B-25 vs. Ju-88

[Glider]

Syscom
Putting an arrestor gear on any plane may not be complicated but does involve the one thing the raiders could not afford, weight.
I was always taught the base line, that if you add a pound of weight to the airframe and want to maintain the same performace, speed, range, climb etc then you ended up adding ten pounds to the take off weight. Wouldn't take much to get through another 1000lb.

The arrestor gear and hook is but one component the, the additional strengthening of the airframe would be a major contributor to the gain in weight. They may well have thought about it but it wouldn't have got much further.

As for the Japanese being happy with their aircraft in 1941, they had good reason to have confidence in their aircraft. However I know they had a huge admiration of the Fw190 (and who wouldn't in 1941) and had mixed feelings about the 109E liking its speed and armour but not being so keen on its agility. What I don't know, is what they thought of the German Bombers but the Ju88 carried around 5,000 lb of bombs and most Jap bombers only carried around 2000Ib so a certain respect was likely.

Wmaxt
I remember the post about landing various types of plane on a carrier and would to have seen it. Do you have any idea what it did to the weight of the aircraft in question?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed as well Glider.

You can not just add most components like that to an aircraft without strengthening and modifying the airframe. With the force that the plane is landing without the strenghtening it would rip the airframe apart.

[syscom3]

Syscom
Putting an arrestor gear on any plane may not be complicated but does involve the one thing the raiders could not afford, weight.
I was always taught the base line, that if you add a pound of weight to the airframe and want to maintain the same performace, speed, range, climb etc then you ended up adding ten pounds to the take off weight. Wouldn't take much to get through another 1000lb.

An arrestor hook does not weigh 1000 pounds.

The arrestor gear and hook is but one component the, the additional strengthening of the airframe would be a major contributor to the gain in weight. They may well have thought about it but it wouldn't have got much further.

The -25 airframe proved very robust and it could have handled a couple of carrier launch/land cycles.

As for the Japanese being happy with their aircraft in 1941, they had good reason to have confidence in their aircraft. However I know they had a huge admiration of the Fw190 (and who wouldn't in 1941) and had mixed feelings about the 109E liking its speed and armour but not being so keen on its agility. What I don't know, is what they thought of the German Bombers but the Ju88 carried around 5,000 lb of bombs and most Jap bombers only carried around 2000Ib so a certain respect was likely.

The Japanese had no desire for the German aircraft in 1941 or 1942. The Japanese had their own doctrine and tactics that the German aircraft couldnt do. Their "Betty" bomber was faster and longer ranged than the -88, and they had no interest in it. More than one German military attache's were told that the IJAAF/IJN types were perfectly capable of handling allied aircraft in the PTO.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Agreed as well Glider.

You can not just add most components like that to an aircraft without strengthening and modifying the airframe. With the force that the plane is landing without the strenghtening it would rip the airframe apart.

General Doolittle and the NAA engineers thought it was perfectly feasable to add an arrestor hook to the -25 to allow it to return to the carrier.

But the idea was dropped when the navy said they were not going to wait around for the bombers to return.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not saying that it could not be done. On the contrary it is very likely that it could have been done, what I am saying is you can not just install a damn arrestor hook. You have to strengthen the fuselage.

Hell even when we install a new antenna to our helicopters we have to double and strength the fuselage, what makes you think it would not have had to be done for an arrestor hook on a B-25.

Trying to land a B-25 with an arrestor hook without doing that would have caused damage to the airframe.

[V-1710]

In addition, a one shot deal is different than doing it on a regular basis.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am not saying that it could not be done. On the contrary it is very likely that it could have been done, what I am saying is you can not just install a damn arrestor hook. You have to strengthen the fuselage.

Hell even when we install a new antenna to our helicopters we have to double and strength the fuselage, what makes you think it would not have had to be done for an arrestor hook on a B-25.

Trying to land a B-25 with an arrestor hook without doing that would have caused damage to the airframe.

B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by V-1710

In addition, a one shot deal is different than doing it on a regular basis.

So an arresting hook is added. I suppose the plane willno longer be airworthy. Maybe in the RAF your airframes couldnt handle the stress's of carrier landings. To the folks at NAA, no big deal. B25 had lots of extra strength to handle the stress's.

[Erich]

Soren the 88P series never flew in action they were prototype test pieces that failed miserbaly on the test field

the 88G-1 Nachtjäger had 4 forward firing 2cm in a underfuselage tray like the G-6, not 6 2cm unless you are counting SM installation which many times was not fitted to the G-1

[Glider]

Originally Posted by syscom3

An arrestor hook does not weigh 1000 pounds.

The -25 airframe proved very robust and it could have handled a couple of carrier launch/land cycles.

The Japanese had no desire for the German aircraft in 1941 or 1942. The Japanese had their own doctrine and tactics that the German aircraft couldnt do. Their "Betty" bomber was faster and longer ranged than the -88, and they had no interest in it. More than one German military attache's were told that the IJAAF/IJN types were perfectly capable of handling allied aircraft in the PTO.

Re the weight
I know the hook wouldn't weigh 1000lb, but that is why I explained the 10-1 rule of thumb. If it weighed 100lbs (which is more than likely) then 1000lb woud be added to the take off weight if you wanted to keep the same performance

Re the B25 being strong enough to take one or two life cycles, No it wouldn't. The plane would have touched down, the hook would be ripped out of the aircraft and the plane go over the side.
Has been known to happen today. The arrestor gear is set for the weight/speed characteristics of the plane comming in to land. In the 70's if you set it for an F4 and an A4 came in, the same thing would happen. The settings would be too stiff, the A4 would lose its arrestor gear as it was over stressed and the A4 would have to go around and the pilot eject.

The B25 would lose the hook because it wasn't stressed.

As for the Japenese needing German Planes. Be fair, I did say that they had every confidence in their own aircraft but The Japanese did admire the 190. As for the Betty having a long range. It certainly did but the Betty was only one of many Japenese bombers and we all know how the Betty achieved such a range and the penelty they incurred for doing so.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by syscom3

B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?

No technology, not even 1930's NAA technology would allow a none load bearing member to take the stress of an aircraft the size of a B25 going from touchdown speed to zero in say 200ft without breaking.

In case your wondering, I was an aircraft engineer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising on Airframes and Engines, and am old enought to have seen and be briefed on the arrester / catapult gear fitted to the old Ark Royal.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Glider

No technology, not even 1930's NAA technology would allow a none load bearing member to take the stress of an aircraft the size of a B25 going from touchdown speed to zero in say 200ft without breaking.

In case your wondering, I was an aircraft engineer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising on Airframes and Engines, and am old enought to have seen and be briefed on the arrester / catapult gear fitted to the old Ark Royal.

If in 1942 the NAA engineers determined that an arresting hook could be attached to a B25 with little fanfare, then accept it as such.

Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?

Note to Syscom......Since when did you become a specialist in anything having to do with airframes? Atleast I have experience working on aircraft. Jack ***!!!!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.

Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!

Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!