The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka topic.

World War II German Military
#141

Amongst the many talented artists, work of young Mr. Jakub Štasta has contributed some most brilliant themes and motifs to the artistic repertoire connected with the WW2, which is very important in today’s world because it helps to inform people about the past - a past that they may know nothing about.

Being distinguished by the way in which he brought different genuine historical elements together, Mr. Štasta is one amongst a distinguished band of so called “digital artists” to flourish in the resourceful atmosphere of numerous WW2 aviation themes.

One among them is not to be missed, because it is deeply connected with the main star of this topic:

Ju 87 G-2 Kanonvogel (W.Nr. 494085) – Jakub Štasta (Czech Republic, 2008)

I hope you’ll like it. :slight_smile:

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best! :wink:

#142

For an airplane specialized in hunting of veichles the most effective weapon is his cannon, not bombs or other type of weapon: also main battle tank has a “soft” top, that a armor piercing bullet can pierce easily. The armored veichles like APC or IFV cannot sustain damage from “small” cannon airplane-mounted. This is true for WWII but also for nowadays. For tank-huntig the cannon will be forever the most cost-effectly weapon.
The A-X program, that creates the A-10 Thunderbolt II, has a prerequisite for his members the reading of Hans Rudel’s book Stuka Pilot. With the upgraded version suggested by Hans rudel’s himself, use of external gun pod with 37, the Stuka is able to defeat most of today main battle tank hitting them on the top.

Regarding the question about applying special-purpose tactics by Russian, yes, the Russian apply them. At the start war for example special purpose tactics used agains Japanese airplanes by Russian are copied by Flying Tigers and latter used as base for development of entire set of tactics used by USAF. In the West, after the initial shock of aggression by German combined with extermination of capable officer by Stalin’s purge, the Red Army restart to elaborate tactics agains Lutwaffe, refined them and modified the structure of their aviation for a better applications of the tactics. The succesfull use of night straffing run over German base conducted by low flying airplanes at low speed, the Po-2, is created after invasion starting from the presense on the theather of large number of old russian airplanes and advancing Heer that use separated based. The German copied this tactic and Stuka proved very well suited for it.

I think that the success Blitzkrieg cannot be explained without knowing the importance of both precision ground attack and psichological effect that Stuka mades. In an era where stand-off weapon and long rage artillery moved their first steps the Stuka is perfect: low level flying means accurate spotting of targets, dive bombing means chirurgical accurate bombing, low speed means difficult aiming for modern enemy fighters without proper training and plane only orientation to ground attack means that it delivers his deadly weapon where is usefull for support of ground troups only. An inderect tribute to Stuka is the admission from Soviet storic culture that the IL-2, the russian counterpart of Stuka, is the most important airplane for victory against Nazism.

I know that Stuka is a difficult target, but i believe that after 1943, when Allies obtain air supremacy, the number advantage that they always have, the development of ad-hoc tacticts against low level-low speed target also with introduction of large number of refined version of fighter or introduction of new version make Stuka not safe anymore. I believe that the substution of Junker 87 Stuka with the Focke Wulf 190 is the right choice.

#143

Oh, I am assuring you, my dear Mr. Burp, that in competent hands our good old Stuka was capable not only to outmaneuver and even shoot down the largest part of modern enemy fighters in late 1943 - the Lavochkin La-5, for example - but even to achieve that while being fully-loaded with bombs. :slight_smile:

By my personal opinion, it really is a pity that those almost completely forgotten war diaries of late Captain Lévay Gyöző, commander of the 102/2 HUAF Dive-bomber Squadron, still are available only in Hungarian. It would have been very usable for young pilots, as well as for numerous civilian devotees of airborne swooping worldwide, to learn how to successfully evade a very agile head-to-tail attack of a capable Soviet fighter, shrewdly undertaken from under and the side. :cool:

But, until that, we shall present some additional wartime snapshots which are connected wit our old birdie:

Ju 87 - 1942

I hope that you will like this one. After all – it is in color. :wink:

In the meantime, as always – all the best!

#144

I’m not questioning if the Stuka can avoid more faster fighter approaching it in usual head-to-tail dogfight.
I’m saying that fighter with more speed and proper tactic has a good chanche to destroy a Stuka. It’s simple question of physics, think about two flying object, the Stuka is an object slower but more manoeuvrable. Every object has a fix amount of energy that can spend for moving itself in space. More manoeuvrable means that consumes less energy to change trajectory. So, for example, if Stuka has 10 unit of energy to spent in an unit of time, and need 9 of them for a trajectory change. The fighter normally has 15 unit of energy at time but need 16 of energy for a trajectory
change. This means that if low speed object react quickly can avoid the faster object because it takes less time to change trajectory. The only solution for faster object is to reach a higher level of energy, so he can spent more energy in an unit of time. Normally this is achieved getting an higher altitude position, so the faster object can dive and reach higher energy state, so if example object in diving achieve 30 energy it can spend 16 unit of energy and so can change trajectory faster. The faster object can reach more easily higher position so slower object cannot win using same tactic.
This tactic is well-know from Top Gun Program for example, where instructors teach to exchange air-speed for altitude, but traces back to old tactics used by USAF against Zero, a Japanese airplane that can easily outmanover any of US fighter.

Another fact that i want to bring to your attention is the rate of Stug lost on Western Front.
After battle of Stalingrad the rate of loss is circa 1 Stuka for day.
After Battle of Kiev the Stuka force loses 50% of his aircraft, losing 13 or much more airplanes for every day. In battle among others, 8 Stuka aces who hold Knight Cross were killed.
Who said that Stuka is no longer capable to survive in modern (1943) times is General der Schlachtflieger Dr Ernst Kupfter, a Stuka ace that is the direct chief of all airplane for ground attacking. He is the man that sunk HMS Gloucester with a Stuka, one of his 633 mission, all aboard Stuka. I think that if a man like this says something about Stuka he exactly knows what he is saying.
I know also that Hans-Ulrich Hudel preferred for himself and his Stug the Stuka. But only few Stug leaders make the same choose, a lot of them instead have the same opinion of Kupfer. Some Stug with Stukas continue to get success against russian armored but as already said in my previous post the Stug is the perfect anti-tank weapon, despite of his vulnerability to fighters. A proof of that is the Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey, a mixed Stug armed initially with few FW 190 and a lot of Stuka but at the end of Continuation War had only a fraction of Stuka, this Stug was able to destroy 200 tanks and 150 airplane, stopping the Soviet fourth strategic offensive.

#145

Thank you, my dear Mr. Burp, for that truly kind acknowledgment concerning factual maneuverability of the Ju 87 Stuka. Proper evasive tactics, accompanied by skillful piloting and apposite mechanical design always were capable to achieve astonishing results through history.

However, it seems to me that certain theoretical misconceptions, nowadays so deeply embedded into popular beliefs, must be analyzed and straightened for the very sake of the aeronautical science.

You see, although fighter pilots have always known that management of energy is critical to survival and success, energy-maneuverability methods were never so highly accentuated like today. In WW1 the experienced pilots always tried to enter a dogfight from above. They could then exchange the potential energy of altitude for the kinetic energy of speed or turn rate. Although fighter dogfight maneuvers largely really do rely upon the exchange of potential and kinetic energy to attain a positional advantage (for example, that today so popular “high speed yo-yo” maneuver, already explained by you, and regularly emphasized as a most suitable tactic to be used when overtaking a slower aircraft in a hard turn), it has never been actually emphasized that there is a very dodgy, but still incredibly intriguing possibility for successful counteracting of all positive energy state-based concepts of combat maneuvering.

That solution is known in theory as the energy height reduction maneuvering, sometimes described as a lateral directional flying, or Fractionized Energy Method. And the most important key for that accomplishment, my dear Mr. Burp, is a so called high wing mechanization index. What that means? In our case, my dear Sir, a possibility for an asymmetric mid-air braking (oh yes – unlike numerous fighter airplanes the Stuka actually has air brakes under each wing!) which will create continuous non-linear decentralization of the center of turning circles.

Something pretty odd, something that our highly attractive combat successor, the FW 190, actually never had.

Sounds complicated? Fortunately, we have some more modern examples. You see, there is no more complicated flying job then a fighter pilot’s. Your enemy has ability to maneuver in three dimensions at a variety of speed, your weapons can be effectively fired only within a specific flight envelope, and you may be on the verge of losing consciousness because of pulling high Gs. It has, therefore, been the most challenging job for the aircraft designers and engineers to construct a plane with the ability to outmaneuver the skills of the average fighter pilot. The modern story of successful fractionized energy maneuvering begins – ironically enough – in the spring of 1971 with a US Navy unit known as Top Gun, which taught dog-fighting skills to naval aviators, then engaged with MiG’s over Vietnam.

The aircraft in question was pretty unconventional one – Ryan BQM-34, know as the Firebee. But our example was not just any other Firebee, but one specially designed to give the “best of the best” a REAL TEST! That Firebee was upgraded with a system called MASTACS (Maneuverability Augmentation System for Tactical Air Combat Simulation), and the pilots of the renowned Top Gun were keen to prove their superiority. :rolleyes:

And so, a graduation exercise was scheduled for May 10, at Pt Mugu. Commander John C. Smith, commanding officer of the Top Gun school, decided to ride as radar operator and chief tactician as he and 3 other combat veterans from Vietnam scrambled in F-4 Phantom fighters from Miramar.

What developed was a no-holds-barred contest. Commander John Pitzen, Top Gun combat instructor, was tactical director for the modified Firebee, and instructed Mr. Al Donaldson, who manned the remote control station. In effect, they were in the cockpit of the target, and after the stage was set for a head – on approach, the Firebee proved to be an extremely elusive target. Open – circuit radio chatter told of the Top Gun star-pilots difficulties. Smith called “Tally-ho, off the left wing”, but the drone was able to pull such a high asymmetric brake-assisted G-maneuver, that the F-4 could not follow the maneuver! Commanding officer of the Top Gun was learning the hard way that a modified target drone could rack into a 100 degree bank and make a 180 degree reversal turn in only 12 seconds, permitting the drone to get in behind the now vulnerable F-4. In that position, the drone ceased being a target, but an attack aircraft. :twisted:

The flight was a convincing demonstration of innovative maouvering undertaken by the drone. Pandora’s box of modern age all-robot Air Force combat flying was almost opened, but both USN and the Teledyne Ryan quitly backed away from pushing the concept any further at that time, and everything remained as “business as usual” comportment… :frowning:

Well, that was all for today. As usually, we will finish our posting with an an additional snapshot dedicated to the Old Screaming Lady:

Ju 87 at takeoff – unknown airfield, USSR, 1943.

Oh, BTW: Do you know, by any chance, average rate of daily losses of the FW 190 F/G on the Eastern front during the war, my dear Mr. Burp? Unfortunately, I was able only to find some fractional data-sets regarding the Western theater of operations (for example, the fact that 5 FW 190 F-8s, were lost in combat on January 1st, 1945). You see, in that case we will be able to compare factual cost-efficiency rate for each airplane, and even to compare overall combat efficiency between the good old Po 2 Kukuruznik and the Fw 190. Thank you in advance. :wink:

In the meantime, as usually – all the best! :slight_smile:

#146

Dear Sir!

Nice post, but…
1/ “the Stuka is an object slower but more manoeuvrable”
Really? Comapare it please with the Yak-3 please ! :rolleyes:

2/ Top Gun, of course…but why to go so far?? At the beginning of WW II the Bf-110 pilots had problems to shoot down the more agile PZL-11c fighters. They started to use hit-and-run techniques (exhange speed for altitude) and use their much stronger armament and structure. They soon became very succesfull.
Usually, the F4F pilots tried to zoom through the screening Zeros and go after the bomber directly. With altitude, they could adopt hit-and-run tactics; their rugged construction resisted the Japanese 7.7mm machine gun bullets.

The Marine (and Navy) pilots also started to use this “hit und run” tactic from Guadalcanal with theiir big fat F-4Fs (Wildcats) against the more agile Zeros. (VMF-223,. major Smith - who got the MoH for his attitude).

But this was not “Top Gun” (by my best knowledge)
The United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program (SFTI program), more popularly known as TOPGUN, is the modern-day evolution of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School which was originally established on March 3rd, 1969 at the former Naval Air Station Miramar in California[1]. The SFTI program carries out the same specialized fighter training as NFWS had from 1969 until 1996, when it was merged into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at NAS Fallon, Nevada.

regards:
TGR

#147

May I answer those questions, my dear Mr. Tiger 205? :wink:

Really? Compare it please with the Yak-3 please.

