The Rotating-Tail Stuka: Junkers Ju 187

  Рет қаралды 609,516

IHYLS

IHYLS

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 666
@steveoc64
@steveoc64 Жыл бұрын
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
@Eclipse-lw4vf Жыл бұрын
thats what i thought!
@jamiecurran3544
@jamiecurran3544 Жыл бұрын
It would of been like one of those dodgy wheels you get on a shopping trolley!😂😁👍
@SasquachPL
@SasquachPL Жыл бұрын
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
@-danR Жыл бұрын
"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
@iac4357 Жыл бұрын
​@@SasquachPL The 'other axis' would be Italy & Japan !
@simonturner3515
@simonturner3515 Жыл бұрын
Looks like it pivots downward, rather than rotates
@neiloflongbeck5705
@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын
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
@indridcold8433 Жыл бұрын
You are kind of right. It goes down by rotating downward on a pivot pin.
@jmholmes98
@jmholmes98 Жыл бұрын
I concur
@philippschwartzerdt3431
@philippschwartzerdt3431 Жыл бұрын
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
@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын
@@philippschwartzerdt3431 pivoting is a form of rotation.
@TimTheInspector
@TimTheInspector Жыл бұрын
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
@kombosaforever8163 Жыл бұрын
sad thing it wasn't strong enough
@alanrobinson2901
@alanrobinson2901 Жыл бұрын
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
@dukecraig2402 Жыл бұрын
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
@fazole Жыл бұрын
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
@v0idwalker489 Жыл бұрын
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
@ansgaryeysymontt7155 Жыл бұрын
Ground clearance isn't main consideration.
@alanrobinson2901
@alanrobinson2901 Жыл бұрын
@@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
@nunyabidness3075 Жыл бұрын
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.
@TK421-53
@TK421-53 Жыл бұрын
What might pose a problem is the disturbance in airflow when carrying a centerline bomb, especially a big one.
@MikeBrockington
@MikeBrockington Ай бұрын
It would do more than just change the trim - in the "Up" position, moving the rudder off-centre in either direction would create something like 25% upward force, while in the "Down " position, the same rudder movement would create a 25% downward force. Add the two effects together and that is a massive change in handling.
@nunyabidness3075
@nunyabidness3075 Ай бұрын
I was talking about rudder trim. You’re talking about how it would change elevator trim which it would, but I don’t actually believe it’s that much the pilot cannot adjust. Planes are always out of elevator trim whenever you use the rudder any ways.
@paulguzman1634
@paulguzman1634 Жыл бұрын
Interesting video on a design I have never seen discussed before. Thanks for the detailed well made share!
@aussiefan354
@aussiefan354 Жыл бұрын
Very interesting doco mate, very informative. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post this mate
@johnbroadway4196
@johnbroadway4196 Жыл бұрын
I had often wondered about something like this. And how creative and inventive Germany was.
@bartman9400
@bartman9400 Жыл бұрын
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
@theothertonydutch Жыл бұрын
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.
@Landsersajer
@Landsersajer Жыл бұрын
Completely agree how the Germans had all these awesome ideas
@MAZEMIND
@MAZEMIND Жыл бұрын
@@Landsersajer 😇
@gw7624
@gw7624 Жыл бұрын
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.
@snakerstran9101
@snakerstran9101 Жыл бұрын
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.
@Inkling777
@Inkling777 Жыл бұрын
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
@ParaBellum2024 Жыл бұрын
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
@ironhell813 Жыл бұрын
​@@ParaBellum2024 you can't, because it would screw the airflow and crash the plane.
@Strider1954
@Strider1954 Жыл бұрын
@@ParaBellum2024 What? A pinion gear setup doesn't solve your problem? They use screws on modern jets, kind of the same thing.
@ParaBellum2024
@ParaBellum2024 Жыл бұрын
@@Strider1954 Pinion gears rotate. Ask any engineer; they'll tell you.
@ParaBellum2024
@ParaBellum2024 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@michaelmacdowall4228
@michaelmacdowall4228 Жыл бұрын
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.
@curtislowe4577
@curtislowe4577 Жыл бұрын
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
@nunyabidness3075 Жыл бұрын
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
@curtislowe4577 Жыл бұрын
@@nunyabidness3075 not nearly as many or as serious gotchas or weight as a pivoting assembly. Cute fake name. I like it.
