|
Junkers 88 questions
Hi Guys
With reference to Artie Bob's book and that no errata page has yet been started up, I have the following questions.
a) On page 32 it is said (Picture) that D-ASCY was the V6, while in the table 4-1 on page 36 D-ASCY is said to have been the V8 and V6 was in fact D-AQKD. Which is correct?
b) Can someone explain the table 5-1 on page 45 with a breakdown of sub-types relating to the WNr?
c) The WNr listed basically correpond to the number built for all the various Contractors, EXCEPT for Junkers themselves. The Bernburg production listed starts with 0022 (not 0021 as given which is a printing error) and goes all the way to 0655, which makes 634 built A-models. However the total summary in the right hand column only list 282 + 334 which is 616. Can someone explain this please?
d) In table 5-1 Arado is given as manufacturing the WNr range 3001 - 3292
and Henschel the range 2001 - 2320, but looking at table 8-1 on page 99, Arado is constantly listed a builders of range 20xx aircraft and Henschel of 30xx aircraft. Which is correct?
Since I am for the first time trying to make something of a production list for the Ju 88A, it is a bit frustrating to try and do so with the help of this book.
I am not competent enough to evaluate the book as such, although I discover errors, but my main criticism at this stage, are three. They are my own and is more concerned with lay out then facts, which of course makes the very subjective....
- Why does every author so often try and "re-invent the Wheel"? Pages 1 - 22 could have been shortened to one maybee two pages. There are plenty of Junkers books out there and anyone generally interested can buy any of those.
- This is a book about the Ju 88, so why is the Ju 288 included? It has nothing to do with the topic. To a certain degree I can understand why the Ju 188 and 388 get included, but to my thinking it is a waste of space. The Ju 188 deserves a seperate book and we already have a valid book about the Ju 388.
- The chapter Comparison with Contemporaries is also far too long, does basically very little of what it states, since most of the pages are only desciptions of the other types and no real comparison at all. Again a waste of pages.
Cheers
Stig
|