Inquiry into Ju 88H-1

• Jul 9, 2011

• #21

davebender

1st Lieutenant

6,446

151

Jan 18, 2009

Michigan, USA

Ju 88H-1

That's a lot of fuel for a light bomber. Why didn't they build this version during 1940 for maritime recon? Germany wouldn't need to piddle around with the Fw-200.

 

• Jul 9, 2011

• #22

vikingBerserker

Lieutenant General

28,790

4,609

Apr 10, 2009

South Carolina

This is from JunkersAircraft and Engines, 1913-1945 by kay Couper page 179 (confirms that the H-2 did not see service)

 

Attachments

• Ju 88H-1 Page.jpg

  160.9 KB · Views: 260

• Nov 15, 2012

• #23

S

sturmbock44

Banned

131

0

Nov 5, 2012

California

I know this is an old thread but im trying to get some answers as well. I did i see two drawings in here that show the gun pod firing rearward, also i looked at pastor john of AIMS conversion kit, his conversion has the pod firing backwards as well. . . while ive read it fired forward does anyone have an answer seems that i may have fired rearward, also the plane DID have a periscope . maybe for this reason? apparently Luftwaffe Experten message board has pictures and things of the Ju 88 H but i cant join and the info is for members only. does anyone have any answers or know john at AIMS?

 

• Nov 15, 2012

• #24

S

sturmbock44

Banned

131

0

Nov 5, 2012

California

Also what the heck did this pod look like? some sources say it fired two MG 131 , others say it was a MG 81 Z . ive seen most every luftwaffe WT WB weapons containers but this one!

heres a link i found http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=23121. if some of the info is true the thing was firing rearward. i wish LuftExperten wouldnt block gmail accounts...

 

Last edited: Nov 16, 2012

• Nov 16, 2012

• Thread starter
• #25

Erich

the old Sage

13,018

760

May 20, 2004

Platonic Sphere

there is still confusion between the H-1 and the D-1 used by the Recon unit 123. the camo/markings are wrong even on the LEMB web-site thread. two pics show a rearward facing gun pod with the two extractor ports but no mg's to give us a definite go, though they would be mg 131's in a FIXED position and not operated mobile. Personally I feel this pod was on 1 machine only and a completely worthless fitting. on the other page of this thread that I started the numbers are given for the machines in unit 123... 5 of them though 8 seem to at least have been considered and produced. what was not shot down in combat was removed from the 3rd staffel service and the question is why except that in my opinion the H-1 version did not live up to expectations.

 

• Nov 17, 2012

• #26

S

sturmbock44

Banned

131

0

Nov 5, 2012

California

Thanks Erich ! I wish i could see the pictures of the pod... if anyone could email me a pic i would greatly appreciate it im going to be building a 1\48 H1 and would really like to include a gun pack. Its very possible that the other machines didnt have a gun pod or i was toying with the idea what if they had a 20mm WB 151 pod i have a tub from an ME 410 thats really close but no cigar on the shapes ive been seeing. if when the build comes i still dont know i may leave it off all together. CL or FL will be the codes but i dont know if there are pics of them. i may need some creative room.

 

• Nov 17, 2012

• Thread starter
• #27

Erich

the old Sage

13,018

760

May 20, 2004

Platonic Sphere

yes the D-1 only had the forward single 2cm cannon as far as I am aware plus the defensive Mg's. do not think any of the H-1's had forward 2cm weapons installed with a forward under nose pod or built into the base of the glass housing.....