Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?
Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?
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
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.
However, regarding the doubt expressed in your post, the information that Stuka had the capability of carrying the SC-1800 bomb is correct.
Tough luck varjag, I have the manual for the B model, you need one for the D model.varjag wrote:Thanks Huck - I am holding my breath....Varjag
Still, the best place to look for this info is the pilot handbook.
You know this link, right?
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
- Attachments
-
- Ju87B2.JPG (95.78 KiB) Viewed 5691 times
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.
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.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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Hummm I wonder if they remove the MG, ammo and seat as well .Would that add upto 600kg?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.
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.Paul Lakowski wrote:Hummm I wonder if they remove the MG, ammo and seat as well .Would that add upto 600kg?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.
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.
Re: Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?
Hey guys
Do you have any photos of the stuka armed with 1000 kg bomb ?
Do you have any photos of the stuka armed with 1000 kg bomb ?
Re: Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?
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.
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.
Re: Ju 87 'Stuka' bombload?
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.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton