Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Graham. I know this maybe is not mine to answer, but since I am mixed in anyway.

I know you are maybe a Rocket expert (hypothesis A), or not (hypothesis B). But I have read your comment abowe with open mind. This what follows might sound silly but here goes.

One Apple (Ju 88 A-1, C-1, A-2, C-2, D-2, A-3, C-4, A-5, A-6) + one Orange (Ju 88 A-4, D-1, C-6) + one Banana (Ju 188, 388) = Fruits (Luftwaffe, Ju 88 series program). All can be grown in Tropics but also in Arctic areas, given enough heat and light.

Conclusion: I eat all.

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

?

Re: Ju 88 A variants
 

Graham,

Question mark then probably means you do not understand what I am getting at. Thats quite normal. Not understanding or knowing the Ju 88 ´production history´ can lead to many mis-conclutions and many statements (you make are in your post) - to my best here-to-research - do not seem true at all. Maybe its my fault too of not having finished research. But mixing the /trop issue into the discussion on A-1, A-5, A-4 really is mind boggling.

Ok. Here goes. To put later Jumo 211 J engines (as used on A-4 later) on A-1 or A-5 early airframe, you need changing wings but also the fuselage. But then the W.Nr. also changes, because the W.Nr. follows this. I have no confirmation of A-1 rebuilt as A-4. Its as simple as that.

Basic production versions were the A-1, A-5 and A-4 (all others just matter of engines, equipment and subsequent production standards). All other designations were conversions, but yet some versions came direct from assembly line (like D-1 and C-6). All /trops were conversions at first but at certain point (but long after A-4 entered production) then on ALL were /trop. Even the D-1, C-6 and G series. There were three basic wings. Three basic fuselages. Three basic tails. etc. F.e. one could not use E wings on A-4 series.

Do not let multiple of different W.Nr´s fool you. Really understanding these however it brings us to the point that there were no hybrids, just conversions, rebuilds and experimental aircraft.

The point with Apples and Oranges. This is like some politicians very much like doing (to confuse the public I guess): Comparing things that are not comparable and drawing conclusions to their own liking.

No offence meant.

Best regards
ed