Little correction/precision to what I said at 04:56 - it is of course 'Down / or more accurate: Neutral position', not Up. I misspoke and didn't catch it in the edit, rather annoyed by this. Thanks go to charles and Brandano for pointing it out. (I had already pinned comment just like this one but it seems to have gotten lost - if someone finds it, return to sender!)
Don't feel bad, it's an easy mistake to make, even for professionals. There have been cases of mechanics rigging the trim tab backwards with fatal consequences, at least one of which we know of for certain during the past 2 years (a twin). Excellent presentation! The Stuka was a far more technically advanced aircraft than most people realize - deutsche Technolgie!
or like Drach's "dumping pure oxygen and kerosene into a cylinder would make the torpedo travel really fast, but instantaneously and in all directions at once disassembling itself and any nearby people with considerrable enthusiasm"
There was a planed improvement the Ju187 Ju287 had retractable undercarriage the whole tail section lowered to give better rear gunner field of fire. Problem was no faster than the original Ju87 and Germany had lost air superiority anyway.
Hearing the explanation and operation of this device, I wonder how many German test-pilots and line pilots were lost before the designers felt this system was absolutely necessary.
@@wertzur4923 they were performing a test flight to show some Generals the capabilities of the machine. A low fog enveloped the diving target arear and they crashed in mass. You have a video here on YT explainning the whole thing. Saying I heard when you can just google things seems rather lazy
"It also prevents a violent machine/human-ground interface". So clearly defined, such perfection of euphamism, and in the English language. Your command of the most incomprehensible language in the world, as well as the explanation of what has boggled us for so long, is admirable. I salute you, sir!
Quote: ""It also prevents a violent machine/human-ground interface". In commercial aviation this is know as C-FIT, meaning Controlled Flight Into Terran.
My grandfather was a tail gunner in a Stuka in North Africa. He was captured by the British and put in a POW camp. He and another guy beat the guard assigned to them to death with a shovel and took off across the desert. He then hitched a ride on a civilian boat to southern Italy just in time to get captured by the British again. He learned to cook and speak Italian in that 2nd POW camp. He was part of a prisoner swap late in the war and spent a few months as a crew member on a Heinkel HE-111 until the war ended. I never had the nerve to ask him who actually killed the guard. It wasn't something that he talked much about until the end of his life. I have a DVD of him talking about his war experience to a college class. I have a picture of him in his Luftwaffe uniform when he taken when he was in his late 80's. It still fit.
Just a little comment about the "size of the target presentation speculation": If you want to hit an aircraft with AA guns, the best moments are when the aircraft is not turning. Neither horizontaly nor vertically. -> when it's going in a straight line, no matter the direction is best. Reason being: with AA guns you have to hold over so the plane and projectiles "meet". And with distance and speed of aircrafts the holdover is substantial. (Looks very weird if you see that the first time in real life) With an aircraft turning, the holdover is changing during the turn and no sighting system can counter that. (Or could in WW2 and even until the turn of teh last century i would say.) Long ago i got trained on a 3.5cm twin AA gun system. It uses weather information (wind, temp and air pressure) as well as projectile speed, laser ranging ect. and can be radar guided, uses explosive shells, fires around 1100 rounds per minute...So it is far superior to any WW2 AA gun. And still, a turning aircraft is almost impossible to properly hit. (We are talking about the same system that shot down RAF Sea Harriers in 82') When it aims for you, that is (according to my training) your best chance to hit a hostile aircraft. The aircraft has to maintain it's direction for at least a few seconds to get a proper aim, and that's the amount of time you get. (So, you get a max of a few seconds and the smallest target size the aircraft can be, but at least you don't need a holdover) Basically its like the "game" the germans call "Schisshase", where two cars drive towards each other until one of them gets scared and turns away. Only that here it's about who manages to first score the hit. One of our officers once said AAA is 23 hours and 59 minutes of extreme boredom and 1 minute of hell on earth. The other chance would be if it hasn't noticed you and is in "level flight" crossing your field of fire. But let's be real, that is less likely to happen. Yes, AAA sounds a bit suicidal (especialy considering modern weaponry). Let me just say that in my defense, most of these things i did not know (or consider) when i ticked the AAA box on the form i was given to mark on which weapon school i would want to transfer to. (Actually after 4 intense months of infantery training, the idea of getting transported by a truck instead of walking everywhere with up to 36kg of gear on the back was very intriguing. As was having probably a sitting job, not having to "walk, crawl, glide... into position". And as a military aircraft enthusiast i had good expectations to not need any training in identifying aircraft siluettes... And should i mention that i didn't pass the second stage of the "military pilot selection process" shortly prior? 🤫 ) An to end my comment, something else that could be thought provoking: We were told to not waste ammo on leaving aircraft. (If it has "unloaded" already and there are targets available that have not yet, they are more important to get shot at.)
Well stated. 1100 35mm shells travelling 3000fps in one hairy minute is a lot of BBBRRRrrrrtttttt... And even then, target acquisition is tricky and momentary. That part alone is identical to WW2 gunnery struggles. That's how the kamikaze got through. Because making a firing solution on a diving aircraft is nearly impossible, in that making hits, or even a kill, does not negate mass x velocity physics...
A small correction, Sea Harriers were only flown by the Royal Navy during the Falklands conflict, the RAF Harrier contribution was 10 GR3's designed for close air support and reconnaissance. Also what you call "Schisshase", would be called "chicken" in the UK. Thanks for the interesting post :-)
@@89DerChristian You don't get to shoot at your own ones! 🤷♂️ Seriously: I bring that as a joke from time to time. (and the timeline is true. I had to come up with a plan b for my immediate future) I had and have no hard feelings about it. The stage i didn't pass, is where (according to the head psychologist who ran this test stage) 98% of candidates at that level didn't make it. (Our airforce was/is small enough that they can be that picky) From what i learned later, i would have been dropped in the next (last) stage of medical checks anyway. One of my comrades made it to that stage and got dropped for having a light pollen allergy. I am "blessed" with that too. (i still don't get what the problem would be with an oxygen mask and filtered air up there, but hey, they can make the rules as they like.) He became an airline pilot later in life. And lastely: after my time there i switched sides again and i am contributing to keeping aircraft safe for over 20 years now. (not just mil aircraft)
I am fairly sure that trim tabs of that style will actually work like servo tabs, deflecting in the opposite direction of the elevator. To trim the elevator up they will deflect slightly down, lightening the control force on the elevator itself. At diving speeds they can be quite effective.
