JU-88 ?
 

I have a strike photo with another aircraft taken with the photo. Possibly a JU-88. Any idea if this is correct.
Thanks Richard

Re: JU-88 ?
 

That wing certainly looks Junker. Do you have a date? Could also be a 188.

Hows the weather in Squaw Fallout these days?

Re: JU-88 ?
 

This photo was taken over Berlin on Jan 28/29,1944
Richard

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Looks like a Halifax to me. The overall proportions do not seem to match a twin.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

I would say yes, it is a Ju88.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

The shadows from the flash and vibration of the camera are playing a few tricks but I would concur that it is a Ju-88.

A Halifax Graham? I only see two engines? Unless, someone was using a Manchester.

Stephen

Re: JU-88 ?
 

I think it's a Halifax too. I can see a tail turret as well as four engines. :)

Re: JU-88 ?
 

The wing profile does not look like that of a Halifax. The only other aircraft with a similar wing is a B-17. They were not in service at this time unless a USAAF aircraft was part of this raid.
Richard

Re: JU-88 ?
 

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html

Berlin: 677 aircraft - 432 Lancasters, 241 Halifaxes, 4 Mosquitos.

imo wing profile fit Halifax perfectly

see

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/halifax5.html and http://reference.findtarget.com/sear...age%20Halifax/

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Dear gentleman,

never this is a Halifax - also not an Ju88. Note the shape of the elevator.


To compare :

Halifax silhouette

http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previ...halifax-1.jpeg

Ju88 silhouette

http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previ...unkers-88.jpeg


More silhouettes :

http://www.fotolibra.com/gallery/421539/germany-2/like/


Regards

JohnnyB

Re: JU-88 ?
 

The wing also has a similar shape of a 110. One wonders it was lining up the Lancaster that took the photo?
Richard

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Hi Richard,

I believe it is clearly the profile of a Lancaster.

Pointers:

1. the aircraft appears to have four-engines. The vibration of the photographing aircraft, combined with a slowish shutter speed of the camera and the brightness of the cloud/haze below has meant that the engines don't record all that clearly in the image. The shadows all all four engines can be made out, with the port-inner the clearest, followed by the starboard-inner and port outer. The starboard-outer is only just visible.

2. The wing profile is that of a Lancaster. The inner engines are at the correct point on the wing - i.e. the wing leading and trailing edges converge just outward of the two inner engines, and the wing tip is rounded.

3. The horizontal stabiliser profile is that of a Lancaster. Notice the forward-swept angle of the tailing edge of the elevators, and the slight angle of the leading edge of the stabilisers. The outer tips of the stabilisers are flat and conceivably connect to the vertical fins.

4. the bulge of the rear turret can be made out.

Cheers

Rod

PS - following is a profile from the web of the Lancaster: http://d951443.u114.weberz.com/image...le_drawing.JPG

Re: JU-88 ?
 

I've done a bit of work using Photobucket to try to enhance the aircraft, I'm not sure about the number of engines visible but the wing profile and the tailplane/elevator shape certainly looks Lancaster-ish.
Max

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i8...rikephoto1.jpg

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Here a lancaster. I convert this image to negative. Clearly to see four engines.

Regards,

JohnnyB

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Certainly not a B-17, (which in its ECM role wouldn't be over the target area anyway) because this has wings of constant taper, as has the very similar Stirling wing. This aircraft has a constant chord centre-section and taper outboard. Like the Halifax, Lancaster, and Ju88. The aspect ratio (wingspan to chord ratio) appears too long for an 88, although this may be arguable (if we don't use the inappropriate A-1 as a guide!) but the 88 has greater outboard taper giving narrower tips.

This aircraft has too long a nose for a Ju.88, and I can see four engines (just). If you think of it as a twin, then the engines are too far inboard, they are much more consistent with the inboard pair of four. The tailplane is wide in chord and squared off, consistent with the endplate fins of the British bombers not the longer taper of an 88.

I still think it a Hali, but I guess could be a Lanc.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

I think it is a Lanc too, as the tail plane has a 'fairly' straight leading edge while the elevators angle inwards from each side of the rear turret to the vertical fins. All very much a what you would expect for a Lanc and exact opposite of a Halifax which had a swept back leading edge on the tailplane.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

OK, it's a Lanc. My final comment was written before seeing the negative. Excuses excuses.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Yes Larry, because of this finally I think too that it is a Lanc.

The image below shows what you talking about :

http://www.airpages.ru/draw/lanc_01.gif

Regards,

JohnnyB

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Another Lancaster to compare.

Re: JU-88 ?
 

Hi Richard,

I think I got it now. We talked about Halifax and Lancaster, all wrong. Because your picture showing really a two-engine plane.
This is a Avro-Manchester.
Look at this link :

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/eng...manchester.gif

Regards,

JohnnyB

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...