Looking for info on force-landed Ju88A 4U+UL of 3.(F)/123

[edNorth]

Paul. You are missing the whole point. I am not going to write an whole essay explaining why I say this is so and so, D-5 or not. This is definately not year 1940 or early 1941, as the gentleman abowe are speculating about (and then putting some question mark on the accuracy, the quality or the ability of the ´expert´ researchers of the EOE project - see another thread here on TOCH - but they themselves have to answer for that). The D-1´s possibly exised more on paper in early 1941 (apart from testing examples) but from March 1941 the poduction version was still the D-2, by May 1941 only a few A-4 / D-1´s´s had been made - and none I know of flew in ´The Blitz´ over England prior to June 1941 (so far as I know anyway). And in June 1941 I am yet to find there are or were any D-1 lost at all. Only in July 1941 on the Eastern Front do we find a loss for D-1.

We both agree this has all the hallmarks of an A-4 airframe. However I say this is possibly likely LATER than the ´early standard A-4´, possbly even A-4/trop, D-5/trop or D-1/trop. (Late rudder with aerodynamic balance on top, has slant mid-post in upper main front canopy window, has ejector stubs for the wing anti-ice hot-air on nacelles, flame dampers, long wings, etc.) I agree there might possibly be one more detail obscured by the KOPIESCHUTZ ´sticker´ on fuselage top surface. So one has just too see if someone here won this and can put us straight. W.Nr. usually was painted on the missing part of fin (of 4U+UL) but often not painted or pained over.

Just looking at the Props I see VDM thin cord meal props but the D-1 usually had VS II wooden props, right? However if this is D-1, it does not match the data I have found out over the years. And finally Brian Filley´s Squadron/Signal books are fair to good but far from perfect in many ways.

Best regards
ed

[George Hopp]

Hi Larry and George,

Must be February 1942 or later as this is D-5 version, as it was not produced or entered service before that time.

*You both need some polishing up on the Ju 88 series aircraft recognition skills ...

Oh I imagine we all could use some help in IDing the Ju 88, Ed.

But, if you had read my posting a bit more closely you would have seen that I was responding to the date and not the aircraft type. I had noticed in passing that the a/c had an A-4 vertical tail, but I was trying to help Larry with the date 27 May 1940, and simply didn't worry about the a/c type. So, thank you for your comments on that.

But, since you called it a Ju 88 D-5, what makes it so? Especially since you didn't answer Paul's question about it.

[obdl3945]

Hi...

Ed, thanks for your additional posting. I understand better now, as you've explained the sub-types and entry into service aspects, but I do still think my question is pertinent in that if someone makes a seemingly definitive statement as in this case, that this particular aircraft is a D-5, then the confirmation of that - not the reasoning behind the person's conclusion - should be shared. That was what my question was asking you to do. In other words, I have no problem with your reasoning; that is logical and sound enough. It is, however, the incontrovertible proof, if you or anyone else has it, that I was asking for.

If you had said in your original posting, I think, or I believe this to be a D-5 because.... etc, then that would've been fine, as it would've allowed a degree of leeway, in case it turned out to be a different outcome to that expected. It is your apparent confidence that this is definitely a D-5 that I find a little unusual. I would not seek to diminish your obvious knowledge of sub-type production and entry into service dates and timescales, but I have seen several highly unusual hybrids of Ju88s over the years to believe that there is probably room for manoeuvre here. You may well be proved 100% correct in the long run, but personally, I think unevidenced statements can be rather misleading, and ultimately hinder, not help, the matter.

Kindest regards...