B-25 vs. Ju-88

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by daishi12

The point I tried to make to Syscom was that theoretically the B25 could have been made into a carrier based aircraft with extensive modification. This was not done on a production basis due to the fact that American aircraft carriers of the time were simply too small.

The Doolittle raid had very little military impact, but was a hugely successfull propaganda message. I am sure that I have seen a quote from a senior USN captain that although the B25 could be launched relatively easily, it would have been extremely difficult to land on a carrier. This was the reason the Doolittle raiders diverted to Russia and China.

I am sure that if the Graf Zeppellin had entered service there would have thought into putting a couple of suitably modified Ju88's onboard.

My vote would be for the Ju88 because even though the B25 performed better in some areas, the Ju88 was an incredibly versatile aircraft which was modified extensively under combat conditions from the start of WW2 to the end of hostilities.

Syscom's comment that the B25 could be modified to perform every possible thing that was asked of it seems to forget that the factories that produced the B25 where never at risk of continued bombing and did not, on the whole, suffer from poor quality materials or part shortages that front line nations suffered.

On a personal note, the Ju88 was a much nicer looking aircraft than the B25 (profile that looked like a barn door), but the Mosquito was the real looker

Yes I understood that and agree with you. I was just making a point that it has been tried over and over by every one of us and it would not sink in to him.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by daishi12

The point I tried to make to Syscom was that theoretically the B25 could have been made into a carrier based aircraft with extensive modification. This was not done on a production basis due to the fact that American aircraft carriers of the time were simply too small.

WE dont know how extensive the modifications would have been. And yes, the carriers were to small.

The Doolittle raid had very little military impact, but was a hugely successfull propaganda message. I am sure that I have seen a quote from a senior USN captain that although the B25 could be launched relatively easily, it would have been extremely difficult to land on a carrier. This was the reason the Doolittle raiders diverted to Russia and China.

Flyboyj posted some material that indicated tht there was a plan to land them back aboard, but it was scuttled due to the difficulties in teaching the pilots to land them. Plus the USN was not about to expose two carriers close to Japan for several hours.

I am sure that if the Graf Zeppellin had entered service there would have thought into putting a couple of suitably modified Ju88's onboard...

Look at the performance figures of the -88. Could it carry a 2000 - 3000 lb payload on a takeoff run of 300 feet?

Syscom's comment that the B25 could be modified to perform every possible thing that was asked of it seems to forget that the factories that produced the B25 where never at risk of continued bombing and did not, on the whole, suffer from poor quality materials or part shortages that front line nations suffered.

Irrelevant to this discussion, and untill the last few months of the war, the Luftwaffe didnt have many quality issues with their planes.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

WE dont know how extensive the modifications would have been. And yes, the carriers were to small.

Its a hell of lot more modifications than you think it is. Every person here with experience working on planes has told you this and you dont care to listen.

Originally Posted by syscom3

Flyboyj posted some material that indicated tht there was a plan to land them back aboard, but it was scuttled due to the difficulties in teaching the pilots to land them. Plus the USN was not about to expose two carriers close to Japan for several hours.

Not without modifications they were not.

Originally Posted by syscom3

Look at the performance figures of the -88. Could it carry a 2000 - 3000 lb payload on a takeoff run of 300 feet?

Just like your argument up there. Can you prove that it could not without modifications? Nope. I am sure with modifications it could be done.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Its a hell of lot more modifications than you think it is. Every person here with experience working on planes has told you this and you dont care to listen.

Noone here has owned up to being a bona fide B25 mechanic, or have the blueprints of the plane PLUS being a structural engineer.



[qoute]
Not without modifications they were not. [/quote]

Agree. The question is what modifications were necessary, if they were minor, or indeed extensive enough to warrent it being a whole different airframe.

Just like your argument up there. Can you prove that it could not without modifications? Nope. I am sure with modifications it could be done.

That was more a question. I have no idea. So if someone does have some performance figures for the -88, please let us know. The only difference between the two for carrier landings is the -88 was a tail dragger and it might be far more unsafe for it to be landing with the pilot having restricted forward vision.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Noone here has owned up to being a bona fide B25 mechanic, or have the blueprints of the plane PLUS being a structural engineer.

The question is what modifications were necessary, if they were minor, or indeed extensive enough to warrent it being a whole different airframe.