Yup they are servos like said, they deflect up when activated and down during the recovery. I mispoke on their movement and didnt catch it in the edit, I'll add a pinned comment and will address it on the next video on the Ju 87. Thanks for the comment :)
Another important design reason for the Sicherheitssteuereung is that it prevents a possible stall, when recovering from a dive. Aerodynamically it makes no difference if you stall an aircraft in a steep climb, or when pulling up from a steep dive: it's all about the relative wind and the Alpha angle.
It amazes and interests me how sophisticated the Germans were in designing and engineering the Ju 87 back in the day, the people who built these war machines were very creative, and this is why we love them.
Hans Rudel was not only a great Stuka Pilot, he was a great pilot! He operated that plane that was considered obsolete during the time, and take out a battleship, 600 tanks and about 50 enemy aircraft! Remember, they considered it obsolete, but Hans Rudel didn't listen to that!
Perhaps Rudel had an influence in the removal of these automations? I seem to recall in his book that his technicians could fabricate pretty complex systems to allow him to continue flying through various wounds and he built the whole tank busting legend around the Stuka.
The Anfangvorrichtung was no longer required as soon as the 3,7cm cannons were installed, so I doubt it. Since the early tank busters were converted D-models it might be that a few flew with it installed but even there I assume it was disconnected quickly.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I can see a value in placing the function under the Pilot's control rather than being wholly automatic: IF for whatever reason (enemy equipment, terrain, whatever) Flak was heavier at altitude than lower down, or if there was maybe a an option to use terrain to shield you, then you would rather not regain height, you might prefer to hedge hop?
A subject I know nothing about, a technology of which I had no knowledge, and a theme I never had any desire to learn ... but you made it all clear and interesting. I enjoyed that presentation. Thank you!
I have heard the swinging bracket for the bomb called a "trapeze" elsewhere. I think it was specifically referring to the one on the SBD, but it sounds like a generic-enough term to apply to the Stuka as well.
Many thanks for your study of the Ju-87, which is perhaps the most under-appreciated plane of WWII. Its ability to move ahead of tanks and troops to precision bomb military targets played a key role in the early Blitzkrieg successes.
Tank you for doing this book and this Video. The other two books didnt realy strike my fancy, but all three are a sign of your progress and of how impactufull youtube historians can be. I am very much looking forward to reading and reviewing your book on my small channel :) Keep up the good work. I am sure there are great projects for you in the future.
I am very curious for some numbers associated with the JU-87 dive attack: What was the typical terminal velocity, release height, and G pulled in recovery? Also, is it really true that JU-87 pilots had their eardrums pierced to prevent pressure buildup during such dives?
@@oceanhome2023 Reason #2 is moot as Chris covered in the Inside the Cockpit video: The Stuka had explosive charges in the landing gear struts to blow them off if necessary. He phrased it as a way to get rid of an intact strut if the other had been damaged/destroyed so you could belly land the plane rather than trying to land with just one wheel but it would seem that this was also be a good solution for a water landing.
@@oceanhome2023 From your description the pilot in question was probably Eric 'Winkle' Brown. Flew more aircraft types (487) than anyone else, made more carrier take offs (2,407) and landings (2,271) than anyone else. Was the first person to land a twin engined aircraft, a tricycle undercarriage aircraft, a jet and a rotary wing on a carrier. I'm afraid I'm going to take his opinion over yours :-). Just to take him down a peg, he wasn't the greatest writer in the world but his autobiography, 'Wings On My Sleeve' is well worth a read.
My grandfather was a s Stuka pilot from 41 to 44 and he did told me about this system, he told me that they often reached G-lock and that the sistem would prevent them from crushing onto the ground. Thx for presenting it to a technical level that now I can understand, back then I was to young to understand and now I'm really sorry that I'm not able to find out more from him!
The father of a school friend was a flight engineer in the Luftwaffe and he told me of the only time he had been in a Stuka. One had just been returned from maintenance and had to be test flown and his friend (a pilot) offered him a ride. They climbed, did some manoeuvres then his friend said "Hey Kurt! Hang on!" and then went into the dive. He said all he could see was blue unless he looked over his shoulder and then all he could see was green! Then.... they pulled out. He said all he could see was green and his lunch was about to impact on the cabin floor, walls and canopy. He never flew in a Stuka again.
Super impressive system - I was not aware of this thanks for the info. I hope your book includes mention of the poor SOB in the back who had to endure dive recovery G's while facing backwards. And having to fret while the pilot is recovering from a blackout! Looking forward to your book.
Thanks for the video! I'm sure the book will be just as interesting too. I think the Stuka is the most fascinating aircraft of the war, not only because of its unique features and technology, but also because of its versatility and of course, it's pilots, most notably, Hans-Ulrich Rudel.
My uncle, who was in the karelian isthmus frontlines during summer of 1944, said that it was a sight to behold when Kuhlmey's stukas hit soviet positions, often 15-20 planes strong. He also said that the pilots were really professional and usually hit their intended targets, wich were mostly staging areas for tanks etc. Said that they often heard tank engines roaring and when stukas paid a visit, it was total silence, only black smoke from where the tanks were.
"Violent Human-Ground Interface." What a great turn of phrase! Could be a book or thriller movie title. Kudos for a great program and an excellent phrase
I had learned that Italian pilots using Stukas learned independently to conduct skip bombing. This is dropping a bomb at a certain speed and near horizontal angle that will skip like a stone over the water. It will hopefully strike a vessel near the water line. US pilots used this technique as well in the Pacific.
That was a very ingenious system to add. Sort of the beginning of ideals that lead to fly by wire with computer back ups to keep the pilot from doing maneuvers that neither the pilot or airframe could stand.
Could technically be called a fly-by-wire system too. Since, ya know. Electrical wires with switches and stuff activating them and pulley wires for the control surfaces. XD
The USN Douglas SBD Dauntless also used a bomb release cradle. It swung the bomb down to clear the prop when it was released. Very sensible technology, really.
So did the Aichi D3A “Val” dive-bomber of the Imperial Japanese Navy. It’d be interesting who copied who.. though the Stuka pre-dates any other WW2 dive bomber.
