Stuka With Retractable Landing Gear: What If?

[stug3]

Peter C. Smith- Home

Ive read a few books by Peter C. Smith, he always said the Vengeance was highly regarded by Australian RAF crews.

 

[Civettone]

Useable on most series of JU-87's

Are you sure about this source? I believe there never was a Ju 87D-7 or -8.

Two point I would like to add:
- the Stuka had a lot of problems with its landing gear. A lot of undercarriage failures. Maybe this was connected to the fact that the undercarriage was designed to come off during crash landing, thereby avoiding the plane overturning.
- The Stuka was a very heavy aircraft. So relatively the added weight of a retractable landing gear would be low. It could also be a simple mechanism, retracting backward with the wheels protruding slightly to increase its survival chances.

Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Peter C. Smith- Home

Ive read a few books by Peter C. Smith, he always said the Vengeance was highly regarded by Australian RAF crews.

It may have been better than generally given credit for but a 275 mph top speed isn't going to do much for evading enemy fighters.

 

[altsym]

Are you sure about this source? I believe there never was a Ju 87D-7 or -8.

Yep.

The D-7 was a ground attack aircraft based on D-1 airframes upgraded to D-5 standard (armor, wing cannons, extended wing panels), while the D-8 was similar to the D-7 but based on D-3 airframes. The D-7 and D-8 were both were fitted with flame dampers, and could conduct night operations.

 

[davebender]

Any dive bomber should be heavier then a fighter aircraft of equal size. You need structural strength to survive pull out from dive. Armor to protect against ground fire adds weight too.

 

[Civettone]

Yep.

The D-7 was a ground attack aircraft based on D-1 airframes upgraded to D-5 standard (armor, wing cannons, extended wing panels), while the D-8 was similar to the D-7 but based on D-3 airframes. The D-7 and D-8 were both were fitted with flame dampers, and could conduct night operations.

It has been a long time ago, but I remember hearing from Junkers experts that the D-7 and D-8 were not official designations and may well have been errors which only appear in non-official sources. The correct name was the D-5N IIRC.
Cannot say more about it, but that is what I distinctly remember.

Kris

 

[altsym]

No problem. I guess its up to the guy writing the 'official document'. I seen docs that refer to the 109 for example as BF Me.

 

[Dogwalker]

Would it retain its trademark gull wing?
What kind of performance with less drag?

To have an idea, you can see to the Breda 201, that was projected with the goal to have an italian equivalent of the Ju.87, but able to self-defending after the release of the bomb. It was DB.601 engined, was smaller and lighter than the Ju.87, has the gull wing, the retractable undercarriage, a very streamlined radiator, and was even single seat.
The aircraft was considered agile, and accurate in bombing, however, with all the aerodinamic refinements, the max speed was of only 460km/h, and was then considerer unsatisfactory (the request of the Regia was for at least 500 km/h), and, for self-defending capabilities, not compensating the lack of the rear gunner. So the Regia preferred to buy the Ju.87.

 

[Milosh]

Iirc, the Stuka could dive at 400mph without bits and pieces coming off the a/c.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Stuka could dive at a near 90 degree dive without wanting to "nose-under" unlike many dive bombers of it's time, had a "auto-assist" to help the pilot pull out of it's dive and it could carry a thousand KG bomb load...making it a formidable weapon...

Alot of this was due to it's weight and design...once you start fooling around with this, you lose certain attributes and you're back to square one. If you want somethng that will fly fast and shoot up the bad guys, then sling a bomb under a Fw190...if you want to put a neat hole in a target with great accuracy, then put the Fw190 above the Stuka while it does it's job...

 

[fastmongrel]

Peter C. Smith- Home

Ive read a few books by Peter C. Smith, he always said the Vengeance was highly regarded by Australian RAF crews.

Not dissing the Vengeance stug3 just saying it was similar to a potential retractable undercarrige Stuka and it didnt exactly break any speed records. I wouldnt want to be flying either on the Russian front or the Western front too much pointy supersonic metal flying around to be slowly coming down in a vertical line.

 

[stona]

It could also be a simple mechanism, retracting backward with the wheels protruding slightly to increase its survival chances.
Kris

Take a look at the plan of the wing. It's not the U/C mechanism that is the problem, it's where the U/C is going to go.

Retracting backwards for example would compromise structural elements of the wing.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Civettone]

Ah, I guess you would need a new wing design then!



Kris

 

[altsym]

Take a look at the plan of the wing. It's not the U/C mechanism that is the problem, it's where the U/C is going to go.

Retracting backwards for example would compromise structural elements of the wing.

Cheers

Steve

Unless those spars were boxed in.

 

[Civettone]

Boxed in? What does that mean?


Kris

 

[altsym]

Well you can notch the spar for clearance, then you weld a cap onto it with gussets to give its strength back. Never say never lol.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well you can notch the spar for clearance, then you weld a cap onto it with gussets to give its strength back. Never say never lol.

Look at the wing's design as it stands. Very rugged and capable of supporting the weight of the aircraft and it's loadout in addition to sustaining tremendous forces as it executes it's dive/pullout.

Notching the spar will weaken the wing even if it's boxed, capped, gusseted, etc...

 

[altsym]

IMO it can be done, no problem. But with the early success of the Stuka, there wasn't a need for gear redesign. Also, with the fixed landing gear, its probably one of the reasons it didn't nose under in a near vertical dive, and the drag limited dive speeds and to help pull up after the dive (the gear wants to pitch the nose up).

 

[tyrodtom]

I cannot see how that landing gear would tend to pitch the nose up.
I've seen pilots apply nose up correction, and trim when they drop the landing gear, I can't what's so unique about the Ju87 landing gear that it would do the opposite.

 

[GrauGeist]

The gear had nothing to do with the Stuka pulling out of a dive and it had a dedicated system of dive brakes to control it's dive.

When the pilot released the bomb and pulled back on the controls, the auto-pilot took over as the pilot "grayed out" from the G forces and returned the aircraft to a level attitude, which by that time, the pilot had regained control.