Well I could tell you this - I worked on an aircraft that started out as a land fighter and was then used by the Navy, and I also worked on it's Air Force brother, that being the FJ-4 and the F-86. Now I know they're jets, designed after the war and were completely different aircraft than what we're comparing, but the amount of modification that went into the Fury was massive when you compare it to the F-86 and evident to this argument....

[Glider]

Back to Basics i.e. B25 vs Ju88.

Comparing the aircraft as far as I understand it.

The Ju88 had
Lower wing loading 52.5lb/ft to 54.9
Faster acceleration stall to 200mph 32 seconds to 36.5 seconds
Lower stall speed 90mph to 95 (Full Flaps)
Better Climb
and if all else failed, had been tested with RATO packs

So to awnser the question, could it take off from an Aircraft Carrier YES would seem to be the reply.

Tail Dragger is irrelevent seen as most carrier planes were tail draggers. The Ju88 cockpit is well forward and would appear to give an excellent view. Better in many ways than a B25.

Re Modifications
My guess would be that the Ju88 would need less modification as it was stressed for divebombing. It would still need mods but less than a non stressed B25.

Which Brings us back to Syscoms fav observation. Its hardly a suprise that non of us are trained in B25's, (but I did do a little on a non flying Swordfish if that counts, well I did help take a torpedo off one ).

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Glider

Back to Basics i.e. B25 vs Ju88.

Comparing the aircraft as far as I understand it.

The Ju88 had
Lower wing loading 52.5lb/ft to 54.9
Faster acceleration stall to 200mph 32 seconds to 36.5 seconds
Lower stall speed 90mph to 95 (Full Flaps)
Better Climb
and if all else failed, had been tested with RATO packs

So to awnser the question, could it take off from an Aircraft Carrier YES would seem to be the reply.

Tail Dragger is irrelevent seen as most carrier planes were tail draggers. The Ju88 cockpit is well forward and would appear to give an excellent view. Better in many ways than a B25.

Re Modifications
My guess would be that the Ju88 would need less modification as it was stressed for divebombing. It would still need mods but less than a non stressed B25.

Which Brings us back to Syscoms fav observation. Its hardly a suprise that non of us are trained in B25's, (but I did do a little on a non flying Swordfish if that counts, well I did help take a torpedo off one ).

I should also add that I did do a lot of work on the Seahawk that is now on the display circuit. A plane that used the same materials and technology of the war era. When I worked on it, it was non flying but 'hot' as it was used to train the deck crew for the Ark Royal.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Glider

......
Re Modifications
My guess would be that the Ju88 would need less modification as it was stressed for divebombing. It would still need mods but less than a non stressed B25.

Good point.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Glider

Back to Basics i.e. B25 vs Ju88.

Comparing the aircraft as far as I understand it.

The Ju88 had
Lower wing loading 52.5lb/ft to 54.9
Faster acceleration stall to 200mph 32 seconds to 36.5 seconds
Lower stall speed 90mph to 95 (Full Flaps)
Better Climb
and if all else failed, had been tested with RATO packs.

I have difficulty with this data. Based on the B-25B (Doolittle's model), compared to a Ju-88A-4, the following data was obtained

B-25B, empty wt. 20K lbs, max gross, 28,460, wing area 610 sq ft, hp at TO 3400.

Ju-88, empty wt. 19K lbs, max gross, 26,729, wing area 565 sq ft, hp at TO 2820.

With this data, I calculated the following:
Empty wt. wing loading (lbs/sq ft) B-25, 32.8, Ju-88, 33.6 Advantage B-25B
Max gross wing loading B-25, 46.7, Ju-88, 47.3 Advantage B-25B
Power to Weight empty (lbs/hp) B-25, 5.9, Ju-88 6.7 Advantage B-25
Power to Weight full B-25 (lbs/hp), 8.3, Ju-88, 9.5 Advantage B-25

Couldn't find stall speed for the B-25

Acceleration from stall to 200 mph!!! Holy cow, I have never seen this statistic anywhere. Where did it come from? Especially for the B-25. Note however that the B-25 had a slightly better power to weight ratio (which means little).

Time to climb is always difficult. My data indicates a B-25C (heavier than a B) could go to 15000 in 16.5 min. and a Ju-88A-4 could go to 17,700 ft. in 23 min. Certainly doesn't support your argument that the Ju-88 could outclimb a B-25 in April of 1942 (assuming all my data is correct).

