The Rotating-Tail Stuka: Junkers Ju 187

In this video, we talk about the German-designed Junkers Ju 187 (also known as the "Super Stuka"), an experimental would-be replacement to the famous Ju 87 Stuka dive bomber, that had quite the bizarre design feature: a rotating tail. We discuss why this feature was added to the design, how the Ju 187 would have improved over the Ju 87, and why the Ju 187 ultimately never came to fruition. We also hypothesize a bit on what would have happened if the Ju 187 had gotten to the prototype phase.

[@steveoc64]

Well that's a relief - when I read the bit about "rotating tail" my first thought was that they were trying to rotate the tail is flight - axially - around the axis of the fuselage, rather than rotate it up and down.. That would be an interesting handling issue for sure !

[@Eclipse-lw4vf]

thats what i thought!

[@jamiecurran3544]

It would of been like one of those dodgy wheels you get on a shopping trolley!😂😁👍

[@SasquachPL]

I know what you mean (because you must mean 'the other axis'), but you didn't actually say witch axis. Traditionally in airplanes we think of there being three, I think.

[@-danR]

"rotating" is just wrong. The correct term would have been "pitching" "Mein Herrs, we need a test pilot for our new plane. It will be tricky; In the middle of the test, you will be controlling the flight while turning a crank, for 20 seconds, that will rotate the tail around, while keeping in mind that the elevators will start to operate in the opposite sense, and... yes, Lt. Schultz, you have a question?... No, Lt., you may _not_ volunteer for the Eastern front instead..."

[@iac4357]

​@@SasquachPL The 'other axis' would be Italy & Japan !

[@TimTheInspector]

The prototype Ju 87 tried to free up the aft field of fire by having twin vertical fins and rudders out at the ends of the horizontal tail. IIRC that configuration wasn’t strong enough in a dive so it was replaced by the conventional single tail we all recognize.

[@kombosaforever8163]

sad thing it wasn't strong enough

[@simonturner3515]

Looks like it pivots downward, rather than rotates

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

In their book, Luftwaffe Secret Projects - Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode have a couple of photographs of a model of the Ju.187 showing the normal and rotated tail positions. From the position of the swastika it rotated about a pivot point within the rear fuselage.

[@indridcold8433]

You are kind of right. It goes down by rotating downward on a pivot pin.

[@jmholmes98]

I concur

[@philippschwartzerdt3431]

100% it was supposed to pivot and not rotate. If you look at the location of the swastika it does’t turn to the bottom but stays on the upper top of the corner. So it would most likely been a leveler acting in the plain for up or down, like the one for the wheels for in or out.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@philippschwartzerdt3431 pivoting is a form of rotation.

[@alanrobinson2901]

Inverted Gull Wings served one purpose, to shorten, and thereby strengthen, the landing gear and allow for propeller to ground clearance. Same with the F4U Corsair.

[@dukecraig2402]

Yep, but the downside was a difficult to make wing spar, especially the Corsair with it's folding wing. They say that's one of the big things that determines whether or not an old highly weathered one that's been sitting in a jungle all these years can be restored or not, if the wing spar is beyond use due to corrosion or battle damage it'll just be a display piece instead of being made airworthy if the spar is bad enough, they're just too hard to reproduce.

[@fazole]

Joining the wing to the fuselage using an inverted gull wing also means the joining point is at 90 degrees and therefore a wing fillet isn't needed to reduce drag and overall parasitic drag is reduced.

[@v0idwalker489]

Gull wings also provide extra natural aerodynamic stabilization adding to the stabilization that come with planes with straight wings in the first place. They also provide lift in a bank changing some of the maneuvering qualities.

[@ansgaryeysymontt7155]

Ground clearance isn't main consideration.

[@alanrobinson2901]

@@ansgaryeysymontt7155 Really? By all means, please enlightened us, because the history of the F4U speaks specifically to just that issue due to the hard nature of carrier landings and the very large prop.

[@nunyabidness3075]

A jack screw could easily raise and lower the tail. The trim would change as the prop wash would likely switch which side it was pushing against. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work though. You’d want to make the transition upon reaching altitude, and again before descending for landing. There would definitely be some wiggling as the tail changed position. Would likely need strakes added for more stability which would be figured out during testing.

[@Getoffmycloud53]

What might pose a problem is the disturbance in airflow when carrying a centerline bomb, especially a big one.