@@minot.8931 I've read that Curtiss Aircraft in the US was the first to develop a dive bomber, in the 1930s. The Germans copied that system. It's quite possible Curtiss developed it based on other ideas, need to research.
Always wondered why. Isn’t the plane going faster than the released bomb? I guess this is the kind of thing that you don’t want to leave to chance … a live bomb in the prop blades might not be such a great thing
It is my understanding that some JU87 aircraft were fitted with either a belly camera, a tail camera or even both. The usual belly camera was a Leica 250-GG "Reporter" camera taking up to 250 24 x 36mm images on a 10m film strip of standard 35mm perforated film (I have one of the earlier but very similar Leica 250-FF Reporter cameras) and with an electric motor drive. The tail camera when fitted, was a smaller and lighter Berning Robot camera, also using an electric motor drive, rather than the clockwork motor drive of the regular Robot cameras. These take 24 x 24mm images but I have not been able to ascertain the length of film in this special version of the camera. The idea was for the belly camera to assess bombing accuracy and the tail camera to assess bombing effectiveness. I have been told the Leica was switched on manually but the Robot automatically, perhaps when the pull out device, which causes the jolt, is activated. Anyone got any more information on this subject?
Very nice video about dive recovery system of the Ju 87. Everybody knows it, but nobody knows how it really works. Thanks for that. I may add my humble suggestion concerning the removal of the Sicherheitssteuerung from the Ju 87 D-5 onward. The Ju 87 D-5 was delivered from the Summer of 1943 onward to the Stukageschwader. At that time tactical changes within the Ground Attack Arm (Schlachtflieger) of the Luftwaffe took place, gradually pushing the Ju 87 into to the role of a ground-attack aircraft (Schlachtflugzeug), instead of the role of a dedicated divebomber (Sturzkampfbomber). This change of role lead to a different attack mode of the Ju 87, emphasising the close air support role instead of the divebomber role. Simply put: Divebombing became less important, especially in steep dives. Maybe attacking by pushing over the wing into a dive, instead of pushing over the nose can be a factor, too. I think the revised armament and armor of the Ju 87 D-5 reflects this changes: switching from 2x MG17 to 2x MG151/20 and more armor for the pilot and engine. One further point may be the simplification of the production of the Ju 87, to get more produced: Entfeinern was the order of the day (for a description of this process see Lutz Budraß, Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918 - 1945). It would be interesting to know if other late war versions (D-7 and D-8 night ground attacker) had the Sicherheitsteuerung also removed, i would bet at least for the D-8, as this version is based on the D-5. Last but not least, it would be interesting to know if divebombers of other nations did employ a similar (or perhaps completly different) dive recovery system as the Ju 87.
4.52 Are you *sure* Chris? IF you deflect the trim tabs UP that would typically cause the elevators to deflect down, the nose will thenpitch down & the dive will steepen won't it? At circa 7min you're talking about why have a sicherhaitssteurung (now there's a word to drop into converstaion at the arifield). Everything you say makes sense but there's a further effect interwoven with all of it which may be another major reason to fit that system. If the pilot's groggy with high G on pullout maybe there will be a tendency to pull back too hard (as you say). Then, beyond stressing the airframe, there's a pretty high risk of a high speed stall too. And that would see the JU87 go boofing into the ground like a kayak pancaking off a drop onto water hitting flat with the underside belly. In other wods, the nose is horizontal, even pointing upward but momentum is taking the aeroplane down, because high angle of attack means the arirflow over the wings is a turbulent mess of a high speed stall with virtually no lift. (Tried to find an addy to send this to you direct Chris but can't see one)
Hey, I thought I already posted a comment on yours but it seems to be missing - check the pinned comment, the tabs move Down or rather to their neutral position. I misspoke and am very annoyed that I didn't catch it in the edit. thanks for the comment!
Hi Chris! Greetings from the USA. It's funny about the word Sicherheitssteuerung. When I saw the word on screen I thought literally "safety control" or "safety steering," which of course is not close to the very clear translation you made. You say that you made 4 words out of 1. In English, we think precisely the opposite; that Germans make one word out of many. My favorite is "Hanschuh." I look at it and see "hand shoe." A native German speaker probably just sees the one word for glove. I will never learn to speak German properly! Anyway... new subscriber here. Very interesting content.
6:15 Close second is a way of putting it... the receivers of that kleines Geschenk suffered formidably higher Gs that the eventually black-outing pilot. No Sicherheitssteuerung nor Upfront Vorrichtung to avail them while they accelerated into bits...
My German grandfather flew the version with the tank killer gun pods. He flew missions in Russia against Soviet tanks and ships. Often, 109s provided air support against Russian fighters.
A smalll distinction between “blacking out” and “tunnel vision” under biggish gees. “Black out” indicates unconsciousness in English, which isn’t what we’re talking about. Tunnel vision is weird as you’re perfectly conscious, but your vision indeed reduces to nothing. Many a year ago, I regularly experienced tunnel vision doing high gee aerobatics, but remained perfectly conscious and aware. And of course extremely aware that avoiding a smoking hole is for the best of all concerned. I can imagine that the Stuka bomber pilots may have taken a dim view of this feature.
As a pilot, imagine regularly going on Stuka dive bombing missions sometimes several times per day! I read the book "Stuka Pilot" written by Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel (Luftwaffe) he was not only the most highly decorated pilot in WW2, he described how violent the attacks were...
Know the feeling being in a pitts special as a sandbag , it is creepy as heck when you experience it for the first times , but yeah as soon as you level out it goes away
AFAIK trim tabs work opposite, to what you've described. For nose-up trim, the tabs are deflected down, which then raises the elevator up. Very interesting video
It could also be that the Ablenkvorrichtung was made dual action so that the Bomb didn't have to be dropped, for instance if the Pilot misjudged his aim or maybe even aimed at a friendly unit and noticed that in the dive. Only speculation of course...
Do you have a video about the various defensive weapons in luftwaffe bombers? I noticed the Germans used a variety of mounted machine guns and cannons on different turrets. I’d like to hear why they configured them in these ways.
To counter what he says at 10:53, it is much harder to hit it when it is pulling out of a dive, as you now have to range it, consider the Stuka's speed and the bullet speed. When it is coming straight at you, you only really have to range it.
Your understanding of trim tab mechanics is reversed. For UP elevator the trim tab goes DOWN thus aerodynamically (flying) the elevator upward and resulting in UP elevator pressure or trim. Everything else looks perfect. Thank you for such an in depth presentation of a very well thought out safety system.
Excellent! I had no idea of the Abfangvorrichtung. One point and one question: Point: I can think of no tactical reason to change the initiator of the Abfangvorrichtung. I would not be surprised if it were the results of an economic decision. Possibly the automatic Auslöser simply cost much more than a simple electric switch on the control stick. Question: How long did the Abfangvorrichtung remain activated and how was it disengaged? I imagine they would design it to at least remain engaged until the AoA was above the horizon. But if the pilot was really blacked-out for so long, and the AbVoRi didn't also automatically disconsciousness
As to what you said about the predictability of the dive recovery. I remember reading roughly what you said in a book. I want to say it was the one by Helmut Mahlke.
The Stuka had a change in wing armament in It’s really to see that dive recovery on the Stuka was improved on later D-5 Stuka. US Navy SBD/SB2C pilots had no problems unlike their Stuka counterparts with dive recovery that flew the SBD Dauntless & SB2C Helldiver had easier dives as did it at 70 degree dive angle this is because they have release the bomb from the cradle in the case of SB2C from the it’s internal bomb-bay with the doors open early for the bomb to hit a moving ship
That makes sence, the dive recovery system was activated only with the bomb release switch. So, in case the pilot blacked out on a dive, then the bomb would still be aimed at or near the target and would have more chances of a hit. Although in this case the pilot and the aircraft would be lost, which I don't think happened a lot, maybe with rookie pilots. One point to note is the dynamics of the aircraft upon a bomb release would change drastically, as it gets lighter in a split second and this would help in the recovery. Got to have a look at the Japanese Aichi D3 dive bomber, which I don't think had an automatic dive recovery system.
Thanks again Chris for another great vid. l did read a few years ago on Wiki or another source about this, but was astounded that no other vid about Stukas inluded this aspect. Wishing you the very best with the book launch !
@@andrewpinner3181 yea i know that doesn't have anything to do with the video, i just wanted to know if you're old enough to remember the 2nd world war or some other war.
Well, according to a WW2 veteran’s tail who was a navigator of JU 87, without the switch you couldn’t pull up the aircraft from diving. Because you didn’t trust the system or anything else. I guess you can say anything about it now in 2021 but the rest of the video is interesting and sounds legitimate. Well done
Little correction/precision to what I said at 04:56 - it is of course 'Down / or more accurate: Neutral position', not Up. I misspoke and didn't catch it in the edit, rather annoyed by this. Thanks go to charles and Brandano for pointing it out. (I had already pinned comment just like this one but it seems to have gotten lost - if someone finds it, return to sender!)
Don't feel bad, it's an easy mistake to make, even for professionals. There have been cases of mechanics rigging the trim tab backwards with fatal consequences, at least one of which we know of for certain during the past 2 years (a twin).
Excellent presentation! The Stuka was a far more technically advanced aircraft than most people realize - deutsche Technolgie!
Hello bismarck!
@@radbradmusicartist En boca cerrada no entran moscas. O en tu caso, la verga.
@@radbradmusicartist What?
Bist du Bismarck von Botime gaming?
7:00 "A violent Machine-Human-Ground interface" is on the same level of euphemism as "A significant emotional event"
Lmao
Either way if would definatelly ruin your day.
or like Drach's "dumping pure oxygen and kerosene into a cylinder would make the torpedo travel really fast, but instantaneously and in all directions at once disassembling itself and any nearby people with considerrable enthusiasm"
Who do you think has taught him to think like that😉
@@tomppeli. Great! Another Reach Fan! Dark humor might be limited to those with wit to grasp 'unhappy making event possibility.
Why were there never second generation Stukas?
Because they have a automatic pull out system.
Noice
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good one!
😊😊😊
There was a planed improvement the Ju187 Ju287 had retractable undercarriage the whole tail section lowered to give better rear gunner field of fire. Problem was no faster than the original Ju87 and Germany had lost air superiority anyway.
Good one
I have wanted to understand this for literally decades. Actually literally. As in forty years.
Me too.
damm how old are you?
That's a long wait
@@ashokiimc
Old enough that we remember having to read books to learn these things...
I can tell you've been around for a while because you understand the actual meaning of the word "literally"! Thank you for your literacy.
Hearing the explanation and operation of this device, I wonder how many German test-pilots and line pilots were lost before the designers felt this system was absolutely necessary.
This is why A-10 is not an dive bomber ☝️🤷♂️😅
I heard that 30 Ju-87-A pilots crashed into the ground by attacking. It was in the Spain Civil War.
@@wertzur4923 they were performing a test flight to show some Generals the capabilities of the machine. A low fog enveloped the diving target arear and they crashed in mass. You have a video here on YT explainning the whole thing. Saying I heard when you can just google things seems rather lazy
@@KarsonNow A-10 is literally from a different era...wtf
@@fedecano7362 Two years ago, you sir, were being a dick. Obviously, you've become nicer since then, right?
"It also prevents a violent machine/human-ground interface". So clearly defined, such perfection of euphamism, and in the English language. Your command of the most incomprehensible language in the world, as well as the explanation of what has boggled us for so long, is admirable. I salute you, sir!
I would say "It also prevents a violent machine/human-ground interaction" XD
Quote: ""It also prevents a violent machine/human-ground interface". In commercial aviation this is know as C-FIT, meaning Controlled Flight Into Terran.
Aka lithospheric braking :D
English is the easiest language in the world.
@@lehtokurppa7824 i hope you’re joking dude
My grandfather was a tail gunner in a Stuka in North Africa. He was captured by the British and put in a POW camp. He and another guy beat the guard assigned to them to death with a shovel and took off across the desert. He then hitched a ride on a civilian boat to southern Italy just in time to get captured by the British again. He learned to cook and speak Italian in that 2nd POW camp. He was part of a prisoner swap late in the war and spent a few months as a crew member on a Heinkel HE-111 until the war ended. I never had the nerve to ask him who actually killed the guard. It wasn't something that he talked much about until the end of his life. I have a DVD of him talking about his war experience to a college class. I have a picture of him in his Luftwaffe uniform when he taken when he was in his late 80's. It still fit.
Can you share the picture of him in his uniform? That sounds so cool
@@me-262gamingluftwaffememin2 I'll have to scan it. First I have to find a person that still owns a scanner. I'll see what I can do.
