Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

Landing a Ju 88 on a carrier might be just a bit more difficult. A Ju-88A-4 at 24,000lbs (1300lbs over empty equipped) has a wing loading of 39.2 lbs/sq ft. A Mosquito F MK II at 15000lbs (1600lbs over empty but not empty equipped?) has wing loading of 33 lbs/sq ft. Granted there is more than wing loading to lift but still? Stopping a 24,000lb plane on the carrier may prove interesting too.

I will note in the Ju 88s favor that while it didn't carry a 57mm gun it did carry twin 37mm guns and a very powerful 75mm gun so that distinction is either a wash or in the Ju 88s favor. I would also note that good as the Lancaster was, it might have had a bit more difficulty dropping those tallboy bombs on a moving ship. Getting another aircraft to do a job doesn't really speak to the versatility of the first aircraft either.

yeah the A4's used the RATO, all the way up to the 'P' IIRC. Heavy Bombs loads and extreme short field takeoffs.

Ratsel said:

yeah the A4's used the RATO, all the way up to the 'P' IIRC. Heavy Bombs loads and extreme short field takeoffs.

Click to expand...

Which is it, heavy bomb load or extreme short field?

The A series planes had low power and small wings for their weight. A2 2400hp and a 565 sq ft wing for 22,840lbs. A4 had 2680hp and 586sq ft for 30,865lbs. it was worse than the A2.

The A4 has a wing loading just a few % lower than an american A-20 or B-26 and B-25. ALL of them had a better power to weight ratio.

what does the A-20 / B-25 / B-26 have to do with it? Totally different animals. As to which one... both, not at the same time obviously.

Just using them for comparison. And that brings us back to the original point. If you need rockets to take-off from a standard field with a decent bomb load your plane isn't versatile, it is under powered. The higher powered plane can take-off from the short field with a light load without using rockets.

carrying beyond its maximum payload capacity. it obviously has the power to take off at maximum payload on standard fields.

Kindest regards

If you could replace the Merlins on a Mossie with turbojets it would look almost like a 1950s era high-speed twin-engined bomber. Replace the Jumos on a JU88 with turbojets and it would look like a joke. I have a feeling the only reason a JU88 may of done something the Mossie didn't was because nobody asked the Mossie to do it.

The Ju 88 was a marvelously versatile aircraft, as were the Mosquito and the P-38. Liking the Mosquito doesn't change that.

Many respected authors such as William Green, Martin Caiden, and others of similar ilk all agree that the Ju 88 was a far better aircraft than it was ever expected to be, and one of the mosy versatile in the war. Whether or not it was the best at versatility doesn't change the fact that is was a great plane that gave yeoman service to Germany when asked to do it.

You Mosquito fans like the Mosquito becasue it did the same thing for England.

GregP said:

You Mosquito fans like the Mosquito becasue it did the same thing for England.

Click to expand...

Britain, please, there's a good chap; upsetting the Irish, Scots, and Welsh, by ignoring them, is not recommended.
I don't recall ever decrying the Ju88, and rather resent the implication that that's what I'm doing; it should be remembered that the Mosquito also proved its (Air Ministry) detractors completely wrong, so it, too, was far better than expected. Although it has nothing to do with operational versatility, it also made use of a virtually redundant (wood-working) workforce.
Edgar

Ratsel said:

carrying beyond its maximum payload capacity. it obviously has the power to take off at maximum payload on standard fields.

Kindest regards

Click to expand...

OK, what was it max load weight WITH the rockets as opposed to without the rockets? what were the take-off distances?

12,50 ton 570m roll to takeoff 2400 rpm @ 1.25ATA
13,00 ton 650m roll to takeoff 2400 rpm @ 1.25ATA
13,75 ton 750m roll to takeoff 2400 rpm @ 1.25ATA (overloaded)

Take-off during day with overloaded airplane is only allowed from concrete surfaced airfield, up to 13,75 tones from a prepared airfield or hard, even surfaces grass airfield.

Take-off during night is only allowed with 13 ton weight.

Additionally the numbers for take-off roll given by Rechlin have to be noted (see appendix in the end of this part).