@nunyabidness3075
@nunyabidness3075 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ronaldbyrne3320
@ronaldbyrne3320 Жыл бұрын
Fascinating. This sparks so many theories and conversations. 👍🏻👍🏻 I enjoy finding out about unconventional aircraft designs during WWII and the Cold War. 😊
@jimsweeney
@jimsweeney Жыл бұрын
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
@wildeast66 Жыл бұрын
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.
@urgo224
@urgo224 Жыл бұрын
Since late WW1, aircraft with rear facing defensive guns had limiters that stopped the guns from firing when aiming at the tail.
@snakerstran9101
@snakerstran9101 Жыл бұрын
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
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
German aerial machine guns used electrical primers which made interrupter mechanisms easy to make.
@scottthewaterwarrior
@scottthewaterwarrior Жыл бұрын
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
@Gottenhimfella Жыл бұрын
In which case, all a chasing plane would have to do, to avoid being shot at, would be to keep in line astern.
@scottthewaterwarrior
@scottthewaterwarrior Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus
@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Жыл бұрын
Plenty of subsequent aircraft had variable geometry - just not in that way. Interesting video!👍🏻
@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus
@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Жыл бұрын
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
@pow44pow Жыл бұрын
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Rudder pedals would still work the same on the pivot-tail.
@michaelnaisbitt7926
@michaelnaisbitt7926 Жыл бұрын
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
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
-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.
@Lord.Kiltridge
@Lord.Kiltridge Жыл бұрын
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
@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462 Жыл бұрын
Yoonkers Sh-tooka.
@michaelmorgan9289
@michaelmorgan9289 Жыл бұрын
An interesting & speculative presentation. Thank you.
@Wideoval73
@Wideoval73 Жыл бұрын
Very good video. I wasn't aware that this design variant was even considered.
@johnjephcote7636
@johnjephcote7636 Жыл бұрын
Surely the vertical stabiliser would rise and fall by sliding or by hingeing down; rotating it would make the a/c uncontrollable?
@dougsundseth6904
@dougsundseth6904 Жыл бұрын
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.
@tonybarnes3658
@tonybarnes3658 Жыл бұрын
Also, regarding said tail, handling could be a touch interesting during its transition to its different positions!
@dudududu1926
@dudududu1926 Жыл бұрын
Imagine it jamming mid transition.
@neiloflongbeck5705
@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын
Depends on it the fin area changed significantly during the transition.
@eagleviewhd
@eagleviewhd Жыл бұрын
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.
@USAACbrat
@USAACbrat Жыл бұрын
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.
@rchassereau2
@rchassereau2 Жыл бұрын
What a solid channel, enjoying binging your videos
@nairbvel
@nairbvel Жыл бұрын
Never heard of this particular beast before, thank you!
@10zoll
@10zoll Жыл бұрын
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
@lancerevell5979 Жыл бұрын
Wiki article shows the Ju-187 as shown here. Ju-287 was a jet aircraft.
@10zoll
@10zoll Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Munky332
@Munky332 Жыл бұрын
All I can think of is Ross from Friends yelling "PIVOT!!!" PIVOT!!!" at the tail from the rear gunner seat
@markgranger9150
@markgranger9150 Жыл бұрын
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.
@gerardhogan3
@gerardhogan3 Жыл бұрын
Love your sense of humour at the end. That was bloody funny....see ya!
@troyhidvegi
@troyhidvegi Жыл бұрын
The front half ended up looking like a modern crop duster airplane.
@chewyukechun350
@chewyukechun350 Жыл бұрын
What about a Stuka with Jet Engines to get a Super Dive Bomber with the speed of a Jet?
@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462
@sonofeyeabovealleffoff5462 Жыл бұрын
​@@chewyukechun350 That would have been interesting.
@LandNfan
@LandNfan Жыл бұрын
If the vertical stabilizer/rudder just tilts down vs. rotating, it could be done with a linkage to the retractable tail wheel.
@davidecarucci1073
@davidecarucci1073 Жыл бұрын
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.
@rahjah6958
@rahjah6958 Жыл бұрын
This channel is amazing only just subscribed, so much info, and it’s not repeat stuff that every other channel does lol
@FrenziedTanates
@FrenziedTanates Жыл бұрын
I think they would have linked it to the landing gear. Tail rotates as the tail wheel retracts. Some kind of linkage. Simple and doesn't require another system.
@dubmeisterxd2133
@dubmeisterxd2133 Жыл бұрын
very interesting video! love to see more!