Just a little comment about the "size of the target presentation speculation": If you want to hit an aircraft with AA guns, the best moments are when the aircraft is not turning. Neither horizontaly nor vertically. -> when it's going in a straight line, no matter the direction is best.
Reason being: with AA guns you have to hold over so the plane and projectiles "meet". And with distance and speed of aircrafts the holdover is substantial. (Looks very weird if you see that the first time in real life) With an aircraft turning, the holdover is changing during the turn and no sighting system can counter that. (Or could in WW2 and even until the turn of teh last century i would say.)
Long ago i got trained on a 3.5cm twin AA gun system. It uses weather information (wind, temp and air pressure) as well as projectile speed, laser ranging ect. and can be radar guided, uses explosive shells, fires around 1100 rounds per minute...So it is far superior to any WW2 AA gun. And still, a turning aircraft is almost impossible to properly hit.
(We are talking about the same system that shot down RAF Sea Harriers in 82')
When it aims for you, that is (according to my training) your best chance to hit a hostile aircraft. The aircraft has to maintain it's direction for at least a few seconds to get a proper aim, and that's the amount of time you get. (So, you get a max of a few seconds and the smallest target size the aircraft can be, but at least you don't need a holdover)
Basically its like the "game" the germans call "Schisshase", where two cars drive towards each other until one of them gets scared and turns away. Only that here it's about who manages to first score the hit.
One of our officers once said AAA is 23 hours and 59 minutes of extreme boredom and 1 minute of hell on earth.
The other chance would be if it hasn't noticed you and is in "level flight" crossing your field of fire. But let's be real, that is less likely to happen.
Yes, AAA sounds a bit suicidal (especialy considering modern weaponry). Let me just say that in my defense, most of these things i did not know (or consider) when i ticked the AAA box on the form i was given to mark on which weapon school i would want to transfer to.
(Actually after 4 intense months of infantery training, the idea of getting transported by a truck instead of walking everywhere with up to 36kg of gear on the back was very intriguing. As was having probably a sitting job, not having to "walk, crawl, glide... into position". And as a military aircraft enthusiast i had good expectations to not need any training in identifying aircraft siluettes...
And should i mention that i didn't pass the second stage of the "military pilot selection process" shortly prior? 🤫 )
An to end my comment, something else that could be thought provoking: We were told to not waste ammo on leaving aircraft.
(If it has "unloaded" already and there are targets available that have not yet, they are more important to get shot at.)
Well stated. 1100 35mm shells travelling 3000fps in one hairy minute is a lot of BBBRRRrrrrtttttt...
And even then, target acquisition is tricky and momentary.
That part alone is identical to WW2 gunnery struggles. That's how the kamikaze got through. Because making a firing solution on a diving aircraft is nearly impossible, in that making hits, or even a kill, does not negate mass x velocity physics...
Wait, you didn't get accepted into the pilot program so you decided to shoot them down instead?
A small correction, Sea Harriers were only flown by the Royal Navy during the Falklands conflict, the RAF Harrier contribution was 10 GR3's designed for close air support and reconnaissance. Also what you call "Schisshase", would be called "chicken" in the UK. Thanks for the interesting post :-)
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Sorry my bad, you are of course right. No RAF Harriers there, only RN.
@@89DerChristian You don't get to shoot at your own ones! 🤷♂️ Seriously: I bring that as a joke from time to time. (and the timeline is true. I had to come up with a plan b for my immediate future) I had and have no hard feelings about it. The stage i didn't pass, is where (according to the head psychologist who ran this test stage) 98% of candidates at that level didn't make it. (Our airforce was/is small enough that they can be that picky) From what i learned later, i would have been dropped in the next (last) stage of medical checks anyway. One of my comrades made it to that stage and got dropped for having a light pollen allergy. I am "blessed" with that too. (i still don't get what the problem would be with an oxygen mask and filtered air up there, but hey, they can make the rules as they like.) He became an airline pilot later in life.
And lastely: after my time there i switched sides again and i am contributing to keeping aircraft safe for over 20 years now. (not just mil aircraft)
Kudos to the tail gunner throughout the whole of this process!
No shit! That must've been one hell of a ride.
For the pilot, it's a dive. For the gunner, it's a fall into the unknown.
remember the old man saying he saw pilots in asslyum during the war and he was told they were Stuka pilots.
My thought exactly!
I am fairly sure that trim tabs of that style will actually work like servo tabs, deflecting in the opposite direction of the elevator. To trim the elevator up they will deflect slightly down, lightening the control force on the elevator itself. At diving speeds they can be quite effective.
Yup they are servos like said, they deflect up when activated and down during the recovery. I mispoke on their movement and didnt catch it in the edit, I'll add a pinned comment and will address it on the next video on the Ju 87. Thanks for the comment :)
correct!
Another important design reason for the Sicherheitssteuereung is that it prevents a possible stall, when recovering from a dive. Aerodynamically it makes no difference if you stall an aircraft in a steep climb, or when pulling up from a steep dive: it's all about the relative wind and the Alpha angle.
Thats what I though...thanks for the info!
It amazes and interests me how sophisticated the Germans were in designing and engineering the Ju 87 back in the day, the people who built these war machines were very creative, and this is why we love them.
Hans Rudel was not only a great Stuka Pilot, he was a great pilot! He operated that plane that was considered obsolete during the time, and take out a battleship, 600 tanks and about 50 enemy aircraft! Remember, they considered it obsolete, but Hans Rudel didn't listen to that!
Absolutely brilliant design.
1930s?... even more amazing!
Damn the plane collection has expanded quite a bit
"Prevents a violent machine human ground interface" is now my favourite sentence.
Amazing how far engineering was already at this time. Without computers. Amazing.
Perhaps Rudel had an influence in the removal of these automations? I seem to recall in his book that his technicians could fabricate pretty complex systems to allow him to continue flying through various wounds and he built the whole tank busting legend around the Stuka.
The Anfangvorrichtung was no longer required as soon as the 3,7cm cannons were installed, so I doubt it. Since the early tank busters were converted D-models it might be that a few flew with it installed but even there I assume it was disconnected quickly.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I can see a value in placing the function under the Pilot's control rather than being wholly automatic:
IF for whatever reason (enemy equipment, terrain, whatever) Flak was heavier at altitude than lower down, or if there was maybe a an option to use terrain to shield you, then you would rather not regain height, you might prefer to hedge hop?
