PDA

View Full Version : Please creat a Ju-87 D-5



XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:35 PM
Hi,
As I am no modeler I am asking you if it could it be possible to realize a Ju-87 D-5 for Il-2 FB?
The Ju-87 D-5 is really missing in the game. It was a little more up dated design of the D-3.
As the dive bombing wasn't in use anymore the dive brakes were removed.
The MG 17 were replace by two MG 151 20mm canons (much better for the strafing!!! The MG 17 are really useless).
The wing span is larger (pointed) wing tips.
The landing gear is ejectable (I don't thing it is very useful to introduce this in the game anyway). There was a armoured wind shield too.
The D-5 was introduce in July 1943 during the battle of Kursk. It will be really cool to replace the D-3 for the D-5 in this campaign (it will give some more interested to the game. A little change is always good!).
As the G-2 was build out of a D-5 it should be easy to remove the 37. under the wings and and put the 20s into the wings. The performances should be the same without the drag of the 37.
I put a message in the general discussion and people seem to be interested So will you do it? It would be GREAT!

PS Demon/├┼ôberDemon give is mind about the D-5 and other easy conversions for the Ju-87 here is a copy of his letter :
The easiest addition to the Stuka family would be to add a simple weapons capability to the B-2

1xSC250 + 2 Drop Tanks (300 ltr / 66 gal) under wings.

This would allow the Ju-87R-2 for long distance flights. The R-2 mirrored the B-2 except for the load.


The Ju-87D-4 was the torpedo version... very few were converted, and NONE were ever used operationally. Unless we are considering fictional stuff, this will probably not be added.

The next addtions that would make sense would be:

D-5: Some publications say it was based on the G-1, which is already included. Some publications say it was based on the G-2, which is already included as Rudel's Stuka. The difference in model would be that the 2xFlak cannons would be removed and the MG151/20's would be added. That should be about it, plus the performance charts for the model would change. This would be a great addition.

D-7: Night Bomber, using the body of the existing D-3, with performance updated with the Jumo 211P, adding exhaust dampers and the armament of the D-5.

D-8: Night Bomber, same engine as D-7, body of the D-5.

There should be basic differences in performance because the D-5 had an extended wing to accomodate larger loads of bombs. So, there should be difference in performance between the D-7 and D-8 as well.

Regarding the Fw Torpedo bomber, there would be some external modifications to the model because of enlarged Rudder fin, unfortunately it is not just adding a torpedo to the weapons load, it is a different aircraft.



Best Regards,
Demon/├┼ôberDemon
uberdemon@uberdemon.com


anikollag

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:35 PM
Hi,
As I am no modeler I am asking you if it could it be possible to realize a Ju-87 D-5 for Il-2 FB?
The Ju-87 D-5 is really missing in the game. It was a little more up dated design of the D-3.
As the dive bombing wasn't in use anymore the dive brakes were removed.
The MG 17 were replace by two MG 151 20mm canons (much better for the strafing!!! The MG 17 are really useless).
The wing span is larger (pointed) wing tips.
The landing gear is ejectable (I don't thing it is very useful to introduce this in the game anyway). There was a armoured wind shield too.
The D-5 was introduce in July 1943 during the battle of Kursk. It will be really cool to replace the D-3 for the D-5 in this campaign (it will give some more interested to the game. A little change is always good!).
As the G-2 was build out of a D-5 it should be easy to remove the 37. under the wings and and put the 20s into the wings. The performances should be the same without the drag of the 37.
I put a message in the general discussion and people seem to be interested So will you do it? It would be GREAT!

PS Demon/├┼ôberDemon give is mind about the D-5 and other easy conversions for the Ju-87 here is a copy of his letter :
The easiest addition to the Stuka family would be to add a simple weapons capability to the B-2

1xSC250 + 2 Drop Tanks (300 ltr / 66 gal) under wings.

This would allow the Ju-87R-2 for long distance flights. The R-2 mirrored the B-2 except for the load.


The Ju-87D-4 was the torpedo version... very few were converted, and NONE were ever used operationally. Unless we are considering fictional stuff, this will probably not be added.

The next addtions that would make sense would be:

D-5: Some publications say it was based on the G-1, which is already included. Some publications say it was based on the G-2, which is already included as Rudel's Stuka. The difference in model would be that the 2xFlak cannons would be removed and the MG151/20's would be added. That should be about it, plus the performance charts for the model would change. This would be a great addition.

D-7: Night Bomber, using the body of the existing D-3, with performance updated with the Jumo 211P, adding exhaust dampers and the armament of the D-5.

D-8: Night Bomber, same engine as D-7, body of the D-5.

There should be basic differences in performance because the D-5 had an extended wing to accomodate larger loads of bombs. So, there should be difference in performance between the D-7 and D-8 as well.

Regarding the Fw Torpedo bomber, there would be some external modifications to the model because of enlarged Rudder fin, unfortunately it is not just adding a torpedo to the weapons load, it is a different aircraft.



Best Regards,
Demon/├┼ôberDemon
uberdemon@uberdemon.com


anikollag

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 06:50 PM
Indeed, a 20mm armed Ju.87 would be great!

AFAIK, the Luftwaffe swapped the Mg.17 for Mg.151/20 after their liason to Japan presented his findings regarding Japanese dive-bomber tactics.