@scott48k21
@scott48k21 Жыл бұрын
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
@harcovanhees394 Жыл бұрын
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
@Mike-vn8sn
@Mike-vn8sn Жыл бұрын
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
@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw
@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw 3 ай бұрын
Enemy would think it is flying inverted.
@gerhardris
@gerhardris Жыл бұрын
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.
@stevenmccrickard1401
@stevenmccrickard1401 Жыл бұрын
New sub, thanks for the content. I found your video interesting informative and entertaining, I look forward to seeing more from your channel.
@skdKitsune
@skdKitsune Жыл бұрын
That thing looks incredibly cool. Sad it wasn't produced.
@SIG442
@SIG442 11 ай бұрын
The entire tail wouldn't spin around, this would be a huge problem aerodynamic wise. Instead the tail would be dropped in a way like a rudder on a old sailing boat, or rather the 'sword' of a sailing vessel. This would mean a lot less problems would occur and it could done manually if need be. As long as you secure it properly else it would flap around and likely cause major structural damage. Which the picture as 9:25 also clearly suggests.
@ZacLowing
@ZacLowing Жыл бұрын
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
@L-P-V Жыл бұрын
Check out the Me 410
@streamofconsciousness5826
@streamofconsciousness5826 Жыл бұрын
@@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
@L-P-V Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@glennhenderson9243
@glennhenderson9243 Жыл бұрын
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.
@andrewhammel8218
@andrewhammel8218 Жыл бұрын
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
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
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.
@sambothefate3462
@sambothefate3462 Жыл бұрын
One flaw I noticed in it was that if the tail had to be upright to land otherwise the plane wholed crash and risk the poilet so if the tail got hit by any fire it choled damage the rotating mechanism and lock into the down position making landing very dangerous so the piolet wholed have to bail out for safety allmost every time the plan got hit in the tail
@KarlVonEiser
@KarlVonEiser Жыл бұрын
You made me remember my old favourite aircraft! Thanks a lot!
@mattdirks7896
@mattdirks7896 Жыл бұрын
I would be pretty nervous about battle damage with the tail.
@TotalyRandomUsername
@TotalyRandomUsername Жыл бұрын
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.
@philippedefechereux8740
@philippedefechereux8740 Жыл бұрын
Fascinating!
@rowiek7668
@rowiek7668 Жыл бұрын
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!
@dwharbin
@dwharbin Жыл бұрын
Seems like they might have got the effect without all the technical issues by giving it a twin tail...
@maxhugen
@maxhugen Жыл бұрын
4x 55 lb bombs on the _tail_ ? Must cause havoc on lateral stability. But have to admire the German tenacity at designing vastly different weapons of war!
@jackdernorsek5310
@jackdernorsek5310 Жыл бұрын
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
@Gottenhimfella Жыл бұрын
In which case, all a chasing plane would have to do, to avoid being shot at, would be to keep in line astern.
@robbierobinson8819
@robbierobinson8819 Жыл бұрын
As many have pointed out, shooting the tail off wasn't the problem - the problem is that the bombardier/gunner had a large area of his vision obscured. However, the biggest problem for any two-man dive-bombers was that they were sitting ducks for fighters and to ground fire on the outrun after releasing bombs. Hence, at least for terrestrial combat, fighter-bombers like the FW190, Thunderbolt and Tornado were so successful. [As a personal note, during one of the battles during the Desert Campaign after Tobruk, a group of soldiers, amongst whom was my father shooting a Bren gun, brought down a Stuka as it pulled out of the dive after bombing their anti-tank gun position. I still have the navigator's map case.] Naval bombers still needed the gunner/bombardier/navigator so the vulnerability of the two-man dive-bomber had to be accepted as a cost in men and machines when in action.
@jackdale9831
@jackdale9831 Жыл бұрын
I believe the original design HAD an "H-tail", so a fighter directly behind the Stuka, could EASILY be Directly shot-at, but on a dive where speeds of 450mph were reached, the twin-tail showed too much FLUTTER, so it was abandoned almost immediately. What I thought was fascinating was that in the instances where the greatest combat flier of all time, Hans Ulrich Rudel {who was nearly "washed-out," by his Stuka "buzz-sawing" a building roof with his prop, while on the ground, taxi-ing} was going before Hitler for a medal, one out of two of his 11 total rear-gunners, would be receiving the Knight's cross for defending Rudel's Stuka as a rear-gunner, which meant he[--his gunner] had shot-down 35 or more planes,--an "ace" 7Xs over! Attacking Rudel's Stuka would "cost" the Soviets over 70-plus aircraft, and, he survived the war, thanks to his gunners.
