Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

This?

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/...ps71c5cb18.jpg

Doesn't look like the landing gear 'broke' off..

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

They could crash in various ways, and yes the gear could collapse or be torn off in a crash.

Most of it was just a cover, the legs were thin.

Just because you don't see the legs in the photo above, does not mean they are not under the aircraft buried in the soft earth of the field.

They did have a roll-over support.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...f.jpg~original

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...6.jpg~original

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...2.jpg~original

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...a.jpg~original

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...3.jpg~original

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures..._nose_dive.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...5.jpg~original

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

My point is that in construction was tend to avoid roll over, as secure measure for crew. Oberst- can you explain your image, landing gear is broken during landing or what?

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Like I said, I see no evidence of the gear being there during the landing. Look at the land behind, no 'trenching' from the gear, no rips, tears, deformities on top of the wing, etc. All speculation, as I can't say 100%.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

The history I remember reading - please do not ask me where! - is the pilot jettisoned the landing gear to allow him a better emergency landing on an open field.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

That's why they put in a roll-over structure. Actually, From the A to the B-1 to the B-2, the angle of the landing gear was changed to try to avoid the nose over.

Even in a P-47, once the gear comes down and the nose is dow, there is a very good chance for a roll over. Even with wheels up, given the angle of impact and the topography, a flip-over is possible.

You also have to remember, the Ju 87 was an obsolete design.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

No Ju 87, except the proposed naval variants, were to have such a landing gear removal option. There was at least one faked propagana image with two Ju 87 flying, one with and one without landing gears with a text like "comrade escorting a damaged Ju 87 back home"

The image from Oberst most probably shows a plane that turned 90 degrees the landing

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Hello,
the Ju 87 D-5, G-1 and G-2 were equipped with a jettisonable landing gear. This could also be retrofitted to earlier D variants.
The source for this information is the "Bedienungsvorschrift" (user manual) for the Ju 87 D-5.

http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/...pscacdc2f4.jpgThis is a variant overview.
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3fa88a58.jpgThis gives instructions for emergency landings. In case of a emergency landing on water, snow or swampy ground the landing gear should be jettisoned. Caution was advised for the G-1 and G-2, because of the cannons.
In the aircraft handbook , information is a bit hidden. In part 9B You can find the wiring diagram.
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0380cf9a.jpg
I hope this clears things up.

Greetings

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Can anyone do a proper translation of WW2 German? Seems to imply a breaking of.... in water, snow and marsh...

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Basically it says 'An emergency landing in snow, water, and swampy terrain JU 87 D-5, D-6 to drop the chassis by blasting it off. Actuating switch sits and the left-hand fuselage side. Remaining models of the JU 87 D,G can be retrofitted. Ju 87 G series dropping the chassis by blasting should only be done in the most extreme cases.'

Presumingly because of the cannons.