Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Hi guys

What, where and when - did the Ju87 lose its undercarriage but safely returned to its airfield? During the Battle of Britain I believe. Who were the crew and were they injured?

I have seen a picture of the aircraft in flight.

Cheers
Brian

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

There is a wochenschau movie that shows a ju87 without gear crash land in Poland. Feuertauf unserer Luftwaffe in Polen (1h 30m, 352x272)" at 28:35 one can see A stricken Ju87 belly land.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Exactly it was on 1.9.39. Lt. Hamester from 4./StG2 (T6+AM) recovered too late after a dive attack and his undercarriage was lost after hitting of water. He belly-landed without further problems at Stolp-R. airfield.

Robert

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Hello B
if it's the close up.im afraid it's a faked propaganda still.i have seen this in stuka at war book.
Shazza

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

What would be the point of falsing a picture of a damadged plane? To prove what i wonder.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

No idea about this particular event but as I know Ju 87 was able to jettison landing gear in case of emergency landing.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Other than an internet item that "must be true", there has been presented no documentation for this other than possibly in the C model, to allow for ease of ditching.

No manual or drawings, that I know of, shows it for the D model

I would welcome actual documentation.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

No Internet source, I read it long time ago, some old book but can not remember in moment which one is. Do you have manual and drawings which proof no options for landing gear?

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

I think the obligation is yours to prove. I have a D-5 manual which does not note it.

Old book?

As I noted, no one has presented documentation that it was provided for.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Not remember name, it is extract from one local military magazine. I seen this some two decades ago I could not imagine that I will need it to show anything.

So- Stuka could roll over during emergency landing?

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.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Thank you Oberst :) Also thanks to Sergio Luis dos Santos and Andreas V. And sorry to the author of this topic for this a bit off topic :(

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Thank you for that information and translation.

But, odd indeed (quite ,quite odd) that only certain situation were set our. None of which would indicate to be used for a belly landing on solid ground. Basically, it seems drowning and suffocation were at issue. Perhaps that is why we see many D models on their nose and back on solid ground.

So while not a myth, it make little sense in reality.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

Modeldad, I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this post. Can you clarify? Maybe some mistypes?

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

John;

The relevant translated part of the manual states: "An emergency landing in snow, water, and swampy terrain JU 87 D-5, D-6 to drop the chassis by blasting it off."

Why would it specify those conditions, rather than just stating that it could be done in an emergency. Clearly in the conditions stated, the Ju 87 is going to get its gear caught and flip over. But there are plenty of nose overs on solid ground.

Re: Ju87 sans undercarriage
 

why the faked photo-well i saw the original picture in another book,then the touched up ,without legs, the book it stated july 1940-says stuka ju 87,hits water survives with it's undercarrige gone..,makes it home..
Shazza