@StyxRiverGynoid
@StyxRiverGynoid Жыл бұрын
Everyone: Wow, that must me the most insane idea of WWII! Barnes Wallis: Hold my pint, dear chap.
@7thsealord888
@7thsealord888 Жыл бұрын
Interesting idea. As well as the possible handling problems, l'd worry about structural issues in that rotating tail.
@michaelmayfield4304
@michaelmayfield4304 Жыл бұрын
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.
@Ernst_Thaelmann
@Ernst_Thaelmann Жыл бұрын
This is actually the ju 287 since the number 187 was already given to focke wolf
@josephstabile9154
@josephstabile9154 Жыл бұрын
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.
@nicktozie6685
@nicktozie6685 Жыл бұрын
Awesome site great information, thank you
@TK-ve1uo
@TK-ve1uo Жыл бұрын
A little note language-wise: "Stuka" is the abbreviation of "Sturzkampfbomber", the German word for dive bomber. So it's rather a class name than the name of a specific model.
@SummerJ-q6l
@SummerJ-q6l Жыл бұрын
But still, ive never seen a stuka with a rotating tail. Maybe its to not let enemy fighters hit the rudder?
@tonynavarro8375
@tonynavarro8375 Жыл бұрын
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.
@5in1killa
@5in1killa Жыл бұрын
Be cool to try an RC version to check how the tail would affect flight.
@Theover4000
@Theover4000 Жыл бұрын
Y'know, reading the comments I was gonna say, "I wonder if someone could try this. That would be interesting." Maybe a larger, 1/10 scale RC one could be used for that purpose?
@5in1killa
@5in1killa Жыл бұрын
Get @flitetest on it.
@andrefiset3569
@andrefiset3569 Жыл бұрын
Why didn't they think of an inverted V tail? The late war concept Blohm & Voss P 213 had one.
@jasonbrown3632
@jasonbrown3632 Жыл бұрын
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...
@hoodoo2001
@hoodoo2001 Жыл бұрын
I don't quite understand why Stukas with retract landing gear would still be so slow.
@Normandy1944
@Normandy1944 Жыл бұрын
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?
@todd5082
@todd5082 Жыл бұрын
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.
@goforitpainting
@goforitpainting Жыл бұрын
Really interesting video.
@cuddlepaws4423
@cuddlepaws4423 3 ай бұрын
Less Junk-ers and more Bonk-ers !! Another example of mad design.
@HappyBeezerStudios
@HappyBeezerStudios Жыл бұрын
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
@MrWillNeedham Жыл бұрын
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.
@danielcgomez
@danielcgomez Жыл бұрын
Nice bit of history!
@levidotson6610
@levidotson6610 Жыл бұрын
Could you elaborate on what you meant by tail mounted bombs
@ShikamaruXT
@ShikamaruXT Жыл бұрын
The siren was an invention of pilots of the Ju87, they where never delivered with one(2) installed. Also, the picture of the Ju187 Shows 37mm underwing anti-tank canons, like the Ju87 G1 used.
@donarmando916
@donarmando916 Жыл бұрын
A rotating tail would most likely bring the plane into serious trouble. What could have worked is to move just the side rudder through the tail to the downside but it had to happen fast as the rudder would not work.during transition.
@TK421-53
@TK421-53 Жыл бұрын
8:39 you mix ground attack and dive bombing. The Fw 190 was an efficient platform for a fighter bomber, leading to the Fw 190F (ground attack) and G (long range fighter bomber) variants (if we ignore the relevant R and U field and factory kits for the A-series). Later in the war the Focke Wulf basically replaced the Ju 87 as the main type in the Luftwaffe Schlachtgeschwader.
@uniktbrukernavn
@uniktbrukernavn Жыл бұрын
10:47 I think the real reason for abandoning the pivoting tail is the Rotating-Logo-Problem; when tail is down the Swastika is at the wrong angle. It's more at an Hindu-Angle rather than a Third Reich angle. This angered the main führer. Nice video, I didn't know about this plane and it's an interesting concept. I read somewhere that the Stuka scream annoyed the pilots as well as it was really loud. When the war was over and the German pilots returned to normal life and had kids they would not make the airplane noise when spoon feeding their kids. It's unknown what kinda noise they made to get their kids to open their sustenance intake hole.
@nightjarflying
@nightjarflying Жыл бұрын
Nonsense. And the siren was not fitted in late model 87s
@uniktbrukernavn
@uniktbrukernavn Жыл бұрын
@@nightjarflying "The trouble ain't there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."
