Junkers Ju 87 - Development, Variants , Related Projects

[newsdeskdan]

If the entire tail (fin, stabilizer) would rotate 180 degrees along the fuselage's longitudinal axis, what was the stabilizers' camouflaged upper surface in takeoff configuration would become the camouflaged lower surface in in-flight configuration. Looking at the model images, I can see camouflaged stabilizer upper surfaces in both configurations. The modelmaker may have made two different tails for one model, or two different models altogether. I think both are unlikely.
The in-flight configuration in 620.jpg shows the fin's upper edge at a slight upward angle with the stabilizer's lower surface, the takeoff configuration in 617.jpg and 618.jpg shows the fin's upper edge at a distinctly bigger upward angle with the stabilizer's lower surface. That bigger upward angle would translate to a bigger downward angle if the entire tail would rotate 180 degrees along the fuselage's longitudinal axis.. That's not what 619.jpg and 620.jpg show.
If all four images show the same model, the modelmaker hinged the fin to rotate ~90 degrees downward to show the in-flight configuration.
I think it is likely the model's translation from takeoff to in-flight configuration matched the one chosen for the Ju 187's design.

Yes, it's an upwards and downwards movement of the fin by about 90-degrees. Not a 180-degree rotation of the whole tail assembly.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Also, here is a document from January 1943 showing that the Ju 287 was still being considered as a replacement for the Ju 87 at this point. It's not the Ju 187 - that was a different, earlier, design.
The jet bomber didn't receive the 'Ju 287' designation till a year later, in January 1944.
Herwig's misinterpretations have caused so much confusion.

 

[Foo Fighter]

So, for clarification, could the fin have been fixed in the down position with an associated reduction in complexity?

 

[Arjen]

That would make for a very interesting takeoff.

 

[CiTrus90]

Found on the net, might help people visualize how the vertical tailplane was supposed to move:

 

[newsdeskdan]

So, for clarification, could the fin have been fixed in the down position with an associated reduction in complexity?

If the Ju 187's rectangular fin was fixed in the down position, it would need a tailwheel attached to the top (bottom?) of it. But the only view we have of it doesn't show that feature (or indicate how the fin would move, if it was intended to move).
In the Ju 287, I don't think the triangular fin could have been fixed in the down position for landing.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Found on the net, might help people visualize how the vertical tailplane was supposed to move:

Yes, although that is a rather inaccurate artwork otherwise. The attachment point was at the tip of the triangular fin, not the middle. This is the November 1942 drawing of the Ju 287 model Justo posted earlier:


And this is the Ju 187 (see below), about which very little is known. It's really not clear how this fin was supposed to work.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Very low quality but this type of thing would not be so extreme as it appears, more of an even keel and might improve vision for taxying and take off etc.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Quick and dirty attempt to fix the outline of that Ju 287 profile. Based on the November 1942 drawing, I think it should look a bit more like this:

 

[Avimimus]

I have some questions about the design: What was the intended purpose of the four under-wing SC50 or SD70? Are there any surviving documents surrounding the design and deployment of the A, B, R, and D that explain why this was picked?

The decision to suspend four underwing bombs in the Ju-87. I have read that it was so the Ju-87 could make a follow-up pass (low-altitude 'glide' bombing) after the initial dive bombing attack with the centerline bomb. However, this doesn't make that much sense. Underwing suspension allows saving structural weight in level flight, but, from a structural perspective, it is punishing in a dive.

Was it originally intended as an either-or option? Dive bombing with the centerline bomb or level/glide bombing with the larger number of underwing bombs?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Ju-87 unusual devices-Post-3

One question
The torpedo version was de Ju-87D.
Never was a torpedo version of the B?

E-1 and D-4 only

 

[Justo Miranda]

I have some questions about the design: What was the intended purpose of the four under-wing SC50 or SD70? Are there any surviving documents surrounding the design and deployment of the A, B, R, and D that explain why this was picked?

