Ju-88: capabilities, performance, limitations, other stuff...

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,975
5,129
Apr 3, 2008
The latest discussion about the Ju-288 steered me to the venerable Ju-88, Luftwaffe's workhorse.
I'd like to discuss aircraft's capabilities, eg. how good/bad it was compared with contemporaries, how much a limitation (both performance- and operational-wise) was the need to carry bigger bombs externally, should it have received BMW-801 engines earlier, how much an asset was the bulged bomb bay as with the A-15 version, just how good were the -S versions etc. What about the performance of the (night) fighter versions?
Of course, we can discuss some plausible might-have-beens (Install the bulged bomb bay earlier and/or smaller? Tail gun position like at Ju-388 mounted earlier? Or just one defensive HMG? Other?).
 
Last edited:
It couldn't take the BMW 801 any earlier due to the lack of enough engines, as they were required for the FW190. That was a major limiting factor there. Other than that it was the fastest bomber Germany had until the Do-217 got the DB603; it could have been faster without the added requirements later like dive bombing and the ventral gondola (I'm not sure how much that really added to the Ju88s defenses though). Its dive ability did give it the opportunity to undertake a steep dive to escape from enemy fighters, which improved its surviveability.
 
Also the Ju88S3 was pretty good, but too late; it might have been better to avoid the Me410 and use the DB603 with the Ju88 instead so as to have the S3 in 1943 when it would have been more useful, as there weren't enough BMWs to go around and the Ju88 had a better internal bomb load than the Me410, while having similar top speeds (IIRC with GM-1 boost). Also a DB603 equipped Ju88 would be a better night fighter until the Jumo 213 becomes available.

IIRC too the Jumo 213 would have been available sooner if the Jumo 222 had died an earlier death and the engineering resources were redirected into the 213.
 
Ju-88 entered service during late 1939. A year later teething problems were mostly fixed. As good or better service introduction then most other WWII era aircraft.
 
davebender said:
Ju-88 entered service during late 1939. A year later teething problems were mostly fixed. As good or better service introduction then most other WWII era aircraft.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88

 
The dive-bombing ability was good for targetting but had several drawbacks - Structural strengthening added weight, there was no real internal bomb bay nor internal fuel tank (just small 50kg bombs usually replaced by aux fuel tanks), the dive brakes causes some speed loss in normal flight (and were removed from 43 on retaining glide-bombing ability of the aircraft).
The Jumo 211 did not really have a lot of power (PS figures are just for short-term take-off, similar to 1-min rating on DB 601A). Even the first series BMW 801A saw a performance jump in so-equipped Ju 88 that was especially noticable in the 43/44 draggy radar-equipped night fighters.
The Ju 88S was streamlined and fast )equipped with 801 G-2 + GM-1 option) although the internal load was still very much limited, the extended bombbay of the last S-series offered more but at the cost of speed.
 
It was common for Ju-88s to fly hundreds of combat sorties. Some flew more then 1,000 combat sorties. One would expect an airframe to experience fatigue damage after that much use.
 
davebender said:
It was common for Ju-88s to fly hundreds of combat sorties. Some flew more then 1,000 combat sorties. One would expect an airframe to experience fatigue damage after that much use.
Click to expand...

By Summer 1943 FiAF Ju 88s had flown less than 100h each.
 
davebender said:
It was common for Ju-88s to fly hundreds of combat sorties. Some flew more then 1,000 combat sorties.
Click to expand...

How many Ju-88s flew more than 1000 combat sorties?

From wiki's bio of Joachim Helbig, citing p 291 of 'Taghon, Peter (2004b). Die Geschichte des Lehrgeschwaders 1—Band 2—1942 – 1945 (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel':

"In Italy on 30 January 1944, his Ju 88 L1+AM was destroyed in an aerial attack by American bombers. This aircraft, which was solely piloted by Helbig himself, was the only Ju 88 to survive more than 1,000 hours of combat operations"

As Joachim Helbig flew only 480 missions, including some in He-111s, and if wiki is correct his Ju 88 was the only one to pass 1,000 hours, I'd be curious to know which Ju-88s flew more than 1000 combat sorties. If true, most sorties would have to be less than 30 minutes...
 
davebender said:
It was common for Ju-88s to fly hundreds of combat sorties. Some flew more then 1,000 combat sorties. One would expect an airframe to experience fatigue damage after that much use.
Click to expand...

1,000 combat sorties? That I find unbelievable, not just for the Ju88. I'd love to see something to support that contention.

Cheers

Steve
 
Does anyone else have anything else to say about the Ju88 besides that only one ever flew 1000 hours?
For one, I think it should never have been made the major project it became; the He-111 should have been the largest bomber project followed by the Ju88 for specialized roles, such as speed bomber, night fighter, heavy long ranged fighter/intruder, and recon aircraft. In fact the dive bombing role added little to the aircraft, as it impacted its primary role of speed bombing and all other roles; if anything they should have gone for the Ju88S design as soon as possible.
But primarily the serious bombing should have been done by the He-111 which had the pay load, range, and defensive armament to do the job more so than the Ju88. Then the He-111 should have been replaced by the Do-217 when it became available, while the Me-2/410 should just not have been ever built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
2K
Snautzer01
Wide Performance Differences, most reliable source? FW190A-8
Replies
1
Views
82
mjfur
M
S
Performance growth of the Spitfire with contra-rotating propellers
Replies
5
Views
582
Jabberwocky
J
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
12K
RCAFson
R
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
5K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register