Ju-88 vs He-111 & Ju-188 vs Do-217 (1 Viewer)

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

A

Acheron

Airman 1st Class
238
173
Nov 16, 2019
I have some questions about German WWII bombers:

1st, comparing the Ju-88 and the He-111. At least during the Battle of Britain, it seems to me, that the Ju-88 was the faster aircraft, while the He-111 could carry heavier loads. So a racehorse versus a workhorse. Is this perception correct and if so, was it true in general or only for the BoB? And would that be the reason the He-111 was produced in such large numbers when the leadership was (as always, correct me if I am wrong) more enamored with the Ju-88?

BTW, I am not asking about the Do-17 because I got the idea that it was a dated design, inferior to the other two in almost every way. Again, let me know if this it not quite correct.

2nd, comparing the Ju-188 and the Do-217. These were the most modern bombers of the Luftwaffe produced in quantity, apart from the He-177 which was a rather different beast. When it comes to the Ju-188 and the Do-217, I know very little. I heard that the Do-217 had an impressive bomb load, even being called a heavy bomber except for range. Wikipedia suggests that it had greater bomb load and higher speeds than the Ju-188. Can anyone tell me more about either aircraft and especially how they compared to each other?

As always, thank you
 
Nothing? Well, of course fighter aircraft are more interesting to most people, but surely, someone here has something to say about WWII German bombers other than the He-177 and various experimental designs?
 
He 111 was preferred on the eastern Front being easier to fly and capable to carry somewhat heavier loads.
Ju 88 was preferred in the ETO and MTO being faster and so more difficult to intercept.
 
Do 217 vs Ju 188 - the Dornier was able to carry hefty bomb load without the bombs sticking out, and it was available earlier. So I'd say it was a better bomber.
He 111 vs. Ju 88 - Heinkel was able to carry more, and was available earlier. Ju 88 was slightly faster and could dive bomb. I'd pick He 111 until the later, more capable Ju 88 versions emerged.
 
The He111's potential was rather limited, as it was a 1930's bomber design masquerading as a passenger liner. By 1940, the RLM should have already had it's replacement in the works with a type that had better speed, payload and defensive armament - and no wasting time and effort to make the new type dive-bomb capable. Leave the dive-bombing to the Ju87, Ju88 and Fw190A-3 (and later, the F variant).

The Ju88 was, perhaps, one of the most versatile of all the German (and Axis) bombers. It had speed, maneuverability and was tasked with just about every mission profile conceivable.
 
tomo pauk said:
With regard to speed, Ju 88 was (no offense for the people with health problems), for Luftwaffe of 1940 etc, an one-eyed man in the land of the blind people (my translation of the German proverb).
Click to expand...
The Ju 88 was not one of faster bomber operational in '40?
that proverb there is also in italian
 
Greyman said:
With no external bombs? Yes.

With 4 x 250kg its speed dropped to very mediocre levels. Breguet 690, LeO 451, DB7, Blenheim, Hampden and Tupolev SB were all faster.
Click to expand...

of this none can load 4x250kg internal, also if some just because their air force not use 250 kg bombs
 
For what its worth, in regard to comparable stores carried internally:
LeO 451 could carry 5 x 200 kg​
DB7 was close with 4 x 200 kg​
Hampden could carry 4 x 500 lb​
 
In 1940 you had three Ju-88s

The Ju-88 A-1, the most common but with low powered engines and low gross weight. The A-2 attempted to get around the power problem with rockets for take-off.

The A-4 showed up late and in a tricke. About 5 ft more wingspan and a bit more wing area, much higher gross weight and more powerful engines. Do be careful performance for 1940 is not based on this version because....

The A-5 was probably the 2nd most common version in 1940, it as an A-4 with all the improvements except it used the same engines as the A-1 due to development/production problems with the new engine.
 
In 1940 the He 111 was the most prevalent Luftwaffe bomber, with good reason. It had good performance and load lifting ability comparable to foreign bombers, but it had limited life going forward and it should have been replaced as the Luftwaffe's frontline bomber by 1942 with the He 177. This was the plan anyhoo. The Ju 88 had a longer life ahead of it and in 1940 was still proving itself, but it was a sound design that, once it had dropped its bombs could show a pursuing fighter a clean pair of heels. Its versatility and ruggedness meant that it was going to excel as a jack of all trades, far more so than its contemporaries, but the He 111 soldiered on because its replacements weren't forthcoming. The Ju 88 should have been replaced by the result of the Bomber B project, but again, like with the He 177, the RLM and German manufacturers' ambition outshone their capabilities.

The Do 217 was a heavy bomber and demonstrated good load carrying ability, with not startling performance for its day, but it was a worthy workhorse, whereas the Ju 188 was an improvement on the Schnellbomber Ju 88 concept, so a different kettle of fish to the Do 217. It largely came about as an interim to the Bomber B, and was given the go ahead when it became evident that the Bomber B was going to be delayed. As for the Do 217, it could and should have been a direct replacement for the He 111, but Heinkel was determined to forge ahead with the He 177 as planned and promises to the RLM kept the project going despite its many missteps, which resulted in the venerable but outdated He 111 remaining as the Luftwaffe's frontline bomber for the majority of the war.
 
Vincenzo said:
The Ju 88 was not one of faster bomber operational in '40?
that proverb there is also in italian
Click to expand...

It was one of faster bombers - there was a host of older and/or sower bombers in service. Still, it was not fast.
 
In fact Hampden could carry eight 500 lb GP bombs or two 2000 lb AP bombs, but was it faster than Ju 88 A-1 or A-5 with four 250 kg SC 250s? Mason gives its max speed as 254 mph at 13,000 ft in his The British Bomber since 1914.
 
Juha3 said:
In fact Hampden could carry eight 500 lb GP bombs or two 2000 lb AP bombs, but was it faster than Ju 88 A-1 or A-5 with four 250 kg SC 250s? Mason gives its max speed as 254 mph at 13,000 ft in his The British Bomber since 1914.
Click to expand...

Hampden can load 6 500 lb but with 2 under the wings, sometime ago one guy from the ww2aircraftperformance posted the datasheets in this forum
 
Juha3 said:
In fact Hampden could carry eight 500 lb GP bombs or two 2000 lb AP bombs, but was it faster than Ju 88 A-1 or A-5 with four 250 kg SC 250s? Mason gives its max speed as 254 mph at 13,000 ft in his The British Bomber since 1914.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as Vincenzo says it was 4 x 500 lb in the fuselage and 2 x 500 lb external (6 x 500 lb total).

The top speeds of an internally-loaded Hampden and externally-loaded Ju88 are similar, but the critical altitudes of the Pegasus are a few thousand feet lower giving a speed advantage approximately from 0-6,000 ft and from 10,000 ft to 16,000 ft. At other altitudes the speeds are close enough that it's a wash.

With 2 x external bombs the Hampden falls behind the 4 x 250 kg Ju88 at all altitudes.
 

Critical altitude of Pegasus in FS gear was 15500 ft (880 HP). Jumo 211 of 1940 (versions B, D, G, H) was making 920 PS at 5 km (~ 907 HP at 16400 ft). Probably the biggest gains for the Jumo 211 vs. Pegasus was the exhaust thrust (amounting to ~10% extra power at those altitudes) and lower drag.
Junkers' figures give 370 km/h cruise for a bombed-up Ju 88A-5 (2 x 500 kg bombs); without racks and bombs they say it should be doing 475 km/h. Without bombs, but with racks, the cruise speed was supposed to be 425 km/h.
 

Sorry my wording is probably off. I meant the critical altitude of the actual aircraft/speed curve. In the case of the Hampden it's right above/below 14,000 ft, depending on the test (5.5lb boost). 100 octane (6.75lb boost) is just above 12,000 ft.

50 km/h speed loss for just the racks? That seems excessive. British tests on an A-5 (originally an A-6) indicated a loss of 5 mph (8 km/h).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
65
Aeroweanie
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register