The decision to suspend four underwing bombs in the Ju-87. I have read that it was so the Ju-87 could make a follow-up pass (low-altitude 'glide' bombing) after the initial dive bombing attack with the centerline bomb. However, this doesn't make that much sense. Underwing suspension allows saving structural weight in level flight, but, from a structural perspective, it is punishing in a dive.

Was it originally intended as an either-or option? Dive bombing with the centerline bomb or level/glide bombing with the larger number of underwing bombs?

Some additional info here

 

[Justo Miranda]

post-2

 

[Justo Miranda]

post-3

 

[Grzesio]

post-3

Just one correction - the bomb in the 3rd picture is a ZC 250 A weiss concrete practice bomb, not a SC 500.
As far as the description of the 6th picture is concerned, SC and SD bombs are generally very easy to tell apart, being usually of pretty different construction and/or shape, probably the only exception is the SC 50 and SD 70 pair. Quality of the picture is pretty poor, but looking at the 2nd and 3rd bomb I'd say, they are SD 250, not SC 250, the rest could be SC 250.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Ju-87 unusual devices-Post-3

One question
The torpedo version was de Ju-87D.
Never was a torpedo version of the B?

E-1 and D-4 only

Many thanks

 

[Justo Miranda]

post-4

 

[Justo Miranda]

"Jericho Trumpet" made of cardboard

 

[Justo Miranda]

The siren

 

[Airborne2001]

Does anyone have any drawings of the Ju-87F?

 

[Wurger]

What about this wind-tunnel model? Well-known Luftwaffe X-projects researcher Uwe Jack photographed it at the Junkers Museum, in Dessau. He was told that a Junkers employee saved it from the factory, in the closing days of WW2, and many years latter donated it to the museum. A single-seater! You can see more here:

Welcome!

The new publication series "Aerospace History Files". Part 01 the Luftwaffe's six-engined Jet-Bomber Junkers Ju 287, part 02 the manned V-1 flying bomb, part 03 Messerschmitt Me 263 rocket fighter.

aerospace-jack.com

 

[Wurger]

What about this wind-tunnel model? Well-known Luftwaffe X-projects researcher Uwe Jack photographed it at the Junkers Museum, in Dessau. He was told that a Junkers employee saved it from the factory, in the closing days of WW2, and many years latter donated it to the museum. A single-seater! You can see more here:

Welcome!

The new publication series "Aerospace History Files". Part 01 the Luftwaffe's six-engined Jet-Bomber Junkers Ju 287, part 02 the manned V-1 flying bomb, part 03 Messerschmitt Me 263 rocket fighter.

aerospace-jack.com

What puzzles me more is the engine. The exhausts and cylinder bosses are like if it has a V-12, not a IV-12 like a DB or a Jumo. I believe there was internal room for at least a 250 Kg bomb. The radiator scoop and tunnel resembles the Ju-187 wind tunnel model.

 

[hesham]

What about this wind-tunnel model? Well-known Luftwaffe X-projects researcher Uwe Jack photographed it at the Junkers Museum, in Dessau. He was told that a Junkers employee saved it from the factory, in the closing days of WW2, and many years latter donated it to the museum. A single-seater! You can see more here:

Welcome!

The new publication series "Aerospace History Files". Part 01 the Luftwaffe's six-engined Jet-Bomber Junkers Ju 287, part 02 the manned V-1 flying bomb, part 03 Messerschmitt Me 263 rocket fighter.

aerospace-jack.com

Looks like Breda Ba.201 ?.

 

[Wurger]

What about this wind-tunnel model? Well-known Luftwaffe X-projects researcher Uwe Jack photographed it at the Junkers Museum, in Dessau. He was told that a Junkers employee saved it from the factory, in the closing days of WW2, and many years latter donated it to the museum. A single-seater! You can see more here:

Welcome!

The new publication series "Aerospace History Files". Part 01 the Luftwaffe's six-engined Jet-Bomber Junkers Ju 287, part 02 the manned V-1 flying bomb, part 03 Messerschmitt Me 263 rocket fighter.

aerospace-jack.com

Looks like Breda Ba.201 ?.

You have a point here, Hesham.