No problem, but you can do that personally, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. After all, it is not so complicated. Please, just compare a couple of essential numerical indicators:

Specific wingloading:

Ju 87 B-2: 139,81 kg/m2

Ju 87 D-3: 179,31 kg/m2

Yak 3: 181 kg/m²

Power to mass ratio:

Ju 87: 0.27 HP/kg

Yak 3: 0.60 HP/kg

Evidently, in a pure one-on-one dogfight the good old Ju 87 B-2 is completely capable to outturn the Yak 3 if she is applying the energy depletion maneuvering (by staying on the very boundary of stall!) and to win. Although no other Soviet fighter can turn as well as a Yak 3, which was the best Allied dogfighter due to its incredible agility, actually is a poorer turn-fighter than the Stuka.

If you are an experienced Stuka flyer, all you have to do is to put quickly your airplane into the first half of an oblique loop, tilted at an angle. Then go down and fly as low as you can (at the treetops or even lower!), and after that stick to your continuous flat turns! Make an energetic 88 degree bank, drop out your flaps, activate asymmetrically your air-brake under the lower wing, and pull continuously sharp (minimum 4 G !) turns. You cannot get away, but with your successful flat scissors you will be able to stalemate your charming little opponent! Remember – YOUR airplane has superior turning characteristics, therefore proceed to turn on a dime, and call your own fighters to help you! Additionally, your opponent might eventually make a mistake, and you personally or your distinguished rear gunner can take advantage of it. :slight_smile:

Of course, the physical effort required by you will be comparable with that of an oarsman pulling hard in a Olympic boat race, but that’s part of a true combat aviator’s life… :wink:

At the beginning of WW II the Bf-110 pilots had problems to to shoot down the more agile PZL-11c fighters they started to use hit and run techniques (exhange speed fior altitude) and use their much stronger armament. They soon became very succesfull.

Well, curiously, they were incapable to repeat those highly successful hit-and -run tactics against the PZL during the aerial battle which took place on September 2nd 1939, when 8 PZL fighters of Polish Squadron III/6 engaged a formation of 23 Messerschmitt Bf 110’s of I./ZG76. German pilots reported 2 victories at the loss of three aircraft.

In addition, the Norwegian Gloster Gladiators, or Soviet Polikarpov I 153s were equally successful against those outspoken German heavy fighters. Seven Norwegian Gloster Gladiator biplanes, for example, which were operational at Fornebu airport, managed to shoot down a total of 5 German aircraft on 9 April, 1940, including 2 Messerschmitt Bf 110heavy fighters, with only one Gladiator being shot down that day. Then again, the Polikarpov I 153 Chaika was very successful against the Bf 110 as well. That extremely agile Soviet biplane under command of Captain G. I. Agafonov, for example, was capable to shoot down singled-handedly two Bf 110s and two Ju 88s during a pair of combat-sorties above Mariupol on October 7 th, 1941, without a single loss on the Soviet side.

No, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 - the Bf 110 definitely is not my type of combat aircraft… :slight_smile:

The Marine (and Navy) pilots also started to use this “hit und run” tactic from Guadalcanal with theiir big fat F-4Fs (Wildcats) against the more agile Zeros. (VMF-223,. major Smith - who got the MoH for his attitude).

In that case, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, just open the throttle of your nimble Zero, and pull a very narrow spiral climb. It will make your airplane an almost impossible target, due to constantly changing angle and distance. See? Nothing to be afraid of, once you master the unknown. :smiley:

And now, as usually, some snapshots connected with our old birdie.

As you know, during the course of the legendary film “Battle of Britain” a Luftwaffe Stuka (curiously the “D” model!) had to be seen during crashing into a radar tower. While the movie cameras were turning, stills photographer Robert Penn left nothing to chance by using 2 cameras of his own. With a hand held Leica loaded with Kodacolor X he obtained the remarkably greater degree of authenticity through slight camera shake. This was due to slower emulsion reaction of the color negative film, and illustrates the ease with which “news” can be faked.

The Battle of Britain – Stuka crashing into a Radar Tower

The Battle of Britain – explosion of a crashed Stuka

Needless to say, the ill fated Stuka was a radio controlled model. :slight_smile:

Well, that’s all for today, honorable ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, as always – all the best!

