Any info on this Ju-88?

[Norbert Schuchbauer]

Thanks for the clarification,


Norbert

[ArtieBob]

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

[edNorth]

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

[George Hopp]

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

[edNorth]

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

[Graham Boak]

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?

[edNorth]

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