 

[riggerrob]

What about this wind-tunnel model? Well-known Luftwaffe X-projects researcher Uwe Jack photographed it at the Junkers Museum, in Dessau. He was told that a Junkers employee saved it from the factory, in the closing days of WW2, and many years latter donated it to the museum. A single-seater! You can see more here:

Welcome!

The new publication series "Aerospace History Files". Part 01 the Luftwaffe's six-engined Jet-Bomber Junkers Ju 287, part 02 the manned V-1 flying bomb, part 03 Messerschmitt Me 263 rocket fighter.

aerospace-jack.com

For comparison, remember that the Soviet Sturmovik started life as a single-seater, but - after too many casualties - they added a rear gunner to serve as "tail warning radar." We doubt if Sturmovik rear gunners shot down many Messerschmitts, but they did allow the pilot to focus on ground targets.

 

[riggerrob]

Very low quality but this type of thing would not be so extreme as it appears, more of an even keel and might improve vision for taxying and take off etc.

Yes, the flatter deck angle might improve visibility, but it comes at a cost of runway length. As any student pilot can tell you, landing "flat" requires a faster touch-down speed and a very long runway.
Taking-off in a "flat" configuration also requires more runway.
Most tail-draggers are designed with a deck angle of 15 to 17 degrees which cooresponds with the stall angle. You need to be able to stall the airplane for the shortest possible ground roll.

 

[Morgan]

Very low quality but this type of thing would not be so extreme as it appears, more of an even keel and might improve vision for taxying and take off etc.

Yes, the flatter deck angle might improve visibility, but it comes at a cost of runway length. As any student pilot can tell you, landing "flat" requires a faster touch-down speed and a very long runway.
Taking-off in a "flat" configuration also requires more runway.
Most tail-draggers are designed with a deck angle of 15 to 17 degrees which cooresponds with the stall angle. You need to be able to stall the airplane for the shortest possible ground roll.

Did send you a private message, check it out if you don't mind

 

[Foo Fighter]

Just checked mate, nothing there as of 17:43 tiday. 6th Feb 2023.

 

[Morgan]

Just checked mate, nothing there as of 17:43 tiday. 6th Feb 2023.

Thank you mate for your contribution but I was referring to riggerrob while speaking of the private message. But anyway, thank you for your attention!

 

[Foo Fighter]

Sorry mate, I got a notification so replied. I will make note and check in future. Stay well, Sir.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Hesham,

What about this wind-tunnel model? Well-known Luftwaffe X-projects researcher Uwe Jack photographed it at the Junkers Museum, in Dessau. He was told that a Junkers employee saved it from the factory, in the closing days of WW2, and many years latter donated it to the museum. A single-seater! You can see more here:

Welcome!

The new publication series "Aerospace History Files". Part 01 the Luftwaffe's six-engined Jet-Bomber Junkers Ju 287, part 02 the manned V-1 flying bomb, part 03 Messerschmitt Me 263 rocket fighter.

aerospace-jack.com

Looks like Breda Ba.201 ?.

Quite suprising insight - you must be right, no doubt!

The engine envisaged for that variant probably would be the Isotta Fraschini Zeta?

Never heard of the Ba.201 before, though I've been to Dessau and admired the model there! :-D

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

Hi again,

Never heard of the Ba.201 before, though I've been to Dessau and admired the model there! :-D

Well, here's the photo:



Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

With regard to the original Ju 87, do you perhaps have any information on the wing's profile?

Lednicer lists a Goettingen 256, but from this page of a Soviet report, that doesn't look quite right:



Title page of the report ...



For comparison, the Goettingen 256:

https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/afplots/goe256.gif

My attempt at correcting the perspective ... probably the profile name is even given on the page, but unfortunately, the resolution doesn't suffice to actually read it. I'd guess it's something "Junkers J-2535" (in Cyrillic script, obviously), but that's more the pattern I'd suspect, not any actual guess at what it might read.



(Aspect ratio and thus profile thickness might be off due to my non-scientific attempt at correcting the perspective.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Justo Miranda]

I've found some information but I'm not sure it's what you need.