[@johnbroadway4196]

I had often wondered about something like this. And how creative and inventive Germany was.

[@bartman9400]

I also liked the Japanese inventiveness of using submarines as a aircraft carrier (aka the I400) granted they could only carry 3 aircraft but the idea was amazing.

[@theothertonydutch]

Don't forget they also lost the war trying to figure out a whole bunch of insane pet-projects. They basically nuked their intelligentsia in the 30's (a lot of them were jewish) which resulted in a massive brain drain. The nazis were basically really stupid.

[@simonpharand7427]

Completely agree how the Germans had all these awesome ideas

[@MAZEMIND]

@@simonpharand7427 😇

[@gw7624]

Britain matched or exceeded German aerial technology, certainly towards the end of the war. When it came to airborne Radar and countermeasures, it wasn't even close.

[@paulguzman1634]

Interesting video on a design I have never seen discussed before. Thanks for the detailed well made share!

[@snakerstran9101]

Took awhile to realize that the rotation was a pivot to swing up and down. I started out thinking the thing would rotate cw and ccw from pilot perspective. So actually it shouldn't have been a huge change, a large pivot pin plus guides maybe at the front of the stab and a cable rudder control.

[@davidmcinnis154]

I've never seen a rotating tail in action before. Interesting idea to improve defensive FOV. The rotating mechanism would add massively to the weight of the tail. Also, the aircraft might have really poor stability during the transition between between up and down tail. Also, if the tail became stuck down the plane would be impossible to land safely.

[@ironhell813]

Could have used a manual mechanical rotating device to reduce weight. Like a wheel behind the pilot that the gunner would turn to rotate it. If he died, could be a steel spring rigup that the pilot could flip a switch to turn the tail up. It would have worked flawlessly and the gyro effect would have prevented any airflow stability issues. It would work in either position because the air is still flowing over the ailerons and tail as a rudder. Technically that's all the tail was to begin with. I think the result of this setup would have given similar performance if a multiple gunner station of a b series bomber in a small plane with superior maneuverability.

[@williamzk9083]

The tail itself would provide considerable lateral stability without the vetical fin during the short ministration. If absolutely necessary dragerlons could be added to the wing,

[@stevennagley3407]

@@ironhell813idk about how you describe anything mechanically working flawlessly in this example… the rendering is an example of of a ju-87 there isn’t any proof of this concept… if the 187 had a fixed inverted tail plane then it would make sense but it was never a working or hypothesis prototype built… I’m saying this because of under modern times we can actually make this work but in those times actually look more into it

[@ronaldbyrne3320]

Fascinating. This sparks so many theories and conversations. 👍🏻👍🏻 I enjoy finding out about unconventional aircraft designs during WWII and the Cold War. 😊

[@aussiefan354]

Very interesting doco mate, very informative. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post this mate

[@michaelmacdowall4228]

You often hear of people being tone deaf. I swear you have the hearing of a Bat! Your video intros and outros are so consistently creative and congruent! I always find myself laughing at your closing comments. Thank you for the time and effort you put in each of your videos.

[@michaelmorgan9289]

An interesting & speculative presentation. Thank you.

[@urgo224]

Since late WW1, aircraft with rear facing defensive guns had limiters that stopped the guns from firing when aiming at the tail.

[@snakerstran9101]

There are some interesting stories of how the front facing guns were evolved to have interrupters as well. A few pilots shot off their propellers.

[@williamzk9083]

German aerial machine guns used electrical primers which made interrupter mechanisms easy to make.

[@scottthewaterwarrior]

Think it depending on the plane, and even then from the very brief bit of reading I just did, pilots were recommended not to put too much faith in them because they weren't always reliable.

[@Gottenhimfella]

In which case, all a chasing plane would have to do, to avoid being shot at, would be to keep in line astern.

[@scottthewaterwarrior]

@@Gottenhimfella If the plane continued to fly in a perfectly streight line, yes. But if they were alone, they would turn to give the gunner a clear shot and if in a formation, then their buddies would still have a clear shot.

[@Inkling777]

The tail concept might have worked (somewhat) if rather than rotate it it slide up and down on a channel. That would also deal with the transition issue.

[@ParaBellum2024]

Sliding motion is definitely something any engineer would avoid if rotation was an option. Things that slide jam far more readily than things that rotate.

[@ironhell813]

​@@ParaBellum2024 you can't, because it would screw the airflow and crash the plane.

