Most iconic planes of World War I and World War II

[DaveC426913]

It could be for a similar reason. Low wing position allows shorter landing gear struts which cause less drag and are probably stronger - an advantage when you need to operate out of rough air-strips.

Wiki:
"Its rugged fixed undercarriage allowed it to land and take-off from improvised airstrips close to the battlefront, giving close support to the advancing German forces."

 

[Astronuc]

It could be for a similar reason. Low wing position allows shorter landing gear struts which cause less drag and are probably stronger - an advantage when you need to operate out of rough air-strips.

I think it to do with the large bomb carried underneath the fuselage.

The Ju 87A was able to carry a single 500 kg bomb but only without the rear gunner and at short ranges.

The Ju 87B might have been able to carry a single 1000 kg bomb but only without rear gunner and at short ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

IIRC, the bomb was attached to a hinge and cradle underneath the fuselage. The hinge allowed the bomb to clear the propeller in a dive (like the SDB Dauntless).

 

[turbo]

Out of curiosity, I Googled Stuka, and the consensus seems to be that the decision to stick with fixed landing gear was driven by the need for structural integrity. These planes were designed to dive at 80 degree angles and the abrupt pull-up after bomb release demanded very strong wings. Wing strength would have been compromised by the addition of recesses for retractable landing gear, so the wheels were mounted on fixed struts. The reverse-gull-wing design was adopted so that the struts could be as short as practical, which made them less prone to flexure on landing and take-off in rough airstrips. The struts and wheels were skirted to reduce drag in the air, and also to make them less likely to be fouled by vegetation, etc in the rough makeshift airfields that the Stukas were deployed from. Since their landing gear was very simple and rugged, the Stukas could be based very near the front lines and could fly more sorties per day than planes with retractable landing gear that had to use more conventional airstrips. This gave better air-support to the ground troops, more opportunities to destroy bridges and attack convoys, etc, and saved in fuel (very important!). When the cowlings around the wheels were reduced in size (later in production) they were often removed in the field because mud could foul them and prevent the wheels from spinning freely.

 

[MadScientist 1000]

Thinking stragetically about the Ju87B's ability to carry a single bomb, wouldn't it be better to just put multiple, smaller bombs mounted under the undercarriage in rows of 2, which would give the bombs a better chance of hitting the target.

I mean, the same principle is used on the Starscream I missile used on the Thor Anti Aircraft (and also anti naval and ground systems since the Star I can target tanks, and ships (basically an anti everything missile)) Mobile Defense systems (Star I has 3 smaller darts that can track a target using the grid laser projected from the Thor system.)

I used a parenthesis inside a parentheis

 

[Cyrus]

what are you talking about?

 

[edward]

what are you talking about?

LOL here is the only Starscream that I know about.
http://www.tfu.info/2001/Decepticon/StarscreamClear/starscream.htm

The Thor mobile anti aircraft system is real.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/thor.htm

But if the mad scientist can get it to work, more power to him.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thinking stragetically about the Ju87B's ability to carry a single bomb, wouldn't it be better to just put multiple, smaller bombs mounted under the undercarriage in rows of 2, which would give the bombs a better chance of hitting the target.

The whole point of the Stuka and its ability to dive on a target at very steep angles is to make hitting the target a lot more possible. That being the case, they can put a single, bigger bomb on the plane. (which is better payload-wise than several smaller ones).