You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

Recovered JU87 Stuka . . .

Your online Air Force Base.
 

ANCFlyer (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 15 Jun 12, 18:34Post
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12 ... sea-floor/


Crews are working to recover a World War II Stuka dive bomber from the bottom of the Baltic Sea that will join the only other two known models to survive.


Cool . . .

Wonder why it hasn't rusted away?
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!!
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 15 Jun 12, 18:45Post
Turned out today that it wasn't a Ju-87 Stuka, but a much larger Ju-88 bomber.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
ANCFlyer (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 15 Jun 12, 19:03Post
Interesting . . . but still, same question . . .

How did it survive? Salt Water?
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!!
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 15 Jun 12, 19:18Post
The wreck was mostly covered by sand. The parts that weren't are said to be in pretty bad condition.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
Click Click D'oh (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 15 Jun 12, 19:19Post
Zak wrote:Turned out today that it wasn't a Ju-87 Stuka, but a much larger Ju-88 bomber.


Was this a case of bad transcription... or non-horrible aircraft identification skills? A JU-87 and JU-88 are not alike.
We sleep peacefully in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf
JeffSFO (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 15 Jun 12, 19:19Post
ANCFlyer wrote:Cool . . . Wonder why it hasn't rusted away?


Last year I saw a Zero in Palau that's been underwater since WWII. The fuselage is still intact but I don't know what happened to the rest of it but aluminum can survive in salt water for some time:

Image

As a side note, the pilot survived this ditching and came back to visit it many decades later.

Zak wrote:Turned out today that it wasn't a Ju-87 Stuka, but a much larger Ju-88 bomber.


Still a win! :)) {thumbsup}
Zak (netAirspace FAA) 15 Jun 12, 19:22Post
Click Click D'oh wrote:Was this a case of bad transcription... or non-horrible aircraft identification skills? A JU-87 and JU-88 are not alike.

They had only found parts at first, and many parts were used in both aircraft.

The fuselage was mostly covered by sand, hence they could not notice that it was much bigger than the expected Ju-87.

They had been wondering already why the visible parts were missing the usual weaponry of a Stuka, though.
Ideology: The mistaken belief that your beliefs are neither beliefs nor mistaken.
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT