Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?

Postby varjag » 13 Nov 2004 12:38

I pop this question every year - and now is the time for 2004. Most websites and post-1965 books credit the Ju 87 with a maximum bomb-load of 1800 kilogrammmes or 1,8 Tonnes. I'm certain that all the authors of books and sites have succumbed to 'the sincerest form of flattery'. But am still chasing reliable info on the flight envelope of a Ju 87 with a One-point-eight tonne lump under it's belly - over to you all, Varjag

Huck
Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 12:52
Location: Detroit

Postby Huck » 13 Nov 2004 19:55

Look for the flight manual, normally you should find the flight envelope for the specific payload (except for the special cases when it was regulated in an additional document). I have a Stuka manual, I can look for it later this day.

However, regarding the doubt expressed in your post, the information that Stuka had the capability of carrying the SC-1800 bomb is correct.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Postby varjag » 14 Nov 2004 02:53

Thanks Huck - I am holding my breath....Varjag

Huck
Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 12:52
Location: Detroit

Postby Huck » 14 Nov 2004 17:50

varjag wrote:Thanks Huck - I am holding my breath....Varjag


Tough luck varjag, I have the manual for the B model, you need one for the D model.
Still, the best place to look for this info is the pilot handbook.

You know this link, right?
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Postby varjag » 15 Nov 2004 12:06

Thank you Huck for the link and the B-version weight data. The reason for my doubts, Huck were in the 'pre-1965' bit. Everybody that wrote about the Ju 87 when it still flew and for at least 15 years after - agreed that something of the order 750-1000 Kg's was it's bombload. I assume that someone then dug up something in an archive that it had gotten off the ground with an SC1800, probably under experimental and optimal conditions. What I want to know is where and when this happened and what the flight-envelope was.....I think we can agree it must have been very tight and certainly never operational! But once published - the maximum bombload of the Ju 87 becomes 1800 kg's because writers of aircraft-calendar books always copy oneanother. I may be nitpicking - but it stirs me that todays a/c calendar-books credit WW2 a/c and particularly German - with performance figures that they never had.

User avatar
Lkefct
Member
Posts: 1293
Joined: 24 Jun 2004 22:15
Location: Frederick MD

Postby Lkefct » 16 Nov 2004 07:25

The bombload ona stuka is not the most relivant statistic. If you are getting the bomb to hit the target, with a few exceptions, you don't really need the extra explosive power of the super heavy bombs. 500 kg centerline is probably sufficient to kill most targets on the battlefield. If you miss by much, the extra explosive won't help that much.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Postby varjag » 16 Nov 2004 11:48

Lkefct wrote:The bombload ona stuka is not the most relivant statistic. If you are getting the bomb to hit the target, with a few exceptions, you don't really need the extra explosive power of the super heavy bombs. 500 kg centerline is probably sufficient to kill most targets on the battlefield. If you miss by much, the extra explosive won't help that much.


Which is PRECISELY the truth I am pursuing with this nonsense.

Denniss
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 02:52
Location: Germany

Postby Denniss » 26 Nov 2004 21:35

Does anybody have a similar weight date for an armored B-2 or a D-version ?
Is the Ju 87B-2 with armor capable of "delivering" a 500kg bomb ? (maybe without the second crew member as some sites write about the Ju87A)

User avatar
Kissa
Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 22 Nov 2003 19:03
Location: Oulu, Finland

Postby Kissa » 26 Nov 2004 22:09

The Ju 87D could carry over 1200kg only without the tailgunner. The maximum bombload was 1800kg (Who could have guessed the German tail gunners were that fat), which also rendered the plane's flight charastetics awful.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Postby Paul Lakowski » 27 Nov 2004 00:13

Kissa wrote:The Ju 87D could carry over 1200kg only without the tailgunner. The maximum bombload was 1800kg (Who could have guessed the German tail gunners were that fat), which also rendered the plane's flight charastetics awful.


Hummm I wonder if they remove the MG, ammo and seat as well .Would that add upto 600kg?

Huck
Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 12:52
Location: Detroit

Postby Huck » 27 Nov 2004 00:26

Paul Lakowski wrote:
Kissa wrote:The Ju 87D could carry over 1200kg only without the tailgunner. The maximum bombload was 1800kg (Who could have guessed the German tail gunners were that fat), which also rendered the plane's flight charastetics awful.


Hummm I wonder if they remove the MG, ammo and seat as well .Would that add upto 600kg?


Ju 87D fitted with SC-1800 bomb had the same powerloading with Ju 87B fitted with 1000kg of bombs. Also Stuka wings had high lift airfoil tipical to attack airplanes, they could carry heavy loads as long as you have runaways long enough for take off.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Postby varjag » 28 Nov 2004 12:35

I thank you all for your contributions! I still think that my question has NOT been answered despite all your efforts for which I am grateful. I am quite clear of the need to remove observer/gunner - guns/ammo, his seat/armour, most of the fuel-load, how much of the coolant(?) - no doubt the wheel-spats...what else?...to get our Ju 87 off the ground with it's 1800 Kg lump under the belly? Huck - your post about powerloading may be roughly on the mark - but nothing could change the wingloading. What I wan't to know is - even with this 'endless and smooth' runway and an aircraft stripped of just about everything...and the poor JuMo turning at 'take-off' effect (for how many seconds - 70-90?) - what was the airborne speed and after how many feet/metres of runway? And once airborne (at what speed?) what became the margin between it's top speed and stalling speed? At what rev's, altitude and speed did it 'cruise? Could it turn and if yes - what turning speed was recommended? I still say that IF a Ju 87 could get off the ground with a 1800 Kg payload - it was never an operational aircraft - just a stunt.

Noble 7
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 25 Sep 2016 17:58
Location: Carthage

Re: Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?

Postby Noble 7 » 21 Jan 2017 21:31

Hey guys

Do you have any photos of the stuka armed with 1000 kg bomb ?

Denniss
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 02:52
Location: Germany

Re: Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?

Postby Denniss » 23 Jan 2017 00:29

The Ju 87 D-5 could carry a 1400kg bomb, for an 1800kg bomb it had to reduce fuel load. Both with full crew and armor/armament.
The Ju 87R wth armor was permitted to carry a 1000kg bomb, it could do so even with both drop tanks fully fueled as it was permitted a 5550kg max take-off weight. It was close to its max weight with this load as would have been the Ju 87B with armor and 1000kg bomb. This would likely require a well prepared (hardened) runway for takeoff.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: 15 Mar 2012 17:19

Re: Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?

Postby Knouterer » 23 Jan 2017 14:40

To confirm that, a page from a Junkers manual of 1942. I'm a bit surprised that the R-1 version could lift a 1000 kg bomb plus drop tanks, as it had the same engine as the B version, which according to several authors could just barely lift a 1000 kg bomb, and only if the gunner/radio operator was left behind.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton


Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]