Ju 88 Werk-Nr. 790

[Icare9]

So Oleg needs to correct his thread caption to the correct production number as Werk No. 0880798?

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Ed

I was hoping you were going to come to our rescue!

When Junkers were building their WNr range 0880022 and up, no doubt they were trying to maximize their output. Trouble with getting the A-4 right made them continue with the old A-5 version which if I have understod things right was a sort of stop gap version.

Now were some aircraft already on the production line taken aside and built from the beginning as A-5F or was that done entirely at some kind of modification center?

Since, again if I have understood things right, the D-2 model was a way for Luftwaffe to maximize the range AND have a camera in place since the camera no longer intruded on the fuel cells, were they all converted from A-5F or were some even converted straight away to D-2? Or were they even built from scratch as D-2 without any conversion at all?

Finally were in such a case all D-2s produced from A model batches while the D-1s were built from scratch in their separate 0880430001 and up batch? So far I have not seen any independent D-2 batch being built.

Cheers
Stig

[edNorth]

Stig, Ju 88s were alreay then built as multi version airplane and fitted out in the factory and simply assigned W.Nr. in current production ranges without regard to version. All this was drawn into "factory floor" individual aircraft W.Nr. plans some weeks in advance. Samples of these do exist.

Upgrades was constant and never ending work, and many spares contracts made in this period, just not popular research project. But all them contract numbers, costs and such is available. Ju 88 A-1/5 0886146 CF+VP held in storage in Berlin is one such aircraft.

I say, research on German WW2 individual aircraft types, not mentioing plans and costs and such are incomplete (defect) products.

True D-2 appeared from 0772 and up only to 0890. 85 examples ordered. Not as a batch, but own version. Still mixed in with others, in Ju 88 A or C versions. Again: Not conversions, but confusion still clouds your head, many Ju 88 C were such, not done in factory and Special ones appearing too. Many older A-5 F appear as D-2 in GQM losses in error "because clercks at units and GQM office transferred designation D-2 to A-5 Fs already in service". The 0880001 and up was built by Junkers, as A-1 to about 0400, then A-5 take over - in mid batch - betweem 0364 and 0400. Older planes / survivours upgrded at A-5 (wings) even undelivered and still in Factory, as deliveries were more in near random order than many think. But average was progessive order.

Ju 88 A-4s only appearing in very late spring / summer 1941 in 0881001 range, not soon enough be able carry Yellow "Crete invasion markings" as Revell A-4 kit has. Those markings are pure fakes regarding only carried by A-5´s. If Revell had installed snow skiis on their model, that would make them MORE true - because they were factory equipped for recieving them.

Bottom line is, many designations of this period often are muddled in GQM losses, and the hard evedence, their actual delivery paperwork is not available. Some exists, more samples I found in BArch last week.

But A-5 and A-4 were made along each other in beginning, but D-2 was only official from March 1941, after many were built, co-inciding with first few A-4, all going to testing. Because of manufacturing problem up to 67 planes stood idle at Bernburg and could not be flown because of missing parts. Situation only overcome my late summer.

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Icare9

So Oleg needs to correct his thread caption to the correct production number as Werk No. 0880798?

Shure, of course, whould you not do it if it was 088/1xxx, or 088/2xxx etc.
Null does matter!

[edNorth]

"Since, again if I have understood things right, the D-2 model was a way for Luftwaffe to maximize the range AND have a camera in place since the camera no longer intruded on the fuel cells, were they all converted from A-5F or were some even converted straight away to D-2? Or were they even built from scratch as D-2 without any conversion at all?"

Stig, all A-1 / A-5 had ballast in tail. Placing cameras behind Spant 15 reduced or eliminated the need for this ballast too. And addend mobility regarding operations.

But I will stop here, to continue reseach on stuff brought back.

Ed

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Ed

Situation more complicated than I thought then. I wonder if the Germans had any comparison to the Yanks and their SNAFU? It sure seems they needed one....

Cheers
Stig
PS: At least the placing of the camera behind spant 15 seems to have been a win-win idea

[edNorth]

Look in your mail, trop equipment placed behind Spant 15 as well. -Ed