Lift-off speed:

Va= 175 km/h when take-off weight is 13 000 kg

Va= 180 km/h when take-off weight is 13 750 kg

With smaller take-off weights the lift-off speed is a little smaller.

When sufficient altitude has been reached (approx. 30-50 m), the throttle is moved from the position "Start" ("Start") to position "Climb power" ("Steig leistung") and at the same time propeller pitch lever to the according RPM.

For 30 min. time power can remain (climb and combat power)


Take-off with start rockets (If installed.)

During engine warm up ran, from a pilot's signal, special mechanic will open the pressure air valve of start rockets.

Special mechanic will give the all clear sign for taxiing. Before take-off the start rockets which are turned on. All signal lamps including the red lamps must then turn on in the start rocket switch box.

Landing flaps, trim tabs and propellers etc. are adjusted in the take-off without the start rockets.

After about 10 sec. of take-off roll equaling 100-150 m distance, the bombardier will depress the button in the start rocket switch box or in the right hand side instrument panel thus switching on the take-off aids. Then the lower signal lamp will turn off. Note that normal take-off roll distance will be reduced to 375m with the normal 12,50 ton weight.

If take-off has to be aborted for one reason or another it can be done by turning the switch in the start rocket box or in the right hand side instrument panel to position "Off' ("Aus"), thus immediately switching off the rockets.

Under no circumstance it is allowed to turn on the start rockets that have been once turned off. Undercarriage is retracted immediately after take-off. The airplane must not be pulled too hard because after 30 sec. the thrust will be reduced and the airplane pulled on to too high angle of attack will be prone to stall.

When the rockets have emptied 2x125 kg of extra weight and also additional air resistance. (Must be noted in turns and when opening landing flaps.)

Rockets are dropped by the bombardier at not less than 125 m from the ground.

Release lever (which is kept behind pilot's seat) is put on its place to right, low next to the pilot's
seat and the lever is pulled up.

Rockets are not allowed under no circumstance to be released when in use.

Nevertheless the pilot can at any moment without any danger release the rockets either using them up or switching them of before the release.

Only in emergency the release will be done at less than 150 m, because then the parachute will not
have time to open and the rockets will be broken.

Rockets have been properly jettisoned when the markers disappear.

If after operating the release lever one or both signal lamps are still on, the airplane is briefly pulled when holding the release lever pulled up. If the rockets do not drop the flight has to be aborted. Landing with the rockets aboard will be executed ordinarily as long as the maximum landing weight is not exceeded.

After releasing the rockets the rocket switch box switch has to be set to position "Off ("Aus").

Shortround6 said:

If the rockets can get you out of a very small field then it is versatile, If you need the rockets to get out of a normal field with a respectable bomb load and fuel then they are a crutch because your normal engines aren't powerful enough.

The Ju 88 may have been versatile or forced to do a lot of jobs but a bomb truck it wasn't. Weren't the rockets used on the A2 version? 1200hp engines?

Click to expand...

Which is why it was not the best bomber (Sorry Ratsel, but it is not the best bomber bar none!").

It was however a very successful and versatile aircraft. Up there with the Mossie as most versatile in my opinion.

Sorry I said 'England!" I had not realized it was, in any way, a touchy subject ... I suppose that is a bit insensitive, but I had not even considered the ramifications.

Britain it is, going forward.

GregP said:

Sorry I said 'England!" I had not realized it was, in any way, a touchy subject ... I suppose that is a bit insensitive, but I had not even considered the ramifications.
Britain it is, going forward.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be touchy, but there will always be the super-sensitive type, who'll bridle at "England."
On a similar line, I've known many local veterans, who're livid at "Pegasus Bridge," in Normandy, since it was the Oxford Bucks L.I. who captured it, and held it until the Paras turned up, hours later.
Edgar

Over the years, I've noticed a lot of things in Europe that ruffle the feathers of Euopeans. The reason we (US citizens) perhaps seem to do that more than other sis we didn't grow up in Europe to acquire local knowldge of what is offensive and what is not. I find it hard to believe that even the legendary "ugly American" would deliberately ruffle the feathers ... it is much more likely to be done out of simple ignorance of the preferred terms.