[@Strider1954]

@@ParaBellum2024 What? A pinion gear setup doesn't solve your problem? They use screws on modern jets, kind of the same thing.

[@ParaBellum2024]

@@Strider1954 Pinion gears rotate. Ask any engineer; they'll tell you.

[@ParaBellum2024]

@@ironhell813 Thanks, but you've misunderstood: if you watch the video and read the comments, you'll see that the idea wasn't that the whole tail section would rotate, but the vertical tailfin would move from above the fuselage to below. Under discussion here is whether it would be practical for it to slide down, rather than rotating. As an engineer, I favour rotation over sliding.

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Plenty of subsequent aircraft had variable geometry - just not in that way. Interesting video!👍🏻

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Yes, I did gather that was the only way it could work concurrent with the diagram. Still variable geometry though: a swing-tail, if you like. Lateral rotation could introduce all manner of undesirable transition effects and would be a complicated setup for cable controls, requiring a full reversal of rudder inputs. The Mig.27 and possibly others have retractable ventral fins so this wasn’t necessarily outlandish, but even the Mig’s rotates to the right so is likely managed by trim input.

[@pow44pow]

@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Rudder pedals would still work the same on the pivot-tail.

[@johnjephcote7636]

Surely the vertical stabiliser would rise and fall by sliding or by hingeing down; rotating it would make the a/c uncontrollable?

[@curtislowe4577]

The term 'pivot' would be less confusing than 'rotate'. IMO 'rotate' insinuates rotation around the long axis like prop. A pivoting rudder assembly was a great deal of unnecessary trouble to lower the rudder assembly for the rear gunner. An easier path would be to go to a tricycle landing gear like the Airacobra to naturally provide ground clearance for a fixed rudder assembly. Put a tail wheel at the lower tip of the rudder assembly for bouncy takeoffs and landings. Losing the pivot mechanism saves weight and complexity and there will be no changes in flight characteristics.

[@nunyabidness3075]

I think you’d need longer gear and a reinforced vertical stab. Likely need a shorter and longer assembly, but the longer it gets you lose area as the rudder itself would need to be upswept to avoid tail taps. That’s a lot of places for gotchas plus extra weight and drag.

[@curtislowe4577]

@@nunyabidness3075 not nearly as many or as serious gotchas or weight as a pivoting assembly. Cute fake name. I like it.

[@nunyabidness3075]

@@curtislowe4577 thanks. The only heavy part for the pivot would be the Jack screw, which I’m pretty sure is less than the difference in weight between a tail wheel and nose gear. You wouldn’t necessarily even need a Jack screw, but I think it would be most sturdy. You might do it the way some manual flaps are extended with a long handle. A jack screw is used on Mooneys to move the entire tail for trim. Add an arm to get more angle and Bob’s your uncle.

[@Wideoval73]

Very good video. I wasn't aware that this design variant was even considered.

[@nairbvel]

Never heard of this particular beast before, thank you!

[@rchassereau2]

What a solid channel, enjoying binging your videos

[@KarlVonEiser]

You made me remember my old favourite aircraft! Thanks a lot!

[@dubmeisterxd2133]

very interesting video! love to see more!

[@michaelnaisbitt7926]

This was one the many concept aircraft proposed by the Luftwaffe and was never built A split rail concept was also proposed but at this time the skies were ruled by Mustangs P 47s and Tempests It was a brave German pilot that took off in these times

[@williamzk9083]

-From early 1942 the need for accurate dive bombing decreased with the introduction of the Lofte 7 computing bombsight and the StuVi 5B shallow dive bombing sight. They were both very accurate. In mid 1942 3 Fw 200 condors attacked "Convoy Faith" with a total of 5 attack runs. They direct hit and sunk 2 moving merchant ships from 15,000ft (4500m) and damaged a 3rd. The two runs that missed were against warships that were firing at the Fw 200. These ships were able to use their 25 knot speed to dodge the bombs which had a 33 second fall time. -With the StuVi 5B a Ju 88 (with its dive brakes removed, they were no longer needed) could commence a dive at 8000ft/2500m at 22 degrees, reach 400mph, release its bombs, and complete its pullout by 5000ft/1500m. A good crew could get within 10m or so. -With these sights the Ju 87 was less needed. It's little know that the Luftwaffe's replacement for the Ju 88 was a variant of the Me 210/410 with dive brakes and the StuVi 5B. With this the Me 410 probably more accurate than the Ju 88. Ju 87 also could have the StuVi 5B but it had a much cruder computing mechanism (No BZA computer). -The Focke Wulf Ta 152 C & H were the Luftwaffe's air superiority fighter but for ground attack and multi role the Fw 190D12/D13 EB was to be used. The versions with the Jumo 213EB engine were expected to fly at 487mph. These would have used the TSA-2D toss bombing sight where the pilot dived into the target (shallow or steep) and the bombs were automatically released on the pull-up. The TSA-2D was being evaluated and used during operation Nordwind (the luftwafffe support of the battle of the bulge) I think it was by the Me 262 unit KG-51. It worked well on jets as the accelerometer used to track the pull up was not subject to piston engin vibration.