 

[Aeroweanie]

Hi everyone,

With regard to the original Ju 87, do you perhaps have any information on the wing's profile?

Lednicer lists a Goettingen 256, but from this page of a Soviet report, that doesn't look quite right:

View attachment 702984

Title page of the report ...

View attachment 702985

For comparison, the Goettingen 256:

https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/afplots/goe256.gif

My attempt at correcting the perspective ... probably the profile name is even given on the page, but unfortunately, the resolution doesn't suffice to actually read it. I'd guess it's something "Junkers J-2535" (in Cyrillic script, obviously), but that's more the pattern I'd suspect, not any actual guess at what it might read.

View attachment 702988

(Aspect ratio and thus profile thickness might be off due to my non-scientific attempt at correcting the perspective.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I was working on a comparison with this image last night and came to a similar conclusion - I think my entry in the guide for the Ju 87 is incorrect. On a related note, I attempted to get a copy of FHCAM's laser scan of their Ju 87, but was rebuffed. Now that they are under new ownership, I'll try again.

 

[Richard N]

A search for "Stuka" on bigfoil.com gives this:

GOE 256 (JUNKERS E)

 

[riggerrob]

If the entire tail (fin, stabilizer) would rotate 180 degrees along the fuselage's longitudinal axis, what was the stabilizers' camouflaged upper surface in takeoff configuration would become the camouflaged lower surface in in-flight configuration. Looking at the model images, I can see camouflaged stabilizer upper surfaces in both configurations. The modelmaker may have made two different tails for one model, or two different models altogether. I think both are unlikely.
The in-flight configuration in 620.jpg shows the fin's upper edge at a slight upward angle with the stabilizer's lower surface, the takeoff configuration in 617.jpg and 618.jpg shows the fin's upper edge at a distinctly bigger upward angle with the stabilizer's lower surface. That bigger upward angle would translate to a bigger downward angle if the entire tail would rotate 180 degrees along the fuselage's longitudinal axis.. That's not what 619.jpg and 620.jpg show.
If all four images show the same model, the modelmaker hinged the fin to rotate ~90 degrees downward to show the in-flight configuration.
I think it is likely the model's translation from takeoff to in-flight configuration matched the one chosen for the Ju 187's design.

Yes, it's an upwards and downwards movement of the fin by about 90-degrees. Not a 180-degree rotation of the whole tail assembly.

The hinge pin is mounted flat in the aft end of the fuselage. The hinge axis is horizontal, left to right. The entire vertical fin and rudder swing straight up and down around that hinge pin.

 

[Aeroweanie]

A search for "Stuka" on bigfoil.com gives this:

GOE 256 (JUNKERS E)

View attachment 703014

A lot of the information you will find on airfoil websites is just a regurgitation of my original UIUC website. Back in 1995, I gave my airfoil archive to Dr. Selig, which became the UIUC archive. Later I created the Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage, which UIUC hosts.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

I was working on a comparison with this image last night and came to a similar conclusion - I think my entry in the guide for the Ju 87 is incorrect. On a related note, I attempted to get a copy of FHCAM's laser scan of their Ju 87, but was rebuffed. Now that they are under new ownership, I'll try again.

Wow, perfect coincedence! It probably would be easier if we had the Russian report in high resolution, but it was posted 5 years ago on some file sharing platform by someone anonymous, with no way to ask questions.

I also have the rest of the report, which of course is in Russian. It seems Google Lens does a credible job these days, I'll have another look at it to see if it provides more clues!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Aeroweanie]

Here is an interesting overlay - my digitization of the Ju 87 airfoil from the Russian document, overlaid on a Ju 52 airfoil that I found measurements for in

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/AufgabeTaschner.pdf

BTW, this thesis contains an error - the Ju 52 flap is normally 2.5 deg nose down, not 0 deg.

Yellow is Ju 52, magenta is Ju 87. The coordinates are on a unit chord, to allow an overlay. As you can see, the airfoils are related, but not the same.