A subject I know nothing about, a technology of which I had no knowledge, and a theme I never had any desire to learn ... but you made it all clear and interesting. I enjoyed that presentation. Thank you!
I have heard the swinging bracket for the bomb called a "trapeze" elsewhere. I think it was specifically referring to the one on the SBD, but it sounds like a generic-enough term to apply to the Stuka as well.
I've seen so many different terms on it, like bomb crutch, cradle, swing mechanism, seems like as long as it is discriptive enough it works,haha
Also the name for the airship and B-36 carried aircraft launch and recovery cradle.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory >>>
_The gizmo that flings the BOOM-BOOM._
😊😊😊
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman It lowers the Boom.
I've also heard it called "bomb displacement gear" in USN accounts.
Many thanks for your study of the Ju-87, which is perhaps the most under-appreciated plane of WWII. Its ability to move ahead of tanks and troops to precision bomb military targets played a key role in the early Blitzkrieg successes.
Thanks for the bonus episode!
Pleasure :)
Tank you for doing this book and this Video. The other two books didnt realy strike my fancy, but all three are a sign of your progress and of how impactufull youtube historians can be. I am very much looking forward to reading and reviewing your book on my small channel :) Keep up the good work. I am sure there are great projects for you in the future.
Thanky you, looking forward to the review!
I wanted to thank you Chris for making these cool videos, just the right stuff that interests me ☺️ keep up the great work
I am very curious for some numbers associated with the JU-87 dive attack: What was the typical terminal velocity, release height, and G pulled in recovery?
Also, is it really true that JU-87 pilots had their eardrums pierced to prevent pressure buildup during such dives?
Collecting questions on the Ju 87 atm so I'll drop this down and will tackle it hopefully in an upcoming Q&A on the Ju 87 / book project.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Great!
@@oceanhome2023 Reason #2 is moot as Chris covered in the Inside the Cockpit video: The Stuka had explosive charges in the landing gear struts to blow them off if necessary. He phrased it as a way to get rid of an intact strut if the other had been damaged/destroyed so you could belly land the plane rather than trying to land with just one wheel but it would seem that this was also be a good solution for a water landing.
@@oceanhome2023 From your description the pilot in question was probably Eric 'Winkle' Brown. Flew more aircraft types (487) than anyone else, made more carrier take offs (2,407) and landings (2,271) than anyone else. Was the first person to land a twin engined aircraft, a tricycle undercarriage aircraft, a jet and a rotary wing on a carrier. I'm afraid I'm going to take his opinion over yours :-). Just to take him down a peg, he wasn't the greatest writer in the world but his autobiography, 'Wings On My Sleeve' is well worth a read.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 He wasn"t English.
I've always wondered how it worked ever since I learned that the stuka had it! Great, informative video as always!!!
My grandfather was a s
Stuka pilot from 41 to 44 and he did told me about this system, he told me that they often reached G-lock and that the sistem would prevent them from crushing onto the ground. Thx for presenting it to a technical level that now I can understand, back then I was to young to understand and now I'm really sorry that I'm not able to find out more from him!
5:50 The term would be "unscheduled wing - fuselage seperation" ;-)
Or "Improvisational folding-wing aircraft"
I just built a super detailed JU87 model. This was superbly informative. Wow
MCAS: *exists*
modern airline warning systems: *exist*
Ju 87 dive recovery system: *HALT MEIN BIER*
The father of a school friend was a flight engineer in the Luftwaffe and he told me of the only time he had been in a Stuka. One had just been returned from maintenance and had to be test flown and his friend (a pilot) offered him a ride. They climbed, did some manoeuvres then his friend said "Hey Kurt! Hang on!" and then went into the dive. He said all he could see was blue unless he looked over his shoulder and then all he could see was green! Then.... they pulled out. He said all he could see was green and his lunch was about to impact on the cabin floor, walls and canopy. He never flew in a Stuka again.
Super impressive system - I was not aware of this thanks for the info. I hope your book includes mention of the poor SOB in the back who had to endure dive recovery G's while facing backwards. And having to fret while the pilot is recovering from a blackout! Looking forward to your book.
Thanks for the video! I'm sure the book will be just as interesting too. I think the Stuka is the most fascinating aircraft of the war, not only because of its unique features and technology, but also because of its versatility and of course, it's pilots, most notably, Hans-Ulrich Rudel.
I do need that book to be soooo freeee of years and years of questions and doubts !!!
My uncle, who was in the karelian isthmus frontlines during summer of 1944, said that it was a sight to behold when Kuhlmey's stukas hit soviet positions, often 15-20 planes strong. He also said that the pilots were really professional and usually hit their intended targets, wich were mostly staging areas for tanks etc. Said that they often heard tank engines roaring and when stukas paid a visit, it was total silence, only black smoke from where the tanks were.
i tried googling this yesterday, youtube pushed this a day later. im already subbed. danggit
"Violent Human-Ground Interface." What a great turn of phrase! Could be a book or thriller movie title. Kudos for a great program and an excellent phrase
Congratulations on your book! Keep up the good work.
Thanks for this episode. I had always thought the dive recovery was fully automatic. Learned something.
Brilliantly explained. I appreciate the German pronunciations and meanings as well. Subscribed!.
Fantastic explanation for the rest of us dummies, many thanks.
I had learned that Italian pilots using Stukas learned independently to conduct skip bombing. This is dropping a bomb at a certain speed and near horizontal angle that will skip like a stone over the water. It will hopefully strike a vessel near the water line. US pilots used this technique as well in the Pacific.
That was a very ingenious system to add. Sort of the beginning of ideals that lead to fly by wire with computer back ups to keep the pilot from doing maneuvers that neither the pilot or airframe could stand.
Could technically be called a fly-by-wire system too. Since, ya know. Electrical wires with switches and stuff activating them and pulley wires for the control surfaces. XD
@@5peciesunkn0wn He did say it was activated by a series of magnets, wires, pulleys and weights all engaged by one electrical switch.
The USN Douglas SBD Dauntless also used a bomb release cradle. It swung the bomb down to clear the prop when it was released. Very sensible technology, really.
So did the Aichi D3A “Val” dive-bomber of the Imperial Japanese Navy. It’d be interesting who copied who.. though the Stuka pre-dates any other WW2 dive bomber.