I suppose if I grew up in close proximity to countries we had been at war with over several centuries, I might also feel differently about those peoples, even if they were neighbors.

This thread, telling me that British is preferred to English, is the first time I have ever thought of the difference between the two words and, yes, it makes me think a bit about it. To tell the truth, I wondered for years what the difference bewteen "England" and "Great Britain" was. It isn't covered in many articles of books that I have seen, they seem to assume you know that fact. You stating that British includes the places other than England makes things abundantly clear, expecially as I think back of what I've seen in books and articles. Come to think of it, you never hear of the "English Empire," it is always the "British Empire."

I used to work with one former Engliishman in Arizona who went "home" for a visit after being in the States for more than 20 years. He is now a US citizen, but will never lose his English accent completely (yes, I realize that in Great Britain, it is me who has the accent ...). He was incensed at the tunnel under the English Channel becuase he considered it to be an affront to all things British, and decried the glut of Frenchmen and others who could simply drive into England on a daily basis. He thougth it diluted English culture and was sure that England would never be the same again. In this paragraph, the use of England and English was his use, not mine. Though a US citizen, he ardently described himself as "English."

I shall endeavor to become more tactful ... as it may make life easier for people who interact with me!

GregP said:

I find it hard to believe that even the legendary "ugly American" would deliberately ruffle the feathers ... it is much more likely to be done out of simple ignorance of the preferred terms.

Click to expand...

No trust me, as an American living in Europe, I can tell you that the "Ugly American" is rampant, and it is not out of ignorance. As an American I hate to say it, but it is true. Unfortunately we deserve to be called this. Especially when you are in an area where lots of American's live such as mine (obviously because there are several US bases here), but you will find many rude, loud and obnoxious Americans all over the place.

As an American it is rather embarrassing sometimes. It really sucks because the United States is no different than any other country. You have good people, bad people, educated and ignorant people. I think it mostly comes down to the fact that the areas in Europe where there are lots of Americans are military communities and with that you have lots of 18 year old young soldiers away from their families for the first time.

Like I said, it is sad but true...

Anyhow sorry, to get off topic here.

GregP said:

Sorry I said 'England!" I had not realized it was, in any way, a touchy subject ... I suppose that is a bit insensitive, but I had not even considered the ramifications.

Britain it is, going forward.

Click to expand...

Greg, I'm glad you said England. Its not insensitive in any way.
You weren't to know and at the end of the day its not that important as all the British wealth is in England.
The Scots can be Scots, the Welsh Welsh, the Northern Irish Irish but, the English... we fell foul of the Celtic politics when it was fashionable.
As you may have guessed I'm English, Southern English to boot and rather proud of my heritage.
Devolution? I should coca.
Cheers
John

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

No trust me, as an American living in Europe, I can tell you that the "Ugly American" is rampant, and it is not out of ignorance. As an American I hate to say it, but it is true. Unfortunately we deserve to be called this. Especially when you are in an area where lots of American's live such as mine (obviously because there are several US bases here), but you will find many rude, loud and obnoxious Americans all over the place.

Click to expand...

Chris,
Don't be too harsh on your countrymen. There are loud and obnoxious people in every single country in the world.
Only a fool would judge America by his / her contact with a few young Americans in Europe.
When I hear people complain I always remind them that it wasn't that long ago that Europeans were bloody glad to see young Americans here....
Cheers
John

I don't believe in the Ugly American theory I believe if anything it is a lack of exposure to other cultures and lifestyles, only35% of US citizens have passports meaning only 35% of US citizens have travelled abroad. Thats apretty low number and I think that is one of the reasons for this problem ,

People are people. All nationalities get reputations based on the exaggerated actions of a few individuals. When I lived in Germany most people treated me politely. However it you ask some Arizonan's they will tell you the rudest tourists at the Grand Canyon are Germans. All nationalities get accused of being "ugly". Showing a little patience with the foibles and mannerisms of others would do much to reduce perceptions of "ugly".

Getting back to the topic. The Mosquito wins against any of equal ability by being prettier.