#148

My Dear Friend,

1/
“No, my dear Mr. Tiger 205 - the Bf 110 definitely is not my type of combat aircraft…”

O, I WILL BE IN Bf-110 G4, you in the remarkable Avro Lancaster.
And I gona to play some Jazz music with my schräge Music for you :lol:
TGR

2/
OK I ask from the other angle.
Which pilot would you like to be: russian/french in Yak-3M or german in Ju-87 Dora - in a doghfight?
(Me - definitely - behind the ShVAK cannon and ShKAS mg’s)

Regards:
TGR

#149

My freind,

The Marine/Naval aviators flying the F-4 Wildcats didn’t so much use “hit-an-run” tactics as they used the “Thach Weave.” The tactic did not involve “hitting and running” as much as it was about luring the over-aggressive IJN aviators onto an ‘easy kill’ while an another U.S. pilot was maneuvering behind waiting to ambush.

I believe the saying/axiom was something to the affect that: one F-4 Wildcat against a single Japanese Zero might as well be outnumbered 10-1. But two Wildcats (flown by skilled, experienced pilots) could take on ten or more Zeros…

#150

We’re a bit OT I know (seeing as this is the Stuka thread), but - there’s a quite lively discussion on another board regarding the F4F’s merits as compared to, say, the RAF’s Hurricane. Don’t want to get too involved in the technicalities, but basically: once the relatively fragile Zero copped a short burst from the F4F’s .50cal armament, it was all over. The Brits were at a disadvantage with their rifle-calibre armament - although they did better later in the war with the Hispano 20mm cannon.

Cheers,
Cliff

#151

Concur.

Thnx for the correction

Regads
TGR

#152

Oh, goodness me… Those truly spanking new offers of yours always refreshingly reach the spirit of even the most unwavering flying esquire, my dear Mr. Tiger 205.

Well, although throwing out the “cabbage” from seven miles up is not the very best ending to a garishly attractive line of old-fashioned flying business, intrinsically hooked on genuine technological pre-eminence, I am accepting your truly kind offer. :smiley:

If you wish, I shall ride the cotton wool clouds, flying high above the patchwork earth, and under the canopy of stars, with a gentle basso-proffundo murmur of my four RR Merlin engines. However, I have the pleasure of informing you that in conformity with my personal request our heavy British birdie will be equipped with the Serrate radar detector and homing apparatus (actually, Bomber Command loaned that from my favorite heavy birdie - the Vickers-Armstrong Windsor). Of course, flight of my distinguished squad will be covered by our illustrious colleagues, Wing Commander Branse Burbridge and Bill Skelton. :twisted:

As you would expect, even though musical performances are all a bit irrelevant high above the flaming thunder, my faithful crew and Little Me will be under the enliving influence of one old, fashionable, and truly catchy melody, provided by static-free beauty of the mighty BBC power-wave, received through the wonderful Marconi superheterodyne tuner that keeps our favorite station constantly in perfect tune. Namely, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-UHaCZSBeM

“The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling for you but not for me”

It seems to me that this melody is capable to overstep the line that separates “utility” music from the kind one wants to hear for its own soul’s sake. :slight_smile:

Therefore – good luck, Old Been and be careful of some sore chaffing! Pip-pip, cheerio, toodle-oo, and all that rot. :smiley:

OK I ask from the other angle.
Which pilot would you like to be: russian/french in Yak-3M or german in Ju-87 Dora - in a doghfight?
(Me - definitely - behind the ShVak gun)

You are not offering the Yak 3-U, my dear Mr. Tiger 205? Oh, what a pity. You know, that’s my personal fighter of choice, capable to complete an excellent match up against the legendary Weave of Thatch. Well, if that is the case, I am taking the Old Screaming Lady. You know, it seems to me somehow that my engagement actually will be like teaching someone’s grandmother to twist – everyone knows that it is theoretically possible, but nobody knows what the point in it really is. Well, if nothing else, we will be able to evaluate the real effectiveness of those mid-air activated air brakes, and to test real efficiency of those freshly installed 20 mm cannons which replaced those old 7.9 mm wing machine guns. :cool:

BTW - here is another snapshot connected with our old birdie and the RHUAF as well:

Ju 87 K-2, RHUAF

Well, that’s all for today. In the meantime, as always – all the best! :slight_smile:

#153

My dear pudding-eater Friend, over the canal!
Do not worry about your serrate equipment, we will pick the pieces up from the remaining parts of ypor plane after it falling down to our beloved German soil :slight_smile:
Me, and my firend, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer are flying here with our Gustav 4s - EQUIPPED with 9 cm wavelength system known as FuG 240 Berlin - instead of using the old simple Lichteinstein radar - as you expected!
Menawhile, my other old buddy, Hauptmann Heinz Strüning accompanied by three of his 3./NJG 1 commrades will take care of Burbridge and Skelton with their brand new Mosquito Hunter He-219 A6 planes. :slight_smile:

#154

Dear Friend,
Tell the truth, I’m a “tracked” person, more “expert” in tanks and panzer isseues than aircraft (my first hobby from my childhood after reading the books of pokriskin and Tadeus Rolski)
So thsu, my faforite song is (hopefully U know it too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lh6NUaXx6I&feature=related

Have a nice weekend (and let Schumi win)!

#155

Thanks for the Photo my Friend!

As I am not a rabid Stuka fan, I prefer an other attack plane we got from the Germans:


(model F8 of course)

and - back to the Bf-110 - the favorite photo from this lovely-ugly duck for me is the followin (can U guess why??) :slight_smile:

#156

Golly gosh - I say, old chap, what an absolutely spiffing idea thas really is! Unfortunately, that itsy-bitsy-tiny-winy slim proboscis of that Augsburg-made thingy-ma-bob tinny is simply excessively tight for that electronic thing, you know. :wink:

Better try something else. For example, the good old Junkers 88. There is much more space for that contraption. And once you give to that old wacko bomber a little bit of work, it will shine up like a new penny. So steady on, Old Fruit, and in the meantime just stick to that Lichtenstein mattress of yours. :smiley:

BTW Old Bugger: Our 85th Squadron specialists K. D. Vaughan & R. D. McKinnon are somewhere out there too. So be very careful, because that highly praised Owl of yours actually is little match for their Mossie NF Mk XXX equipped, as well as my own birdie, with the SERRATE Mk. VI. :lol:

You will excuse me now for a moment, I have to finish my Devon cream rice pudding with quick raspberry jam – with a teaspoon of genuine cinnamon it is the ultimate in comfort food, you know. :cool:

Oh, I was so busy yesterday that I almost forgot this – another snapshot connected with our Old Birdie:

Ju 87 D – Eastern Front, 1943

I hope that you will enjoy this one as well. You know, Old Chap, this Flying Lady sometimes reminds me on the good old time when my late grandpa was in active service. Goodness me, those were the days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIm1rvMGzhk&feature=related

Well, that’s all for today. Ta-ra, huzzah, and ta-ta for now! :slight_smile:

#157

Hello!

Let we finish this night fight OFF discussion, before I introduce my old chap Kurt Welter flying with the plane bellow (Me-262B-2)!

anyways, let me send you my favorite video from the nice old day when I was a teenager watching the silver eagles over the skies of Pápa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLZ0we1BUug&feature=related

To Be ON TOPIC let me post a picture about our brave pilots flying against (not agile like Yak-3, but) deadly USAAF P-51D-s.

Regads:
TGR

#158

“The Junkers’ vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942 when 15 Ju 87Ds were all shot down by USAF P-40Fs in minutes.” [Weal 1998, p. 65.] . Hmmm Johnny come latelies…LOL

During the 1 SAAF “Stuka Party” on July 3rd 1942, the Squadron shot down 13 Ju87b’s and a 109 while protecting the 1 SA Infantry Division at El Alamein. One Stuka was seen to limp away. Following the war it was discovered that he didnt make it either. One can only imagine the reaction at the German airfield when the entire Staffel of 15 aircraft takes off and not one single aircraft returns. Ray, however dived down behind a Stuka twice and fired but on the second occasion caught a burst of fire from the rear gunner. It punctured his cooling system, fuel system and damaged the undercarriage. He crash landed at Burgh-el-arab. Years later, whilst at school, one of the temporary teachers told me he had been a ground crew man at Burgh and had seen my father become the first man to crash land a Hurricane at over 500mph.

