Modder Fodder (again)

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When you compare the stats of the Val and the Stuka, it's almost scary how bad the Val comes out...[X(]

......and further from that you think how much dogmeat the Stuka was and then you realise that the only decent thing the Val did was that it carried a bomb[;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

And a ridiculously small one, at that.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: borner

Can you imagine the havoc that could have been caused with Gf and a couple groups of these out in the North Atlantic? Or if the KB ha these and not Vals in 42?

The R model, based on the "C" modifications, sacrificed bomb load for "wet" wings and extra fuel tanks on the outboard racks - bomb load was limited to one 500kg bomb, ie a 1000 pounder... max range of 1535 km, but that's not the combat radius.

Still compares favourably with the D3A2.

It's all pretty much nonsense, as the Japanese couldn't build or service the engine for the Ju-87. Look at all the problems they had keeping their Tony's flying. The last thing the Japanese needed in 1941 was a bigger servicing and production headache than they already had.

[DuckofTindalos]

And the Ju-87R's reduced bombload was still twice as heavy as the D3A2. Far better aircraft, but as stated, much more difficult to maintain.

[Shark7]

Isn't it more likely that the Japanese would have simply re-engined it with an under-powered home built engine, resulting in a lower bomb load?

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And the Ju-87R's reduced bombload was still twice as heavy as the D3A2. Far better aircraft, but as stated, much more difficult to maintain.

A bit of further reading suggests that with fuel for a 600km combat radius, the Ju87 C/R could only carry a 250kg bomb anyway, i.e. the Val doesn't look so inferior.

[Dili]

Ju-87B had a 600km range(not radius) with a 500kg bomb, the 250kg load without external tanks doesn't improve much since the internal tanks are already topped. The R version normal load was 1x250kg plus 2x300Lit tanks for around 1100-1200km range

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Isn't it more likely that the Japanese would have simply re-engined it with an under-powered home built engine, resulting in a lower bomb load?

Ju-87's used an inline engine.., while virtually all Japanese A/C used radials. The Tony was designed around a version of the DB 601 engine to be built under licence. But the Japanese had very little success with inline engines during the war.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

It's all pretty much nonsense, as the Japanese couldn't build or service the engine for the Ju-87. Look at all the problems they had keeping their Tony's flying. The last thing the Japanese needed in 1941 was a bigger servicing and production headache than they already had.

The Ju 87 had the Jumo 211 engine, which would probably have been easier to produce than the DB601 copies used in the Ki-61 and the D4Y. Part of the problem seems to have been that the Japanese license producers fooled around with the original design, which led straight into disaster with the Ha-140.

Shattered Sword makes the point that the need to warm-up the engines for a prolonged period on the flight deck was mainly why the KB couldn't get off a strike against the US carriers in time at Midway. Liquid-cooled engines need less warm-up time in the first place, and, secondly, the engine oil and coolant could have been pre-heated in the hangar, further shortening the time to get the strike in the air. So the KB might have fared better at Midway had they already been equipped with the D4Y.

[wdolson]

The Judy and Tony both turned out to be better planes with radials, but the radials used were newer ones that weren't available in production quantities early in the war.  As the Zero got heavier and newer Allied fighters started appearing, the Zero ended up at a disadvantage partially because there were no bigger engines available in 1943 and early 1944.  (Their pilot quality was dropping too, but that's another issue.)

By mid-1943, most Allied fighters the Japanese were encountering were powered by Pratt & Whitney 2800s, Allisons, or Merlins.  All were more powerful engines than anything currently in production in Japan.  The Japanese engine industry was scrambling to bring new engines into production, but they had a lot of bugs that needed to be worked out.

If the Japanese had built Ju-87s with radials, they would have been stuck with the Sakae engine or similar and the plane would have likely been underpowered.

Bill

Bill

[crsutton]

Does not really matter too much. The bigger bomb on the Ju is pretty but by mid 1944 any dive bomber escorted by Japanese fighters and pilots was not going to have much chance to deliver its payload. And if they did get through-well, the stuka was sturdy but advances in Allied AA gunfire had pretty much made all divebombers obsolete.


Now, 1942 would have been another story.

[Barb]

Basic thing between radials and inlines. You can run much longer on radial cooled partialy by air than on inline cooled only by liquid - something you will certainly appreciate being hit few hundred miles from closest piece of land (or deck) [:D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

Shattered Sword makes the point that the need to warm-up the engines for a prolonged period on the flight deck was mainly why the KB couldn't get off a strike against the US carriers in time at Midway. Liquid-cooled engines need less warm-up time in the first place, and, secondly, the engine oil and coolant could have been pre-heated in the hangar, further shortening the time to get the strike in the air. So the KB might have fared better at Midway had they already been equipped with the D4Y.

According to the same book, the DB's were armed on the deck vs. the hanger and that at the time of the last (and fatal for 3) attack, the planes were not even yet being moved onto the flight decks. The author's IIRC argue that KB was nowhere near ready to launch a strike so replacing the DB types would probably have made no difference.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Basic thing between radials and inlines. You can run much longer on radial cooled partialy by air than on inline cooled only by liquid - something you will certainly appreciate being hit few hundred miles from closest piece of land (or deck) [:D]

The USN standardized on radials before the war because they were simpler engines than liquid cooled and were easier to maintain in the condition seen in an aircraft carrier hanger deck.

Radials could also take more damage than inlines. On ground attack in Europe, many P-51s were lost to AA fire when the cooling system was hit. P-47s lost entire engine cylinders to ground fire and returned home.

Bill

[Barb]

Same with Spitfire - inlines are not that great fighter bombers due to their cooling systems vulnerability (Well Il-2 was bit different animal [:D])

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Same with Spitfire - inlines are not that great fighter bombers due to their cooling systems vulnerability (Well Il-2 was bit different animal [:D])

17mm of steel may make a difference...

[Mynok]

As does 17 liters of wein, no? [:'(]

[AirGriff]

I thought one of the main reasons the navy had radials was for shorter takeoff distance they could provide on carriers, yes?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: AirGriff

I thought one of the main reasons the navy had radials was for shorter takeoff distance they could provide on carriers, yes?

I thought it was for better handling on wet roads and longer tread life.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


As does 17 liters of wein, no? [:'(]

Well, 17 liters may be too much - even for me [;)]