Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW II

[Danny42C]

Chug,

I've had a good look at this clip (and some of the others bundled up with it), and it's most revealing. Yes, the Stuka does seem to have used both methods of dive entry, but the illustrations of the actual dives appear to show an angle of around 70 degrees, which would not be too unpleasant for a nose-over.

But for 90, which we aimed to achieve, a wing-over is far better, as you can keep your target in view all the time, whereas in a nose-over you are unsighted until it appears over the nose, and then you have less time (and height) to adjust any "sighting error".

Most of the contributors to Google/Wiki seem to agree that the Vengeance was the only dive bomber designed to dive vertically, and to be superior to the Stuka in this respect. I said most: there is dissent from Captain Eric Brown, RN and his is a voice to command respect. (I have lifted the following from Wikipedia: "Junkers Ju87" - have I been naughty ?)
Eric "Winkle" Brown, a British test pilot from the Royal Navy, and General Officer Commanding "Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight" section, tested the Ju 87 at RAE Farnborough. He remarked:
"I had a high opinion of the Stuka because I had flown a lot of dive-bombers and it’s the only one that you can dive truly vertically. Sometimes with the dive-bombers, pilots claim that they did a vertical dive. What a load of rubbish. The maximum dive is usually in the order of 60 degrees. In a dive when flying the Stuka, because it’s all automatic, you are really flying vertically. You feel that you are over the top and feel you are going that a way! The Vengeance and Dauntless were both very good but could dive no more than 60 or 70 degrees. The Stuka was in a class of its own."

For what my humble opinion is worth, I beg to differ. When you press the button, still lined up on your target, a split second before pull-out, and it lands on or very near it, then your dive must have been vertical, or almost so.

For otherwise the bomb will not follow the trajectory of the aircraft, but revert in seconds to a ballistic curve which leads to an undershoot error, which in the case of a 60 degree dive and (say) 3000 ft of height on release, might well be of the order of 1000 ft or more.

(I agree with Capt. Brown about the "over the top" sensation: you never get used to it! - but I would not be entirely happy with an "automatic" dive bomber - whatever that meant in practice).

"Leading" your target - pulling your nose up a bit just before release - in the same sense as deflection shooting, - is of no avail; it is the "sub-aircraft point" (if I may coin a phrase) on release that counts, not where it is pointed.

I have read in Tee Emm that they had a similar problem with bob-aimers during the war. Some were gripped by a fallacy that, if you were just to the left (say) of the aiming point at the very last minute, you could in some way "throw" your bomb onto it by a sharp turn right. Can't work for the same reason.

(Note that the height on release is the crucial factor in the Vengeance case; when you're throwing it off at 50ft, it doesn't matter at all - your bomb will more or less keep you company to the bitter end).

This has got a bit out of hand, more on the Stuka clips later

My most sincere thanks, Chug, for giving me this lovely bone to gnaw!

Goodnight,

Danny.