[@rahjah6958]

This channel is amazing only just subscribed, so much info, and it’s not repeat stuff that every other channel does lol

[@dougsundseth6904]

Leaving aside the mechanical complexity and increased weight caused by a mechanism to pivot the vertical stab, any simple rudder in that situation would give you a very substantial roll and pitch moment with any rudder deflection. And the direction of roll and pitch deflection would reverse when the rudder was moved up or down. See, for example, the ruddervator of the V-tail Beechcraft Bonanza, which at least has the virtue of two mobile surfaces to manage strange pitch moments. This would result in a nightmarish control problem for pilots or an even more complex coupling of rudder to both ailerons and elevators to counter the pitching moment. It's interesting, but the British phrase, "Too clever by half", comes immediately to mind. The only surprising thing is that the Germans actually cancelled the project before building any. It's an iconic example of their WWII design aesthetic.

[@gerardhogan3]

Love your sense of humour at the end. That was bloody funny....see ya!

[@rowiek7668]

At 0:38 there are 2 Japanese Donryu's flying. Where did you get that picture from? I collect pictures, and i havent seen any donryu configuration like those before!

[@7thsealord888]

Interesting idea. As well as the possible handling problems, l'd worry about structural issues in that rotating tail.

[@mrdasboot45]

A small question you talk about the Ju 187 but when you show the picture at 10:28 it says Ju 287 is that a later version?

[@markgranger9150]

The Germans needed to do something with the stuka. The first models were slow and short ranged. The stuka made its reputation against opponents that had their air force shot up on the ground. It was a different story when facing an air force that was not destroyed in the first days of fighting.

[@davidecarucci1073]

I dont understand late war germans Their ideas were cool but we are talking about a war, a system like that is extremely complicated and maintenace heavy for little gain!!! Same reason why the f14 was retired, it still was good but those sweeping wings required lots of maintenance! This applies to pretty much every "wunderwaffe tha could win the war", it looks and works good and in theory theory but in practice its extremely complicated, hard to produce and maintenance heavy.

[@LandNfan]

If the vertical stabilizer/rudder just tilts down vs. rotating, it could be done with a linkage to the retractable tail wheel.

[@stevenmccrickard1401]

New sub, thanks for the content. I found your video interesting informative and entertaining, I look forward to seeing more from your channel.

[@troyhidvegi]

The front half ended up looking like a modern crop duster airplane.

[@chewyukechun350]

What about a Stuka with Jet Engines to get a Super Dive Bomber with the speed of a Jet?

[@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462]

​@@chewyukechun350 That would have been interesting.

[@jimsweeney]

Rotating the tail would be relatively straightforward. Connecting the mechanism with the undercarriage system (electric or hydraulic) would allow the tail to raise or lower when the undercarriage was activated, and running the rudder cables over vertically opposing pulleys mounted on the axis of rotation would mean that rudder cable tension and "feel" would be unaffected. The biggest change would be to spin behaviour, and that would require more wind tunnel time and flight testing.

[@wildeast66]

The biggest issue wouldn't be the pitching of the rudder. The biggest issue would be the aerodynamics. As the hinges of vertical rudder (yaw control) are tilted forward in top position, any yaw control would inevitably create an upwards force on the tail, causing the plane to dive. It basically acts as a combined yaw and pitch rudder. This would have to be compensated by some tricky mechanics with the pitch rudder. But worse: When lowering the fin, this influence changes until it reverses in lower position. I guess, that would be complex to fix.