@forgivemenot1
@forgivemenot1 4 ай бұрын
7:14 Just looking at the tail in the fully down position I think I foresee an airflow problem, when turning left or right the rudder looks like it would also force the airflow upwards as well which would pitch the aircraft nose upwards, only in the middle position does it appear neutral, in the fully up position it wouldn’t make much of a difference because you are taxiing and the aircraft might be controlled by the tail wheel, also the angle of the aircraft when on all three wheels looks like it might cancel out much of the angle of the rudder.
@Mumbamumba
@Mumbamumba Жыл бұрын
Interesting video, thank you!
@JamesLaserpimpWalsh
@JamesLaserpimpWalsh Жыл бұрын
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.
@UnknownSovereignty
@UnknownSovereignty Жыл бұрын
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
@chrishartley4553
@chrishartley4553 Жыл бұрын
'More things to manufacture and more points of failure' was pretty much germany's WWII war production summed up. Pissing their dwindling resources up the wall on jets and rockets while their army relied heavily on horses and captured vehicles, just became lots of free R&D for the victorious Allies. Thankfully. The JU 187 vertical tail angling down is much more plausible than the whole tail unit rotating along the lontitudinal axis, which I originally thought as well. I would assume that it was done electronically as Germany had a big thing on remote barbettes and a handcrank would just seem so out of place (except as a backup because landing with tail stuck down would be uniquely hazardous).
@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid
@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid Жыл бұрын
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.
@excrubulent
@excrubulent Жыл бұрын
9:46 That's the same thing I thought when I saw the thumbnail! When I saw the actual design it made a lot more sense. Also I think you're right that the nazis had a real problem with making cool toys rather than solving real problems. They were kind of ideologically fixated on the idea of some technologically superior uberweapon that would allow them to dominate their foes, which is part of the reason they lost. Their faulty understanding of reality meant they wasted energy chasing this kind of power fantasy rather than actually understanding the core reason they lost, which was that they sucked and nobody liked them.
@exceptionalanimations1508
@exceptionalanimations1508 Жыл бұрын
Gee I coulda sworn everybody hates them because of the Holocaust among other things, not the poor budget management during the war.. but alright lmfao
@odnamsrazor2364
@odnamsrazor2364 Жыл бұрын
imagine if you could summon 1/10th the revulsion for the Marxists who have murdered orders of magnitude more people than the Nazis did?
@AKUJIVALDO
@AKUJIVALDO Жыл бұрын
Oh, another history's ignoramus... Manpower, Resources in general and oil in particular was why Germany lost. If Germany had enough fuel, they would have fully mechanised armed forces, unlimited flight hours for pilots and that would be more than enough for them take over Europe.
@excrubulent
@excrubulent Жыл бұрын
​@@AKUJIVALDO They didn't have "enough fuel" for unlimited flight hours though. I mean we can invent fantasies about some sort of purely self-sufficient country all day long, but we're dealing with reality. The reality is that no country alone can sustain a war like this. It was the fact that they wilded out and attacked everyone that left them isolated and running out of fuel. Their inability to soberly reflect on their situation and see that reality is what doomed them. I doubt you're interested in what I have to say though, based on how you immediately called me an "ignoramus". Like how much time have you spent dreaming up impossible alternate realities where the fascists could have won?
@odnamsrazor2364
@odnamsrazor2364 Жыл бұрын
@@AKUJIVALDO if you're going to go all Internet Grammar Nazi on everyone, the least you could do is point out that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT GERMANY HAS OR DOES, the war ends when the US nukes Berlin.
@danielsprouls9458
@danielsprouls9458 Жыл бұрын
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
@wenderia7990 Жыл бұрын
By the looks of it the rudder would never be on the lead edge. Even when fully pivoted.
@Tuberuser187
@Tuberuser187 Жыл бұрын
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
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
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.
@johnslugger
@johnslugger Жыл бұрын
*For all of Germanic jet engine advances it surprises me that they did not put a turbo charger on EVERY engine.*
@That70sGuitarist
@That70sGuitarist Жыл бұрын
The term "stuka" is simply an abbreviation of "sturz kampf bomber," or "diving battle bomber," rather than the name of any particular dive bomber (like the Ju-87). *Any* dive bomber would be called "stuka" in German, regardless of nation or manufacturer. Nazi Germany had many different "stuka" types at its disposal, including the long-lived Henschel Hs-123 biplane, which was a very successful dive bomber that saw extensive service from the Spanish Civil War right through to the Eastern front, where it continued in service all the way up to 1944. It's like "flak," which stands for "flieger abwehr kanon," or "flyer defence cannon." (Officials in Nazi Germany absolutely loved their abbreviations and acronyms.)😉 After all, if German troops were about to be attacked by Allied dive bombers, the man who spotted them wouldn't waste time yelling "Achtung, Douglas SBD Dauntless" or "Achtung, Curtis SB2C Helldiver," he'd simply point and yell "Achtung, stuka!"😉 So the Ju-87 was not named "stuka," that was strictly its *"job description."*
@bernardwilson7058
@bernardwilson7058 Жыл бұрын
The video maker keeps referring to “the Stuka” and the “Ju-187 as if they were different names for different aircraft. But, “Stuka” is an abbreviation of “Sturzkampflugzeug” meaning dive bomber. It wasn’t the name of the Ju-87, in the way that Mustang was the name of the P-51. Stuka was appropriate for use to describe the Ju-87, the Henschel Hs-123 and would have been appropriate to refer to the Ju-187 had it ever flown.
@milesobrien2694
@milesobrien2694 Жыл бұрын
Transitioning the tail would take time. As the rotation reached the midpoint the tail would be operating as a kind of aileron . I definitely would give being the test pilot for that weirdness a vehement pass.
@robertheinkel6225
@robertheinkel6225 Жыл бұрын
Not to mention the controls would be reversed.
@jackd1582
@jackd1582 Жыл бұрын
Pivot not rotate
@milesobrien2694
@milesobrien2694 Жыл бұрын
@@jackd1582 verb 1. turn on or as if on a pivot. "the sail pivots around the axis of the mast" Similar: rotate turn revolve spin swivel twirl whirl wheel
@joeylawn36111
@joeylawn36111 Жыл бұрын
The main problem with an in-flight movable tail would be an obvious loss of control of the aircraft during transition. EDIT: Reading some of the other comments - It was to have a tail that _pivoted_ downward, _not_ rotate 180°.
@tankertom3243
@tankertom3243 Жыл бұрын
This is an internet joke.
@81brassglass79
@81brassglass79 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video ❤ love your stuff 🤘🥸🤘
@kevanhubbard9673
@kevanhubbard9673 Жыл бұрын
I had to recheck it wasn't the first of April when I saw the rotating tail Stuka!
@RobertGotschall
@RobertGotschall Жыл бұрын
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.
@j.griffin
@j.griffin Жыл бұрын
7:33 Don’t talk… Don’t type… Don’t even think about it. Just press pause and look at the picture. If it was a bird, I’d say that it could point its tail up or down, as required. As for the aircraft design, I’d say that the middle placement would be the optimal selection for efficient,effective flight. There’s probably an R/C version flying around somewhere…
@scottthewaterwarrior
@scottthewaterwarrior Жыл бұрын
I built a LEGO plane as a kid that "solved" the problem of the tail being in the field of fire by having two vertical tail fins that could fold to the sides at 45 degrees. Though that plane was a mess of problems, a result of being designed around the rule of cool and myself having little concept of aircraft at the time. Like the main air intakes were placed on the sides of the cockpit, which put them directly behind the exhaust. Was also black with yellow stripes...
@Clint52279
@Clint52279 Жыл бұрын
Can you provide more detail in regard to performance with the yellow stripes as opposed to say red?
@ryanparker4996
@ryanparker4996 Жыл бұрын
​@@Clint52279 red adds more horsepower
Inside The Cockpit - Junkers Ju 87
31:57
Military Aviation History
Рет қаралды 646 М.
兔子姐姐最终逃走了吗?#小丑#兔子警官#家庭
00:58
小蚂蚁和小宇宙
Рет қаралды 14 МЛН
Osman Kalyoncu Sonu Üzücü Saddest Videos Dream Engine 269 #shorts
00:26
the balloon deflated while it was flying #tiktok
00:19
Анастасия Тарасова
Рет қаралды 35 МЛН
The plane with a propeller at each end - Nazi Dornier 335
11:56
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 624 М.
The Ground-Attacker That Couldn't Attack: Ilyushin Il-40
14:31
The Unloved Pacific Hero - Grumman F4F Wildcat | Aircraft History #97
26:21
The Nazi Jet Bomber That Flew Backwards - Ju 287
10:38
Found And Explained
Рет қаралды 428 М.