So to awnser the question, could it take off from an Aircraft Carrier YES would seem to be the reply.

In spite of what I said above, I believe you are correct here. The wind over the deck of the carrier was probably 50+kts. These planes did not have to accelerate very much. Now, would a Ju-88A-4 be able to fly the specified 2000 miles with 2000 lbs of bombs. I'm not sure about that. The B-25 would certainly have more margin for success.

Which Brings us back to Syscoms fav observation. Its hardly a suprise that non of us are trained in B25's, (but I did do a little on a non flying Swordfish if that counts, well I did help take a torpedo off one ).

This is how I imagine it went down.

"How can we strike at Japan?" was the Presidents question.

Carrier planes? No, not enough range to keep our most valuable asset in the Pacific, the carrier, safe.

Can longer range planes be launched from a carrier? Maybe, but recovering them would be very difficult and dangerous for the carrier. Modifications would be difficult.

Can something else be done? Hey! How about launching a bomber from a carrier and land it in China. Can that be done? Let's investigate! The rest is history.

Of course, it may have been different.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Noone here has owned up to being a bona fide B25 mechanic, or have the blueprints of the plane PLUS being a structural engineer.

Your right I grew up in the wrong area, but I will tell you that I do structural modifications and structural repairs on aircraft as part of my job, so I am not an idiot to this subject....

Originally Posted by syscom3

Agree. The question is what modifications were necessary, if they were minor, or indeed extensive enough to warrent it being a whole different airframe.

No one ever said that it would almost end up being an entire new airframe, but it would require more extensive modifications than you seem to think.

Originally Posted by syscom3

The only difference between the two for carrier landings is the -88 was a tail dragger and it might be far more unsafe for it to be landing with the pilot having restricted forward vision.

The Ju-88 would certainly require modifications as well. No one ever said it would not. Besides the arguement is not about the Ju-88 it is about the B-25.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

In spite of what I said above, I believe you are correct here. The wind over the deck of the carrier was probably 50+kts. These planes did not have to accelerate very much. Now, would a Ju-88A-4 be able to fly the specified 2000 miles with 2000 lbs of bombs. I'm not sure about that. The B-25 would certainly have more margin for success.

Certainly not, if both aircraft were modified for carrier operations the B-25 would deffinatly do better in that role because it had better range to payload qualities.

Originally Posted by davparlr

This is how I imagine it went down.

"How can we strike at Japan?" was the Presidents question.

Carrier planes? No, not enough range to keep our most valuable asset in the Pacific, the carrier, safe.

Can longer range planes be launched from a carrier? Maybe, but recovering them would be very difficult and dangerous for the carrier. Modifications would be difficult.

Can something else be done? Hey! How about launching a bomber from a carrier and land it in China. Can that be done? Let's investigate! The rest is history.

I agree with you and I think that is pretty much how it went down as well.

[daishi12]

I have had a quick look at plans of the B25 and it looks to me to be a case of the following mods would need to be completed to allow an arrestor hook installation:-

The arrestor hook would probably need to be installed just aft of the waist guns where the fusalage starts tapering toward the tail, this would involve longitudinal strengthening to the airframe.

Main landing gear to be strenghened, possibly including strengthening engine mounts as gear retracts into engine nascelles.

Strengthening and stiffening nose gear. (This would need to be done as an arrestor hook landing with a tricycle configured aircraft pivots the nose of the aircraft down. The length of the nose wheel would probably need to be increased to allow a greater margin of space to stop the props hitting the deck on landing.

Double folding wings (Z shape)

Increase size of flaps to try to lower landing speed.

And finally shock absorbers in the seats and/or rubber cushions to try to stop the crews backsides being bounced out of their ears

[daishi12]

I found this which might be interesting to everyone..

See B-25 Mitchell WW2 Training Film & Pilot's Manual Live Online

it has a few very interesting comments...

namely the B25 could dive bomb - max dive speed of 340mph indicated airspeed at what looks to be about 30 degrees,

normal landing speed of approx 130mph with full flaps.. oh and keep the balance to the rear of the plane during landing, the nose wheel isn't designed for high stress..

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nice find on the B-25 there.

[Erich]

curious if any of our illustrious membership has ever seen, touched or been inside a B-25 ? I have a great pic of my son in the pilots seat in a B-25J some years back on the 50th anniv. of D-day

E ~