[@gerhardris]

Nice video. Crazy idea but still an interesting design problem. I never heard of this plane. I guess that their were three intended settings. Up, mid and down. I therefor guess that the mid situation setting has a straight vertical rudder fix. So it becomes a diagonal fix when up or down. It would be a nightmare to calibrate. The saved weight of dropping the second crewmember and no doubt heavier than normal tail and ease of production had best be made in when bounced, drop ordanance and better armour and forward firing wing guns. Slow yet the very manouvrable. Higher speed less chance of getting bounced. Protective fighters are needed anyway. Yet sometimes you must be able to fight your way out.

[@Mumbamumba]

Interesting video, thank you!

[@nicktozie6685]

Awesome site great information, thank you

[@tonybarnes3658]

Also, regarding said tail, handling could be a touch interesting during its transition to its different positions!

[@dudududu1926]

Imagine it jamming mid transition.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Depends on it the fin area changed significantly during the transition.

[@eagleviewhd]

Is used to control yaw in an airplane in a turn, but a plane can still be turned using just the ailerons and not using the rudder, so I do not see a big problem controlling the aircraft during the transition period. Also If the control cables were lead through sheaves in line with the pivot point, there would be little or no change in the length of the cables while it pivoted down or back up.

[@philippedefechereux8740]

Fascinating!

[@ekscalybur]

With the rudder at the angle (interacting with the airflow on 2 axis instead of just one), would the tail induce a torque to the plane that was different in the up and down positions? Having your plane move unexpectedly while in combat would not be fun.

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Clear field of view for the cannon mg combo. I bet it was slow AF still though. Looks more like a Sturmovic with that same landing gear system. Thanks good vid.

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

If I may offer some pointers that cost nothing but are worth twice the price, 😉.1) If you are going to pronounce Junkers as Yunkers, does it not follow that you should pronounce Jumo as Yumo? I'm not saying which is better. I'm just asking you to choose. 2) Neither the 109 or 190 were suitable for dive bombing. They performed 'glide' bombing attacks to avoid over speeding and prop strikes. In this regard, the 190 was considered particularly effective. You still got a well deserved thumbs up. I thought your video was very interesting and well narrated.

[@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462]

Yoonkers Sh-tooka.

[@glennhenderson9243]

Great video. Personally I think extending the front landing gear and a fixed downward face vertical tail with a tail wheel mounted in the tip would be a more productive solution.

[@Mike-vn8sn]

I think it's great that almost all of us thought the Germans during WWII were crazy enough to make a tail that corkscrewed into position rather than pivoted down XD

[@jackdernorsek5310]

Let's think about the complexity. Tail up, rudder swings the nose left and right based on pushing the rudder pedals. Tail down, unless it was engineered at some point to REVERSE direction, it would mean the right pedal would swing the nose in the opposite direction. hmmm. I am glad I don't have to work out that geometry of the controls. And as far as I know, typically a gunner in a US Navy plane could not shoot his rudder off.... as he swung the gun mount, the guns would interrupt momentarily to prevent this.

[@Gottenhimfella]

In which case, all a chasing plane would have to do, to avoid being shot at, would be to keep in line astern.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

That design really improves on everything on the plane. A rare case where the weird stuff they build was actually feasible and practical. And the middle position seems to fix one issue with the typical asymmetrical tail sections of aircraft: yaw induces roll.

[@MrWillNeedham]

Yaw induced roll has nothing to do with the tail position. When a plane yaws right, the right hand wing slows down and the left one speeds up. This means more lift on the left and less on the right, so the plane rolls to the right. A conventionally placed tail actually resists this rolling effect, so moving it upsidedown would cause the plane to roll more whenever the rudder was used.

[@scott48k21]

Looking at the profile drawings, it pivots down and up as markings on the fin show this with their relative position after transitioning. This makes more sense and achieves the same outcome. Turning the tail in the air it would be difficult to maintain controlled flight . If it were to jam or fail to complete the full inversion in flight, it would lead to the demise of the aircraft.

[@harcovanhees394]

Same thoughts by me. It would technically easier and less problems in handling when letting vertical finn down versus rotating. That is maybe also the reason that the horizontal stabilisators are a bit in front of the vertical one

[@USAACbrat]

Tail twist and general weakness was a problem for the Stuka. The fuselage is too weak just forward of the tail plane. The upside down tail would just break off in a rough landing. Just a bad dream. With all the hanging stores it would be slower than the 87. I can see a pilot trying to fly and turn the tail at the same time.