@@minot.8931 I've read that Curtiss Aircraft in the US was the first to develop a dive bomber, in the 1930s. The Germans copied that system. It's quite possible Curtiss developed it based on other ideas, need to research.
Always wondered why. Isn’t the plane going faster than the released bomb? I guess this is the kind of thing that you don’t want to leave to chance … a live bomb in the prop blades might not be such a great thing
A fantastic description of the system. I must admit to not giving it much thought but now I know more about it. A clever little system.
It is my understanding that some JU87 aircraft were fitted with either a belly camera, a tail camera or even both. The usual belly camera was a Leica 250-GG "Reporter" camera taking up to 250 24 x 36mm images on a 10m film strip of standard 35mm perforated film (I have one of the earlier but very similar Leica 250-FF Reporter cameras) and with an electric motor drive. The tail camera when fitted, was a smaller and lighter Berning Robot camera, also using an electric motor drive, rather than the clockwork motor drive of the regular Robot cameras. These take 24 x 24mm images but I have not been able to ascertain the length of film in this special version of the camera. The idea was for the belly camera to assess bombing accuracy and the tail camera to assess bombing effectiveness. I have been told the Leica was switched on manually but the Robot automatically, perhaps when the pull out device, which causes the jolt, is activated. Anyone got any more information on this subject?
I have read that one of the reasons some pilots didn't like the system was that it made the dive recovery too predictable for AA gunners.
Very nice video about dive recovery system of the Ju 87. Everybody knows it, but nobody knows how it really works. Thanks for that. I may add my humble suggestion concerning the removal of the Sicherheitssteuerung from the Ju 87 D-5 onward. The Ju 87 D-5 was delivered from the Summer of 1943 onward to the Stukageschwader. At that time tactical changes within the Ground Attack Arm (Schlachtflieger) of the Luftwaffe took place, gradually pushing the Ju 87 into to the role of a ground-attack aircraft (Schlachtflugzeug), instead of the role of a dedicated divebomber (Sturzkampfbomber). This change of role lead to a different attack mode of the Ju 87, emphasising the close air support role instead of the divebomber role. Simply put: Divebombing became less important, especially in steep dives. Maybe attacking by pushing over the wing into a dive, instead of pushing over the nose can be a factor, too. I think the revised armament and armor of the Ju 87 D-5 reflects this changes: switching from 2x MG17 to 2x MG151/20 and more armor for the pilot and engine. One further point may be the simplification of the production of the Ju 87, to get more produced: Entfeinern was the order of the day (for a description of this process see Lutz Budraß, Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918 - 1945). It would be interesting to know if other late war versions (D-7 and D-8 night ground attacker) had the Sicherheitsteuerung also removed, i would bet at least for the D-8, as this version is based on the D-5. Last but not least, it would be interesting to know if divebombers of other nations did employ a similar (or perhaps completly different) dive recovery system as the Ju 87.
Thank you for making this video explaining to us how the Ju 87's 'Automatic' dive recovery system works.
Stuka is the greatest aircraft ever created! Nothing else even comes close!
sehr interessant :). Die Ju87 war schon ein sehr interessantes Flugzeug. Clever gebaut.
4.52 Are you *sure* Chris?
IF you deflect the trim tabs UP that would typically cause the elevators to deflect down, the nose will thenpitch down & the dive will steepen won't it?
At circa 7min you're talking about why have a sicherhaitssteurung (now there's a word to drop into converstaion at the arifield).
Everything you say makes sense but there's a further effect interwoven with all of it which may be another major reason to fit that system.
If the pilot's groggy with high G on pullout maybe there will be a tendency to pull back too hard (as you say). Then, beyond stressing the airframe, there's a pretty high risk of a high speed stall too.
And that would see the JU87 go boofing into the ground like a kayak pancaking off a drop onto water hitting flat with the underside belly.
In other wods, the nose is horizontal, even pointing upward but momentum is taking the aeroplane down, because high angle of attack means the arirflow over the wings is a turbulent mess of a high speed stall with virtually no lift.
(Tried to find an addy to send this to you direct Chris but can't see one)
Hey, I thought I already posted a comment on yours but it seems to be missing - check the pinned comment, the tabs move Down or rather to their neutral position. I misspoke and am very annoyed that I didn't catch it in the edit. thanks for the comment!
Hi Chris! Greetings from the USA.
It's funny about the word Sicherheitssteuerung. When I saw the word on screen I thought literally "safety control" or "safety steering," which of course is not close to the very clear translation you made. You say that you made 4 words out of 1. In English, we think precisely the opposite; that Germans make one word out of many. My favorite is "Hanschuh." I look at it and see "hand shoe." A native German speaker probably just sees the one word for glove. I will never learn to speak German properly!
Anyway... new subscriber here. Very interesting content.
6:15 Close second is a way of putting it... the receivers of that kleines Geschenk suffered formidably higher Gs that the eventually black-outing pilot. No Sicherheitssteuerung nor Upfront Vorrichtung to avail them while they accelerated into bits...
Yeah, that rubbed me the wrong way.
Finally, a video on this topic.
Superb video. Looking forward to the book!
Cheers
I immediately backed this. Looking forward to my signed copy!
It's a beautiful dive bomber and I had my first close encounter with this aircraft at RAF Museum.
I pray I never blackout while I’m pulling out! Gotta ensure we complete the pull out process these days!
I'm guessing you are "Bismarck" that was flying Stukas with Bo. Fun video.
He changed the focus of his channel (less, and now no, gaming coverage) a long while ago, and changed the name a little more recently.
i wish i had one of these systems, would save me a few trips to the pharmacy after 'blacking out' during a pullout sequence
My German grandfather flew the version with the tank killer gun pods. He flew missions in Russia against Soviet tanks and ships. Often, 109s provided air support against Russian fighters.
A smalll distinction between “blacking out” and “tunnel vision” under biggish gees. “Black out” indicates unconsciousness in English, which isn’t what we’re talking about. Tunnel vision is weird as you’re perfectly conscious, but your vision indeed reduces to nothing. Many a year ago, I regularly experienced tunnel vision doing high gee aerobatics, but remained perfectly conscious and aware. And of course extremely aware that avoiding a smoking hole is for the best of all concerned. I can imagine that the Stuka bomber pilots may have taken a dim view of this feature.