The Japanese encouraged their dive-bombers to engage in dogfights with enemy aircraft after having released their ordnance. Despite high amounts of parasitic drag, low climb and roll rates. and heavy weight, the dive-bombers could do well against fighters if used agressively due to light wing loadings and generally very good initial turning ability. There is too much drag and not enough power for any sustained turning engagments on the part of the Ju.87, but it could turn a very tight circle nonetheless. Dive-bombers that turn into and attack intercepting fighters also lightened the workload on escorting fighters. The interceptor's situational awareness would have to be on a much higher level of alertness with escorts AND bombers trying to engage them in dogfights. Also, drag and bag tactics are easier when the plane dragging the bandit has a tail gunner to try and buy the 'bagger' more time to line up a shot or force them to disengage altogether (the Mg.81z was nothing to sniff at and could easily ruin a fighter's day)

The Luftwaffe found that the Japanese had better results with their doctrine regarding what to do with dive-bombers after ordnance release. As most know, the Ju87 was restricted by regulations in what it could and could not do. Many times these inflexible tactics (lufberry circle, etc.) lead to heavy Ju.87 losses.

Had they (the Luftwaffe) performed the conversion to 20mm and Japanese dive-bomber tactics on the Ju.87 sooner, the bird may very well have had a much more formidable reputation today than it already enjoys.

It would be great to see the 20mm armed Ju.87 included in IL2:FB. I would also like to add the Fw.190A6 as well. It was the most numerically important mid-war Fw.190 in the eastern theatre, iirc. Also, I would like to see rockets for the Fw.190F series. They could carry a multitude of different configurations of rocket ordanance during late war. It would be a great deal of fun to try these out.

As always, thanks for reading and !S





Message Edited on 10/05/0306:02PM by Bully_Lang

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 07:09 PM
be nice to have a cannoned stuka /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 07:30 PM
http://www.mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/il2_fb.htm
look in pAYable list /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 05:20 AM
I would fly the D5 all the time.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 06:28 AM
Romulan wrote:
- I would fly the D5 all the time.
-
-

You may change your mind if Me-110G because flyable. Due to it's bomb load and different guns, it will be Axis deadly ground attack plane.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 02:48 PM
Thank you Bully_Lang for the very interesting informations!Very interesting point of view. I did know that! But thinking back, dogfighting stukas are more difficult to look after for the escort... Cool anyway have to be tryed in fb!
As I have seen that it is going to add in a futur add on REAL COOL! Thank you p1ngu666 for the adress! The futur of the fb pilote seem to be bright!

anikollag

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 03:11 PM
so, it will come

http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/Ju-87D-5_2.jpg


http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 05:51 PM
Hey man just asking...! GREAT! SO GEAT! THANK YOU!!!!!!!

anikollag

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 06:04 PM
But what the hell NO DIVE BREAKS ON THE D-5!!!!!!

anikollag

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 06:29 PM
D-5 HAD no dive brakes. It's more like a Sturmovik than a dive bomber then. But I bet that it can dive, too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . It won't go too fast... the existing ones also don't when not using the brakes.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 07:08 PM
Bully_Lang wrote:
- Indeed, a 20mm armed Ju.87 would be great!
-
- AFAIK, the Luftwaffe swapped the Mg.17 for Mg.151/20
- after their liason to Japan presented his findings
- regarding Japanese dive-bomber tactics.


That is wrong:
Even in BoB, the Stukas actually did dogfight, even if mostly defensively. And Japanese dive bomber doctrine called for running away at low level, not for dogfighting. During 1942 carrier battles, nearly all japanese dive bomber losses to fighters occured AFTER the attack. The only pilots who ever used their dive bombers as agressivly as you suggest were US Navy SBD pilots. Some Vals did dogfight, but those were mostly sacrifice acts to get the rest of the formation to the target. These happened BEFORE the attack (source: Ludstrom, First team). Japanese never bothered with 20mm cannon for their dive bombers either.
The Stuka pilots were quite agressive and often went into dogfights. Stukas flying straight and level and relying on their gunners were something only encountered in flightsims. Before release, Stukas often did things like closed formation head on attacks. Stuka dogfighting was done not to score kills but to make the enemy waste fuel and ammo. The radioman's main function was not to shoot down enemy planes but to warn his pilot when to turn. Oskar Dinort evaded 3 Spitfires over Dunkirk and apparently each of them claimed him as a victory.
Actually, the Stukas had heavy losses in BoB, but were not wiped out. And after BoB, the Stuka was the most overclaimed aircraft of all, at least when the RAF encountered it. There are serveral occasions over Afrika where dozens of Stukas were claimed and not a single one went down. Simply because of radical evasion maneuvers and the reputation of the stuka led RAF pilots to the conclusion that every Stuka they shot at and dived in a radical maneuver had to be a kill.
The 20mm was put in the Stuka for strafing, not for arial combat. Strafing was allready an important part of Stuka doctrine early in the war and it became more important yet in the east.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 09:01 PM
Thanks for the info theRealAntEater!
And having D-5 is a great news...



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 09:13 PM
Thank you for your mind about the doctine of the Stuka theRealAntEater.
That make sens to me. So Bob gonna be real fun!
About the over claiming I juste want to say that if RAF was overclaiming, the Luftwaffe is well known for here lacks in there records too... ;-)
But was just to say...
Thanks for your opinion.


Thank you for reading

anikollag