Mossie vs Ju88

[Twitch]

Since this thread is revived for the moment I'd like to add my respect and awe for the versatility of the Junkers airframe in its adaptation almost any role it was conceived for.

Of course the development didn't end with the 88. The 188, 288 and 388 models had some frightenly high horsepower and potent speeds. An amazing weapons platform!

 

[schwarzpanzer]

I often think the BMW 801 should have been developed a hell of a lot more and given more resources. It would IMO have made a great Jabo engine, in the same league as the twin-wasp?

As a schnellbomber/tactical bomber I believe the Ju88 had had its day, though I believe it was much better than the He111 in every way?

For ground attack and nightfigher missions though, I think it was briliant. I think gondola 20mm's are way inferior to nose Mk108's though - would that have been possible with a radar? - or even a short-barrelled 50mm?

IIRC some Ju88's were armed with flamethrowers...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Since this thread is revived for the moment I'd like to add my respect and awe for the versatility of the Junkers airframe in its adaptation almost any role it was conceived for.

Of course the development didn't end with the 88. The 188, 288 and 388 models had some frightenly high horsepower and potent speeds. An amazing weapons platform!

Agreed 100%

In my opinion she was the most versatile aircraft of WW2 making her one of the greatest ever built. True there were aircraft that could do certain roles that the Ju-88 did and do them better than the Ju-88 but the Ju-88 could do the most roles successfully and well.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that being said the mossie wasn't far behind in those stakes, and she too derived the Hornet and to some extent the Canberra (designed from lessons learnt with regards to the use of the mossie and performing the same role)............

and the flamethrowers on the -88s were useless, good only for spraying the oil they used as fuel........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Flame throwers were not a role the Ju-88 played but rather a defensive weapon that was tried.

Who cares if they did not work, they looked cool as hell.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

I was thinking if they were used against a wooden target filled with bombs and fuel...

 

[mosquitoman]

NF Mossies were sent as part of the bomber stream to look for German nightfighters, other squadrons concentrated on intruder missions against airfields. Off topic a little bit, Beaufighters equipped with Serrate equpiment also flew with the bomber stream. A trick used by Mossies, was that H2S could be tracked by German recievers, thus luring in the Nactjagd not to a bomber, but to a nightfighter waiting for them

 

[wwii:)aircraft]

If we are talking about night fighting then I kinda am goin with the mossie. She was much faster than any ju88c (although the 88G was pretty fast), and had better radar (once again the 88 G's FuG 340 Berlin N-1a was pretty amazing), although i am goin to giv the 88 firepower especially because of the 30s.

As for other roles both are pretty much tied. The mosquito is gonna always have a speed advantage, but 88 is always gonna some adv in versatality (ex. a ju 88a can, at any time, divebomb) and probably armor (atleast on the 88A14, A13, and Cs designed for ground attack). Payloads are pretty much the same: 2,000 (4 500lbs) internal and 1,000(2 500) external for the mosquito to the ju 88's 1,000kgs (4 250kg) under inboard wing racks and 500kgs internal (10 50kgs). If want to mention the mosquito's cookie (4,000lbs bomb), the ju88 replies with a pair of 1,000kg bombs.

 

[Juha]

Hello WWII
the fixed armament of Ju88G was 4 20mm cannon, exactly the same as in late war Mosquito NFs.

The bad point in external loads was the drag, it decreases speed and range.

IMHO Mossie was better NF, as bomber, that's more difficult to say, depending on target and role. As fast night bomber Mossie was very good because of its speed.

Juha

 

[davebender]

An aluminum aircraft is almost certainly more durable then a wooden aircraft. And that's before we consider rot and termite damage.

 

[Soren]

airplane aluminum is also a good deal stronger than regular aluminum.

 

[Juha]

Hello Dave
What is your point? IMHO during WWII attrition and becoming obsolete were very important reasons for a/c to be struck off charge. When RAF retired its last first line Mossies in late 55 I don't recall many metal WWII first line combat planes still in first line use in major AFs, only A-/B-26 Invader came easily into my mind. Rot was a problem in tropics to Mossie but not insuperable, because last Mossie operational sorties were flown in Malaya, IIRC. They had retired Spitfire 1½ years earlier. So IMHO the longevity of airframe wasn't very important factor during WWII. And on the other hand wooden construction allowed to sprea production to underutilized sector of industry when conventional a/c manufacture capacity was stretched to its limits.

One factor for metal structures was that they were easier to recycle, just melt them into ingots and use again. I have no idea what they did on SOCed Mossies, burned the airframes?

Juha

 

[riacrato]

Discussing the subject at work I was told aluminium airframes are easier to design and to adapt because typical aviation engineers usually know a lot more about working with metals and rivets than they know about woods and glues. The resulting airframes are also usually easier to adapt because metal is more forgiving when loads and forces change.

I like the Mosquito a lot because it was such a simple and straightforward airframe that was so versatile without much need for adaption. As a defensive night fighter I'd overall take the Ju 88 G because of its schraege musik armament, as an intruder/escort the Mosquito takes the cake. Fast bomber, again the Mosquito, the Ju would've fared better with a bomb bay that could at least take 4x250kg bombs. As a medium/tactical bomber I'd give it to the Ju because of it's dive bomber capability.

 

[Juha]

Hello Riacrato
without checking I would say that Ju 88A could not carry 4x250kg internally, only 10x 50kg, that's why it carried its 250/500 of 1000kg bombs externally.

Quote:"Discussing the subject at work I was told aluminium airframes are easier to design and to adapt because typical aviation engineers usually know a lot more about working with metals and rivets than they know about woods and glues..."

True, but de Havilland team had much experience on wood and that was what mattered in case of Mossie. They had a little earlier designed DH 91 Albatross 4 engine wooden airliner.

Juha

 

[riacrato]

I meant the Ju "would've fared better if it had had a bomb bay that could carry at least 4x250kg internally".

This is the first time I ever had to use "had had", I'm sure.

 

[Soren]

Juha,

I think Dave was refering to resistance to damage and strength of the material, not the lifespan of the material if placed outside to decay

Fact is airplane aluminum is a good deal strong than wood, and also a good deal more durable when it comes to taking damage as-well as handling the stresses of maneuvering flight. I'd also be worried about fires a lot more in a wooden aircraft, esp. seeing as the Germans primarily were shooting with explosive incendiary rounds.

 

[Juha]

Hello Riacrato
by bad, I seem to have reading difficulties, a sure sign that its time to go bed.

Hello Soren
entirely possible that i misunderstood dave's message.

On fire risk, I'm not sure of that, a/c fires were usually fuel, oil or hydraulic fluid etc fires and aluminium isn't known for its fire resistance either. hat why aluminium powder was many times used in incendiary rounds.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

i want remember, and is not the first time, the internal bomb load of 88 it's 1400 kg (28*50kg), the use of one or both bomb bay for tank fuel it's not compulsory (but for good range/similar to mosquito need add fuel or drop tanks or bay tank fuel) i want remember that the external load of 88 (A-4) its' 3 tons. at example can fly with 2 drop tank (for in all 3480 liters of fuel) and full (28*50) internal bomb load. or can load 6*250 kg external and use the bay for fuel (for 3580 liters in all). or go with 2*1000 and 2*500 kg and regular internal fuel (1680 liters) for short range tactical mission.

 

[Soren]

Juha,

Regarding the fire risk, I was thinking about the weakening of the structure due to fire. Furthermore wood will not handle the effect of blasts very well. What I am trying to say here is that the Mossie was a very thin skinned bird and if caught in your sights rather easy to bring down.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
Yes you are right but IIRC the use of the front bay fuel cell was common, in FAF it was a norm and at that configuration only 10x50kg could be carried internally.

Hello Soren
Fire weakened also aluminium structures fast, if for ex wing tanks caught fire, structural failure usually followed soon. IMHO there was not a big difference in that, But I agree that wooden structures don't handle effects of blast very well because of splintering and even bullet hits caused that in small scale. I don't know was the sandwich structure used in Mossie a bit better in this than ordinary plywood. In concrete terms Mossie wasn't very thin skinned because of that sandwich structure.

Juha