As a pilot, imagine regularly going on Stuka dive bombing missions sometimes several times per day! I read the book "Stuka Pilot" written by Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel (Luftwaffe) he was not only the most highly decorated pilot in WW2, he described how violent the attacks were...
that's just so much worse being blind and practically immobile in a high-performance aircraft, I think I'm gonna keep sticking to vr
Well, vision quickly returns once the g forces reduce. Believe it or not, it’s a familiar experience for aero pilots. Not as scary as it sounds.
Know the feeling being in a pitts special as a sandbag , it is creepy as heck when you experience it for the first times , but yeah as soon as you level out it goes away
@@riccapucho they aren’t kidding when they say people can more or less adjust to practically anything
AFAIK trim tabs work opposite, to what you've described. For nose-up trim, the tabs are deflected down, which then raises the elevator up.
Very interesting video
It could also be that the Ablenkvorrichtung was made dual action so that the Bomb didn't have to be dropped, for instance if the Pilot misjudged his aim or maybe even aimed at a friendly unit and noticed that in the dive. Only speculation of course...
Really good pronunciation of the German words. Respect!
He is German.
Do you have a video about the various defensive weapons in luftwaffe bombers? I noticed the Germans used a variety of mounted machine guns and cannons on different turrets. I’d like to hear why they configured them in these ways.
Kraut funder?? LOL good one Chris!
Violent Machine Human Ground Interface...... This is too goood!
Thanks very much. Cannot wait to get the book. All the best.
Thanks Roderick
*CHRIS:* _"...it also prevents a violent machine-human-ground interface..."_
Also known as _"rapid unplanned disassembly."_
😊😊😊
Years ago I met a pilot who started out the war in Ju-87s but stress caused him to transition to Ju-52s.
Very good explanation. I'll get the book ASAP.
You should do a video of your collection of model planes!
Maybe the manual trigger for the dive recovery was so you can still benefit from it if you abort your bomb release?
Yes or if your bomb failed to release or if you wanted to spend another second or two unloading your machine guns into the target before pulling out.
Every time a watch a new video you have a bigger aircraft models collection.
To counter what he says at 10:53, it is much harder to hit it when it is pulling out of a dive, as you now have to range it, consider the Stuka's speed and the bullet speed. When it is coming straight at you, you only really have to range it.
I saw pull up as I was scrolling and thought is CZcams really tryna catch these hands 👊👊
Your understanding of trim tab mechanics is reversed.
For UP elevator the trim tab goes DOWN thus aerodynamically (flying) the elevator upward and resulting in UP elevator pressure or trim.
Everything else looks perfect. Thank you for such an in depth presentation of a very well thought out safety system.
Excellent! I had no idea of the Abfangvorrichtung.
One point and one question:
Point: I can think of no tactical reason to change the initiator of the Abfangvorrichtung. I would not be surprised if it were the results of an economic decision. Possibly the automatic Auslöser simply cost much more than a simple electric switch on the control stick.
Question: How long did the Abfangvorrichtung remain activated and how was it disengaged? I imagine they would design it to at least remain engaged until the AoA was above the horizon. But if the pilot was really blacked-out for so long, and the AbVoRi didn't also automatically disconsciousness
Sehr gut, danke, from Australia!
I really hope we get to the 60k mark. I want my dakkapod stuka training manual! :D
I often experience a lot of g-forces during the pulling out sequence. It is unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as being on the receiving end.
Got it! 😂
As to what you said about the predictability of the dive recovery. I remember reading roughly what you said in a book. I want to say it was the one by Helmut Mahlke.
I just imagined a Ju-87 with a GPWS going "WHOOP WHOOP, PULL UP!"
Terrain Terrain
More interesting Ju 87 stuff.
Good show sir!
I have been diving on a stuka JU87 Plainwreck, interesting plane, enjoyed your explenation. (i have foto's of the dive and willing to share)
Hi Biark, I really enjoy all your work?
excellent explanation ,,did NOT know the real systems involved
Thank you for the explanation. You reminded me of Dr. King Schultz :-)
The Stukka's pull out game is so strong it would put 24 year old me to shame.
Man you slayed those german words!!
The Stuka had a change in wing armament in It’s really to see that dive recovery on the Stuka was improved on later D-5 Stuka. US Navy SBD/SB2C pilots had no problems unlike their Stuka counterparts with dive recovery that flew the SBD Dauntless & SB2C Helldiver had easier dives as did it at 70 degree dive angle this is because they have release the bomb from the cradle in the case of SB2C from the it’s internal bomb-bay with the doors open early for the bomb to hit a moving ship
Did you just say "a cheerful 70 degree angle"? I think most people would think that more of a terrifying angle. :-)
That makes sence, the dive recovery system was activated only with the bomb release switch. So, in case the pilot blacked out on a dive, then the bomb would still be aimed at or near the target and would have more chances of a hit. Although in this case the pilot and the aircraft would be lost, which I don't think happened a lot, maybe with rookie pilots. One point to note is the dynamics of the aircraft upon a bomb release would change drastically, as it gets lighter in a split second and this would help in the recovery.
Got to have a look at the Japanese Aichi D3 dive bomber, which I don't think had an automatic dive recovery system.
I don't think a pilot was likely to black out in a dive, it would be the pull out where that would be likely to happen.
Thanks again Chris for another great vid. l did read a few years ago on Wiki or another source about this, but was astounded that no other vid about Stukas inluded this aspect. Wishing you the very best with the book launch !
how old are you?
@@ashokiimc Why do you ask ?
@@andrewpinner3181 yea i know that doesn't have anything to do with the video, i just wanted to know if you're old enough to remember the 2nd world war or some other war.
Hi Ashok, no l was born in the 60's.
@@andrewpinner3181 do you-remember the moon landings?
A violente machine-pilot-ground interface LMAO that was great
Well, according to a WW2 veteran’s tail who was a navigator of JU 87, without the switch you couldn’t pull up the aircraft from diving. Because you didn’t trust the system or anything else. I guess you can say anything about it now in 2021 but the rest of the video is interesting and sounds legitimate. Well done
Da hat wohl jemand 'ne gute Sache unterstützt; 1 Like für das "Dig Hill 80"-Shirt 👍🏼
I'm sorry I can't say this in German but yes +1 for being a Hill 80 kickstarter. I was one too :-)
"Also, there is no air intake"
Best line from your short.