[@TotalyRandomUsername]

I could imagine that this plane would have done brilliantly in a dog fight and the tail gunner would have had the option to additionally strave the target after the dive.

[@81brassglass79]

Thanks for the video ❤ love your stuff 🤘🥸🤘

[@danielcgomez]

Nice bit of history!

[@noseyparker8130]

Given the hinge angle of the rudder to the vertical fin, at takeoff, right pedal would have a nose down component in addition to nose right. In flight/rear gunnery position would have nose up and right. So much for muscle memory.

[@erichbower9659]

Very interesting. What can you tell us about the Dornier 335 🤔

[@todd5082]

I would think it would just be easier (and much lighter) to just put a machine gun firing stop mechanism when ever the rear gun covers the rear tail. Similar to the mechanism that allows the gun to fire through the front rotating prop.

[@tent7014]

The Stuka graphic of the position of the Swastika on the tail after it has transistioned to its down position is wrong ?

[@alex.thedeadite]

7:22 that's different than how I thought, also seems most everyone who made 3d mockups seemed to think it rotated like I did too as there seems to be a circular cut around the fuselage in the 3d renders. I thought they literally rotated the whole tail section, but this image suggests they intended to only "flip" the vertical stabilizer.

[@goforitpainting]

Really interesting video.

[@levidotson6610]

Could you elaborate on what you meant by tail mounted bombs

[@boris8787]

The mighty SPITFIRE is a wonder as seen in the 1944 World War Two movie set in the town of Chillingbourne.

[@tombrunner8181]

Yes, Hollywood makes great movies.

[@andrewhammel8218]

Have actually wondered about them upgrading the Stuka -giving it retractable landing gear for more speed for example. The outdated original stukas did earn their keep on the Eastern Front as great tank busters though.

[@williamzk9083]

They ended up their life as night harassment aircraft and were very successful at it with one of the lowest loss rates of any aircraft in this roll.

[@Normandy1944]

So, here's what I didn't hear...with the increased horizontal speed and a rear pivot point, how would they eliminate cavitation? In reference to that, it would seem there could be an uncontrollable cavitation in the dive along with even more increased speed. With the possible/probable result of POP goes the tail section and you now have a human dart experiment. I actually think a direct fixed squat-tier boom or box tail, now you have dual rudders, may have been the better answer?

[@Munky332]

All I can think of is Ross from Friends yelling "PIVOT!!!" PIVOT!!!" at the tail from the rear gunner seat

[@flightforensics4523]

Excellent

[@skdKitsune]

That thing looks incredibly cool. Sad it wasn't produced.

[@joycekoch5746]

Did the tail of the JU 187 go back up in flight if it got excited?

[@andrefiset3569]

Why didn't they think of an inverted V tail? The late war concept Blohm & Voss P 213 had one.

[@StalinLovsMsmZioglowfagz]

@IHYLS Why didn’t they do what front mounted cannons do, when their field of fire is through the prop, and some how stutter the fire control if it shifted through the tail’s axis.

[@Stroopwaffe1]

It looks great.

[@RobertGotschall]

The General Atomics RQ-1 / MQ-1 Predator used a downward pointing V for a tail in 1995. But it also had a tricycle landing gear and a pusher prop. It would have made a lousy dive bomber, so they mounted AGM-114 Hellfire on it instead.

[@10zoll]

Talking about JU 187 and showing pictures of the JU 287... That is quite impressive and tells us how many nanoseconds you you spend for the research ;-(

[@lancerevell5979]

Wiki article shows the Ju-187 as shown here. Ju-287 was a jet aircraft.

[@10zoll]

@@lancerevell5979 By The "Trusty Wiki" you mean the english Version ! Some say Junkers was german and - when you ask Wiki - you should ask the german Version.

[@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid]

I have a design for a Ju-187 that incorporate some parts of this version. Mine has a non-existent Nazi copy of the Typhoon’s Sabre engine, 24-cylinders, which powered contra-rotating props with a slight scimitar form. I gave it a very similar landing-gear retract system, but it retained the wheel fairings as a portion of that system to give it cleaner-lines, something that this version would likely not have, due to the sudden end of the fairing enclosing the upper portion of the gear. I lengthened and strengthened the tail, so no external supports are required, and added a semi-ball-turret that cold house either four of your typical MG42s or two of a variety of 20mm to 35mm canon. I have some drawings available if anyone wishes to see it.

[@Tuberuser187]

Very strange, personally I would use the added weight of the rotating tail section to put a Barbette in the end of the tail with a electromechanical linkage connected to a compensating sight in the rear of the cockpit. Not as complex as say the B-29s but enough to compensate for the parallax and lead, smooth out the cockpit with the rear maybe being clear Plexiglas and all the other aerodynamic improvements and engine upgrade. Great video, always nice when a new channel is suggested and its a good one.

[@williamzk9083]

One of the reasons the Luftwaffe went to remote control guns in the Me 210 (and Ar 440) was that they found during combat experience with the Me 110 that the rear gunner couldn't aim the guns well due to high G maneuvers and certainly couldn't reload. In a dog fight the Me 110 would end up in a turn with the enemy fighter below and behind where the guns could reach anyway. Hence the cheek guns on the Me 410 which could hit an aircraft in a tail chase. The gunfights on the Me 410 compensated for range fall of an air speed for sure but not lead crossing speed AFAIKT. That probably would have been possible with the EZ45 gun sight.

[@finbarrsaunders8688]

Is this voice over Dan 'The Man' Levitan from 'Good Morning Vietnam'?

[@wolfofmagdalene92]

It wouldn't be hard to come up with something using the rear wheel as a lock of sorts that once its retracts, the tail slides down. It's a cool concept that could of easily seen the light of day given enough time

[@captnsharkhorse]

i wonder if they just put the vertical tail in the downwardss position, and leaving the rest of the tail normal, could easy put a small wheel (like skateboard sized) on the tip of the tail

[@felipecardoza9967]

Ok, stupid question here: if the rear facing guns were remotely actuated, why not just locate them, say, on either side of the rudder, just out of the rudders maximum angle, with ammo belts feeding from the central fuselage? Not an engineer am I, but the weight far aft might have been cominserate with the weight of the pivot mechanism, especially since the guns are located out from the center. Just a thought.

[@dwharbin]

Seems like they might have got the effect without all the technical issues by giving it a twin tail...

[@ronjon7942]

Nice work! Subscribed.

[@tonynavarro8375]

Looking at the illustrations in your video; since the rear facing defensive armament was intended to be remotely controlled, perhaps moving the tail assembly more forward along the fuselage, and then placing the remote turret at the very end of the fuselage where the tail would normally have been located would have done away with the need for a rotating vertical tail fin while allowing the rear firing guns an unobstructed field of fire. This would entail a larger diameter of the end-of-the-fuselage to accommodate the bulk of the remote rear turret, whatever form that would have taken. The idea to redesign the landing gear into a retractable type would have reduced the Stuka's drag, probably also upping it's speed in level flight.

[@danielsprouls9458]

The rudder is basically held on center by airflow. But if the rudder is reversed and is now on the leading edge airflow is going to amplify any rudder input. It would take a pretty powerful mechanism to keep the rudder from slamming over into a maximum turn position. Unless there was a locking mechanism for the rudder after takeoff and a second surface came into play. The second surface would need a locking mechanism of its own when not in use. What could possibly go wrong?

[@wenderia7990]

By the looks of it the rudder would never be on the lead edge. Even when fully pivoted.

[@lorientico]

thanks for this clearly elicited vid 🛩️

[@seapeddler]

Why rotate the tail section when the rudder just has to scissor downwards ?

[@itowmyhome797]

Thank you

[@adequitevelocity1089]

I could see the gertical fin being atached to the rear wheel and going down as the wheel goes up with a simple bar or something.

[@josephstabile9154]

From surviving photos, it would appear that some wind tunnel model testing might have been done. Never read of any surviving published results... IMO, outside of the unknown flight characteristics, I think the vertically rotating tail was well within German design capability, and would have posed minimal production strain, at least, compared to many other German aeronautical design features. The Ju-87 was a highly successful design throughout the war. Just refer to infantry praise for its close support precision delivery of ordnance. It's tank busting capability vastly harmed Soviet breakthroughs & consolidation attempts. Up to the war's last hours, it could reliably be sent to knock out bridges. It was a scourge to shipping, denying whole swaths of the Med to the RN. And, per its pilots & adversaries, it was nimble, except when in its bomb run. It's one real liability was that it required tactical air superiority, and was often knowingly misused in this regard. But that is not a reflection on its design. SBDs had the same problem. Most twin engines ditto. B-17s needed tactical air superiority (effective fighter cover). The dive bomber concept was fine--witness the Helldiver used to the war's end. Fighters are designed to be the most nimble of a/c types, divebombers to precisely deliver a bomb. BTW, if priorities hadn't changed, the Ju-187 might have proven its worth. It's low altitude speed might have been higher vz. Ju-87, using comparable loadouts. Even 20 mph can be a meaningful difference. Fw-190s were not seen as the ground interdiction panacea. Even today, the A-10, low & slow compared to its contemporary, is revered for its precision interdiction abilities.

[@kevanhubbard9673]

I had to recheck it wasn't the first of April when I saw the rotating tail Stuka!

[@barry2585]

Why rotate the tail? Surely it would be simpler just to hinge the vertical surface so that it could move “up” or “down” in the vertical plane. This would also minimise disruptions to handling.

[@snakerstran9101]

That's what they did. lingo confusion.

[@BratislavMetulski]

1:20 isnt that from the Aces of the Pacific Manual?

[@robertheinkel6225]

Wouldn’t the controls also be reversed, once the tail was flipped down?

[@simosmaximos3642]

2:03 top 2 Pictures, what are the names of the planes ?

[@michaelmayfield4304]

On American planes, the rear firing machine guns had interrupters that prevented the tails being damaged. Rotating the tail during flight would totally disrupt the airflow. The tail is your rudder and trims. No, it wouldn't be smooth - you would lose the ability to manuever the plane - probably resulting in loss of the plane and crew.

[@iac4357]

NTM re. Performance. At 5:25- how much faster can the Plane go, when its Bomb Load increases 367% (990 to 4620 Lbs.), when its Horse Power increases only 48% (1200 to 1776) ?!

[@paulkerr782]

There would have been quite a significant weight penalty to maintain structural integrity with the fin mechanism. And if they actually got it up and running - you could only imagine that there would have been teething problems - and no doubt there would have been incidents where the tail would probably break and/or fall off.

[@sparty94]

never heard of this design. that tail is interesting, my guess is that it would work mechanically without too much trouble, but aerodynamically i don't know, it doesn't look big enough. cool video.

[@ZacLowing]

It looks like they made a remotely operated rear gun turret. They might want to mount that behind the tail and have the clearest field of fire possible.

[@L-P-V]

Check out the Me 410

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

@@L-P-V the He177 had them. It's just a sim but in Il-2 those guns are useless, all you can see while aiming is a circle as big as the site, (imagine a old telescope like they had when all the ships had sails) and if the plane you are tracking goes out of that you have to find it visually and get back into the site and try and find it from your seconds long glance. A Spit on your 6 and you have no time for that. Like I said, it's just a sim and all the gunner positions have very poor FOV and FoF, especially the Ju87 and the Val so it may be the limit of a 2d screen (and no Head tracker) that hampers any proper manipulation of the defensive guns by Players.

[@L-P-V]

@@streamofconsciousness5826 the 410 has two crosshairs (like a BF109’s aiming crosshairs) that have about 180 degree coverage. When I used to play war thunder they were incredibly fun to use because people just didn’t expect this play style ( when they would follow me I would get on a slight climb and while they were able to catch up to me they could only do so slowly and predictably, this I could with some skill easily deny by using the guns with excellent coverage thus they would always be below me.) Yes the Me 410 only has good top speed but I just loved how it looks and figured out a way to make it work. Used “conventionally” it’s quite a shitty plane.

[@robertsolomielke5134]

TY-Facinateing concept ; the best way would be a mech. geared, or hydralic system, moving only the tail fin up or down. Must withstand all stress dive bombing can put on a plane.

[@jasonbrown3632]

Maybe technically rotating is a form of pivoting, or maybe it's lost in translation from German, but there's no way that tail rotates...it would be just as easy to make the rudder pivot downwards is it is to make landing gear pivot up or down, and it would be fairly easy to insure the control surface doesn't have linkage issues as well...

[@mojoneko8303]

The vertical stabilizer/rudder assembly in the up or down position would cause coupling between Yaw and roll axis with the rudder not being in the vertical plane. The "Tail in transition" position wouldn't cause coupling with the Yaw and roll axis. Why didn't they build it with the tail in the down position but with the rudder mounted in a vertical orientation with a small caster wheel or skid on the bottom of the vertical stabilizer? Thanks for the video!