! Squadron South African Air Force War Diary entry for July 3rd, 1942

#159

it is hard to imagine a Hurricane flying faster than 400 mph

#160

Oh, please don’t worry, old chap! I’m sorry if I rubbed your fur the wrong way. But we may take heart from the fact that we are actually practicing here our ability to examine critically proposed technical solutions, and that’s the acid test of thinking, you know. Can the individual evaluate critically all the factors involved, and analyze and synthesize until, as a result of that critical study, there comes a definite conclusion – that’s the main issue here. As well as our ability and readiness to cast aside hypothesis found not valid. Thinking, my dear Mr. Tiger 205, implies objectivity and singleness of purpose. One hypothesis must be no better than another when it has been critically examined and found wanting, but to cast it aside may take courage. It is difficult at times to prevent what one has perhaps unconsciously come to expect or hope would be the outcome. Objectivity in critical thought is a crucial thing and exceedingly difficult to achieve, because much of our reflection takes its hue from the subjective values, prejudices and stereotypes that pervade all our thinking.

Complete objectivity should, however, characterize rigorous thinking, and there should be no hesitation in casting aside proposed solutions when they are found invalid. Unfortunately, a number of unrealistic assumptions were worked into the human mind along with the enduring truths. Today’s theorists, enjoying the advantage of modern information technology are in a position to discard these unrealistic assumptions. After all – that’s why we are here. :slight_smile:

Therefore please – a couple of days ago you offered me a job and asked me to give up my well-paying, full-time position. Consequently, before I give up my flying business, don’t hesitate and give your distinguished jet co-worker a call. I am really eager to see his flying capabilities against my good old slow-flying Lanc in the middle of night, with a plethora of heavy, rainy clouds. You know, Me 262’s high speed advantage actually was so great that it practically became a difficulty in the conditions of a radar-based night interception, and as a result the Kommando Welter specialized in intercepting the much faster Mosquitos. :wink:

Of course, I am assuring you that I am sufficiently trained and bodily and mentally completely capable to perform the Corkscrew Maneuver, which allows continuation of course while presenting to the attacking fighter an extremely difficult target. Here is the graphical essence of it:

The Corkscrew Maneuver

You see? Not so terribly complicated at all. :smiley:

BTW: I am assuring you that in time of need our Mossies will be upgraded very soon as well. You see, quite early, more precisely in the June of 1942, there was a proposal for a “Jet Mosquito”, equipped with two H 1 Goblin jet engines (13,3 kN of thrust), 9,979 kg all-up weight, 907 kg bomb load, and top speed of 716 km/h at 12192 m (service ceiling of the Me 262 B 1a/U1: 11450 m). Further consequences of decreased weight of the Jet Wooden Wonder (there are no bombs in the bay) are increased index of thrust-to-weight ratio and significant (50 km/h) augmentation of speed. Oh yes – a new electronic device named “Perfectos”, capable to track and jam German IFF signals will be introduced as well. :cool:

But enough of NF encominiums! Let’s go back to the good old Stuka. Here is a small artistic token of appreciation for you personally, my dear Mr. Tiger 205. It is connected with the Ju 87, and - as far as I know - this is the very first public appearance of this quite specific artwork on the Internet:

Forward, Hungarian poster - 1942

Egy kis ajándek, Uram, a Pápai Sámánok tiszteletére. :wink:

As we all know, proper service and repair procedures are vital to the safe, reliable operation of all machines, as well as the personal safety of those performing repairs. This tiny string of authentic, previously also unpresented WW2 photos, outlines procedures for servicing and repairing aircraft engines:

Freshly overhauled Junkers Jumo 211 engine

Derrick crane truck moves the engine

Last check before installation on a four point hoist

Two-arm engine support bar with fixed chain assemblies

“The Junkers’ vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942 when 15 Ju 87Ds were all shot down by USAF P-40Fs in minutes.” [Weal 1998, p. 65.] . Hmmm Johnny come latelies…LOL

Indeed, my dear Mr. Runwaypainter. As always, combination of incorrect tactics, personal incapacity of the commander, new, nervous pilots and fruitless egotism of combatants always was and still is capable to produce an astonishing defeat.

You know, I also do remember the June 3rd,1942, when certain chap, Hans Joachim Marseille was his name, attacked alone a formation of 16 Curtiss P 40 fighters and shot down six aircraft of No. 5 Squadron (SAAF), five of them in six minutes, including three aces: Robin Pare (six victories), Douglas Golding (6.5 victories) and Andre Botha (five victories).

Here is a tiny photo-reminder for you:

Destroyed Curtiss P 40 in North Africa

This time Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz was right on time. And, honestly, he had superior birdie as well. :neutral:

Well, that’s all for today. In the meantime, honorable ladies and gentlemen, as always – all the best! :wink: