAN. once you hang 1 to 5 bombs underneath the speed goes down hill in a hurry.

Retractable gear would help range and speed a bit but since the Ju-87 rarely operated at great distances and the increase in speed is still pathetic when compared to a 1942 or later fighter it sort of gets to the why bother point.
 
Talk about drag...

agent crew cabin




torpedo 300 litre drop tanks



Universal wing mounted Schloss ejector rack with WB 81B gun pod
 
The corsair has retractable gear and it's gull winged so there's no technical reason RG could not have been added, but there are many associated problems doing this by modification to an existing design. For one thing, the main fuel tanks of the JU-87 are on the inboard sides of the inverted gull wing. Second and most significant was the JU-87 use the Junkers double wing configuration; the flying ailerons and flaps were built in drag, and no amount of sleeking up the undercarriage was going to avail much unless those were altered.

Even though major changes would have been needed, the Germans could have taken lessons from both the Japanese and the Russians in making alterations to the JU-87. The ailerons and flaps could have been incorporated as in a conventional aircraft, a significant reduction in bomb loading would have really helped range when it could have been used, and the RG added to these alterations should have boosted the performance significantly.
 
Last edited:
Actually fixed landing gears were preferable for a dive bomber - they helped creating drag, and as odd as it seems, this is good for a dive bomber. It can maintain and limit speed in dives, increasing accuracy, and can have a very strong wing to sustain heavy loads and pull-outs from vertical dives.

And as SR noted, 400 or 450 km/h is pretty irrelevant when fighters can do 600 anyway AND when your typical bomber will cruise at 200-250 in practice... didnt B-17s cruise at about 180 mph in formation? It just does not make any difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
tomo pauk
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
yulzari
O
P-40 with caterpillar landing gear
Replies
7
Views
1K
OldGeezer
O
S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register