Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

Thanks for the clarification,


Norbert

Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

W.Nr. 4001 was assembled at NDW Wismar. There were 3 a/c assembled in Jan. and 4 in Feb. 1940. This was probably one of those, but acceptances did not always (in fact, almost never) follow exact W.Nr. sequence as a result of problems that might require rework and additional flight testing. My records indicate A-12 conversion deliveries began in Mar. 1943. I believe the A-12s would all have had wooden props and the intercooler arrangement as per A-4, C-6, etc.


Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

Hi all

Ok - I guess ´ArtieBob´ has all the numbers lined up ????
Was W.Nr. 0884001 accepted by RLM BAL Perleberg or some other location ?????

edNorth

Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

Since the 1st photo shows a wingtip unit beyond the aileron tip, it would probably be an A-5 rather than an A-1.

Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

Hi all

Yes I saw the wingtip also. The span was increased to lower VMC (Single engine minumum safety speed) and all surviving A-1´s upgraded after autumn 1940... however the basic airframe was still the Serie A-1.

edNorth

Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

Can you clarify this point, please? Improvements to the Vmc will normally come from changes to the directional stability (yaw) - i.e. larger fin/rudder. Extending the wingtips would improve the lateral stability (roll).

Indeed, increasing the wing area will have reduced the take-off speed, thus increasing any interval between Vunstick and Vmc, thus placing the aircraft more at risk?

Admittedly the two stabilities tend to be linked - in this case yaw leading to roll as one wing "digs in". I can see how a reduction in the rate of roll due to yaw would be beneficial during this stage, but increasing the span wouldn't have been the change of choice to improve Vmc, surely?

Re: Any info on this Ju-88?
 

Hi Graham

Well. Yes you may have a point there. I´m perhaps not the best person to explain this in detail. An qualified engineer likely could do better. But if you extend the wing you get higher ´aspect ratio´ - then ´smaller in velocity wingtip wortices´ and hence less drag flying at an high angle of attack, such as flying near Vmc just after take off - or thus flying at lesser angle of attack creates the same amount of lift - Then yes losing power on the ´critcal engine´ <the left engine> flying at below Vmc will lead to disaster - but solution to that is reducing the power on the good engine, pushing the stick forward to pick up speed and control is <hopefully> regained (but with small or large sink-rate). If too low altitude an controlled crash may result!

The quotation on lower Vmc I saw somewhere but may be confusion to lowering the wingloading and or lowering the stall speed. Anyway I would have extended the original Ju 88 A-1 wings on account of ´lesser drag/greater range/more payload and likely better manoverability with more effective inset-ailerons.

Having surveyed Ju 88 losses it indeed comes to light ´very high rate of belly-landings due to engine failures´. So If you had lost the critical engine a Ju 88 you might have been trained to land wheels up, rather than to lower the wheels and thus creating greater drag and stalling on final approach.

Anyway I have never flown an Ju 88 but I have limited twin-flying experience on light-twins; once actually landing with an ´dead´ engine...

... and yes the fin and rudder was indeed enlarged on the Ju 188 E & Ju 88 G.

cheers
edNorth