Re: JU-88 ?
 

There were no Manchesters in 1944.

The Manchester had a shorter span wing, lower aspect ratio, than the one in the photograph.

The one in the photograph has four engines - look at the negative copy if you can't see them on the original posting.

We were talking about Lancasters - right.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Hi Graham,

maybe, on the left wing there is to see something like a second engine, yes. If I wish to see there on this picture four engines maybe I really can see them. So - please tell me - when did they stop using the Manchester ?
And - the negative what you talking about - yes, I add a negative (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/attach...6&d=1295195440), but it isn´t the negative of the picture what Richard K. added in the beginning of this discussion. My negative shows a Lancaster but it is a completely other picture. I added this negative to show the difference (exactly four engines). ;)

Regards,

JohnnyB

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Interesting picture. I tend to agree with Richard; It looks very much like a ME-110, probably a nightfighter. Look at the narrow fuselage and the position of the engines relatively close to the wingroot. And I only see 2 engines. The Lanc, Halifax, Manchester and even the Ju-88 had a wider fuselage. The only British bomber it could be IMO is the Whitley, also relatively narrow fuselage, engines close to the wing root, but had deeper and bulkier wings; on top of this they would not be around over Berlin in Jan 1944, except perhaps with 100 Group Bomber Support. The rest I believe were in Coastal Command.

Greets
Jos :cool:

Re: JU-88 ?
 

It is not an Me110, because that has constant taper from the wingroot whereas this aircraft has a kink in the trailing edge.

The Ju88 has such a planform, where the outer panels taper more than the centre-section, but the engines are closer to the kink point - were this a twin the engines would be too close to the fuselage. OK, I was misunderstanding the negative, but if you look at the aspect ratio, the planform kink and the inner engine position, this has the proportions of a 4-engined aircraft not a twin.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Hi JohnnyB,

Richard's original photo does show a four-engined aircraft.

The key to understanding this is understanding what happens in photography when a moving object is photographed during a moderately long exposure of a few seconds - ghosting and blurring occurs in the image if an object is moving in relation to the camera.

Cameras in the these aircraft were designed to keep the shutter open for a period of seconds in order to synchronise with the explosion of the photo flash (i.e. the longer the shutter is open, the greater the chance that the photoflash will explode while it is open; the illumination of the photo flash would act like a 'flash gun' and freeze motion for the fraction of a second that it exploded).

In the case of Richard's photograph, with the shutter open, either (a) the photographing aircraft moved violently during the exposure and explosion of the photoflash (i.e. the camera was moved in relation to the scene below), or (b) the bright background had enough illumination to record on the film over a few seconds without the aid of a photoflash. The aircraft seen was moving in relation to the camera (but generally moving in the same direction as the photographing aircraft), and I strongly suspect that it was banking - this has caused one inner engine to record as a moderately visible blur on the film, the other inner and one outer engine to record as barely visible blurs, and the remaining outer to hardly record on the film at all.

In the comparison negative that you posted, the image is clear enough to assume that the aircraft seen was illuminated by a photoflash from a stable camera platform, i.e. it is reasonably sharply defined, as opposed to blurred. The difference between the two images is simply the difference between photographing a moving object with a flash in low light and photographing the same moving object in low light without a flash (or ditto but sharply moving the camera during the exposure or keeping the camera still during the exposure).

Cheers

Rod

Re: JU-88 ?
 

I looked at the whole thing again and took measurements from the enlarged picture, s.a. width of the elevator, distance from elevator leading edge to wing trailing edge, distance from engine nacelle to wingtip and devided these figures by the same measurements from profiles that I have in books. In theory these divisions should give the same result for all different areas that I measured. I did this for the ME-110, the JU-88 and the Lanc and indeed the figures for the Lanc matched best. The ME and the JU had at least one that did not match. Also looking at the distance of the engine nacelle to the wingtip, this is too long for it to be a ME110 or a JU88. A bit scientific approach but it seems to work. This and the shape of the elevator, which is perhaps the clearest part in the picture, as well as the shape of the wings convinced me that this must indeed be a Lancaster. I fail to see 4 engines but that could indeed be the moving object vs. long shutter speed issue.

Interesting discussion though!
Cheers
Jos :cool:

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Hi Richard,

never a 110...