Which aircraft required a longer runway, the He 111 or the Ju 88 ?

[oquaig]

Hi everyone,

Just another simple question: What was the minimum runway length for a fully loaded Ju 88, as opposed to a fully loaded He 111, for take off on a grass airfield? The inverse of that question is: what was the minimum airfield length for landing of these two types of aircraft under the same conditions ?

Thanks in advance
oquaig

[Larry deZeng]

Hi Oquaig,

I cannot recall the primary source so you should take this with a grain of salt until one of the other members comes along with better information. But I have vague recollections of seeing (perhaps in the HW5 ULTRA intercepts?) where the Ju 88 needed a few meters more than the He 111 did under your specifications.

L.

[Revi16]

It would depend on which models of the Ju 88 and He 111 that you are referring too and it would also depend on the temperature and altitude of the airfield that they are taking off from.

Identically loaded aircraft taking off from an airfield located at sea level will use less runway on a 0*C day versus a 30*C day. As the elevation of the airfield increases or the temperature increases, so does the takeoff run required for the same aircraft.

Another variable is "flap settings". You can takeoff and land with various flap settings which will affect takeoff/landing distance.

[MW Giles]

See

http://www.allworldwars.com/Ju-88-Fl...ns-Manual.html

Cannot vouch for veracity but seems to deal with Ju88 A models

MG

[Juha]

Same figures as in the Finnish Ju 88A-4 Pilot's Notes, in fact might well be a copy of the English translation of the Finnish Pilot's Notes. That claim is based on only a short glances at both. But of course might well be an independent translation of the original German document.

[Snautzer]

Ju188 test rapport


.

[oquaig]

Hi everyone,


The He 111 was a larger aircraft and slightly heavier with the less powerful version of the Jumo 211 engine. I was suspecting the He111, a little slower and heavier would need a longer take off run (He 111 H wing span 74' length 54' 27400 lbs; Ju 88 A5 wing span 65' length 47' 27000 lbs.) I took a look at these airfields to see if there was difference between their size and the types of aircraft based there:


Luftwaffe Airfields 1935-45
Airfields
Germany (1937 borders)
Henry L. de Zeng


Lüneburg: KG 26 He 111 P


Dimensions: approx. 1150 x 1600 meters (1250 x 1750 yards) with a
rectangular shape.


Surface and Runways: level, good quality grass surface Not paved
runway...


Wünsdorf: KG 3 Ju 88 A5


Dimensions: approx. 1260 x 730 meters (1375 x 800 yards)...


Surface and Runways: grass surface on chalky sub-soil...


But this doesn't really support that argument...the reason I asked is because I was reading that III./KG 4 (He 111 H) was originally slated to fly from Grivas airfield, 3 km west of Daugavpils (aka., Dünaburg west) in July 1941 and the excuse for not sending it there was that the runway was too short. So III./KG 4 went to Prowehren instead. I believe now it was because the airfield was too crowded as Stab.I.II.III./kg 77 (Ju 88 A5) and Kampfgruppe zbV 106 with its Ju 52s both occupied this place. The rail supply situation was really tight with the Army and the Luftwaffe knocking heads over who had priority over available trains. Most of the air supply runs to 16th Army and the Luftwaffe units based in the Ostrov/Korovoi Selo/Rosko Polje/Pskov area originated from here, the closest railhead. Plus all the road bound supplies originated here for 16th Army and Panzergruppe 4 and the forward elements of Fliegerkorps I.


Grivas: KG 77 Ju 88 A5


Dimensions: approx. 1000 x 400 meters although the field itself is 2000 meters long and 400 meters wide.


Surface and Runways: grass surface