Explosive charge in Stuka landing gear

[warbirdfinder]

There have been stories that some models of the Ju-87 Stuka had a "squid" or small explosive charge in the landing gear. In the event of an off-field landing, the gear could be jettisoned so as to prevent a "nose-over" landing.

Does anyone have any proof that this is true?

Thank you.

[TAdan]

There have been stories that some models of the Ju-87 Stuka had a "squid" or small explosive charge in the landing gear. In the event of an off-field landing, the gear could be jettisoned so as to prevent a "nose-over" landing.

Does anyone have any proof that this is true?

Thank you.

I've only heard about that being planned for the carrier based variant.

[dhfan]

As the previous post, for the carrier-based version in case of ditching.

[Kyleb]

There have been stories that some models of the Ju-87 Stuka had a "squid" or small explosive charge in the landing gear. In the event of an off-field landing, the gear could be jettisoned so as to prevent a "nose-over" landing.

Does anyone have any proof that this is true?

Thank you.

No indication it is true. But you may do better searching for the word "squib".

[LysanderUK]

The Fi167 biplane torpedo bomber, intended for carrier use, certainly had provision to detach the landing gear in case of a ditching. This is perhaps where the detachable/explosive landing gear story comes from and has been transposed onto the Ju87?

[slinky]

This is really timely....I was watching the Smithsonian Channel's Air Warriors episode on the Ju-87 and there was a short clip of one landing next to troops in the field with no landing gear. I had to back it up several times and watch what I did not understand. How can a Stuka lose both gear at the same time, flack, cannon fire, mid-air collision? Maybe one but both?!?! This post explains what I was seeing. Possibly the prototype landing after blowing the gear? Check it out if you get a chance....looked like there was minimal damage to the airframe of the rugged beast.

[mike furline]

This is really timely....I was watching the Smithsonian Channel's Air Warriors episode on the Ju-87 and there was a short clip of one landing next to troops in the field with no landing gear. I had to back it up several times and watch what I did not understand. How can a Stuka lose both gear at the same time, flack, cannon fire, mid-air collision? Maybe one but both?!?! This post explains what I was seeing. Possibly the prototype landing after blowing the gear? Check it out if you get a chance....looked like there was minimal damage to the airframe of the rugged beast.

IIRC the Stuka pulled up late, both gear hit the water, ground, item and were torn off.

[Spitty]

Ouch..Bet he had to change his pants after that.There was a story a whole flight of stukas dove into the ground during the war due to fog on the ground...

[mike furline]

Ouch..Bet he had to change his pants after that.There was a story a whole flight of stukas dove into the ground during the war due to fog on the ground...

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... an_entire/

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=67828

[Mark Proulx]

The Stuka photo attached above is a doctored propaganda image from the period. The actual photo has been shown with the Stuka retaining its landing gear. If this actually happened, then why is the mount for the trailing antenna still there?

Mark Proulx

[Spitty]

Ouch..Bet he had to change his pants after that.There was a story a whole flight of stukas dove into the ground during the war due to fog on the ground...

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... an_entire/

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=67828

Thanks mate thats the one...There was wreckage from that op was put together into a project...