Mossie vs Ju88

BMW engines I see the forward antennae is wrong for the Ju 88 NF and the welle camo was also used on Ju 88 bomber andTorpedo bombers confirmed over the med.

looks almost like an A-4 from KG 26 or 77 which both had unusual welle-wave mirror camo's, some pretty wild looking stuff

A list of captured German a/c can be found here http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4741

I would say the 1st photo is AM 112 a Junkers Ju88A-6/U - W.Nr.0660 - coded 1H+MN of II./KG26 - scrapped November 1947 as AM 12 is a Siebel.

I would like your help about the JU88 nf speed.The books i posses (Wings of the Luftwaffe,ju88in action,fighters of the luftwaffe,German Night Fighter Aces,...) and the internet readings give me various and controversial informations What i know
Ju88R2 engines BMW801D 1700hp ~580km/h (even with the useless ventral gondola,)
Ju88G1 engines BMW801D 1700hp ~550km/h( gondola removed at last but heavier and with bigger tail surfaces)
Ju88G6 Engines Jumo 213A 1750hp Reports of MW50 use found only in this site Then 2100hp with MW50
Speed (ju88 in action vol2)~ 580km/h with full night equipment
(Wigs of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown ) Claimed 644km/h at 9145m in a g6 after the war in enland .He was alone in the cocpit and he dont say anything about radar antennas BUT it was certainly without mw50 because in another chapet says that they did not have MW50 or GM1 in enland during the test of captured german aircrafts.
General internet sources give maximum speed ~560-580km/h
In this site i read from the expert Mr Erich speeds in the area of 425m/h (~685km/h!!!) in operations and cruising speeds of 350mph(~555km/h)
JU388J only achieved 580 km/h with BMW801TJ 1800hp high altityde engines (with low drag canopy but the ju 188 wings) I am confused. Could anyone help or suggest a source with recent informations?
By the way some others questions1) The use of Berlin Radar with its cup was expected to fully eliminate the drag penalty (~50km/h)?
2) If G6 was capable of such high speeds why was not used in Mosquito chasing by removiing the radar,transfering the guns in the nose ,remove the gun gondola,the Mg131, the Schrage Music guns,limiting the crew to 2,armor removed,and generally stripe the airframe? It would be of similar performance to BF106G10 and with much longer range
3)Why 2 very similar aircrafts Ju88G,Ju388j were in development the same time? Wouldnt more logical to introduce some of the improvements of 388J(low drag canopy, ju 188 wings) in ju 88g and thus saving resources?
4)Ju88g according to Eric Brown had very extensive cocpit armor (to the point that her weight along the additional electronics offset the additonal horsepowerof the later marks in comparison with ju88a5) but in the reports posted by Mr Erich appears that was not effective against 20mm fire.Was it worth the weight penalty? Wouldnt be better higher agility,rate of climb,and better single engine performance? Mosquito was not that heavily armoured
5)Mr Erich insists that there was noteven projected G7 variant Is it possible that normal G6 airframes were fitted with Jumo 213E Engines? 2050hp but could help against high altitude pathfinders
6)Mr Erich ,if i understood correctly ,the Morgenstern antenna of Fug 220 with its conical cup was useless operationaly?
Thank you in advance

That's about 5 times as much as I have read elsewhere.

let me clarify further if I may and I have made note in previous postings for several years that the figures I quoted were through private first person interviews of pilots and crews flying the Ju 88G-6. Mr Erich did not say there was not G-7 just the other day that there was it was being formed into production but as I am aware at this time did not enter NJG service, this could change of course with new data coming in weekly. it was planned to have a G-7 plus variant with E Juno's but the G-6 did not have them.

the crew did not have real armor protection as Mossies could cut through the cockpit with ease with their 20mm's just like the G-6 could on a Mossie with disastrous results, because of the weight ration the Ju 88 was not sued for Mossie chasing duties that was left to the 262 as the Mossies of the LSNF were really a pin prick in the side of the LW hierarchy the main component was to chase down and engage BC 4-Engines where the Ju 88 was desperately needed.

As for Morgenstern I said nothing of the sort it was useless in fact the streamlined nose should of been issued with the FuG 220d as standard and the aerials dispensed with as this would of saved on drag/weight and increased overall speed performance.

the 425 mph figure was of very short duration with added MW 50 boost the crew(s) did not ell me how or why this was used but may have been to allude the Mossie NF's ?

I'm not sure where this is going
all I submitted was an article which was supposed to highlight the ability of the Ju88 if it got into a furball with a Mosquito; the added interest was the fact that the Mosquito was being flown by an acknowledged Mosquito fighter tactician and the Ju88 by a complete novice (on the type).

It may well be that it's not a nightfighter but it's still a Ju88 and the article gives some impression as to why the Germans rated it so highly.

but let us not forget the pics you added were not the most powerful Ju 88 variant(s), so if competing with a supped up Mossie would you not want a Ju 88 with comparable performance figures in the running ? I think I would to get a true pic of what may have happened to the war. think you can feasibly conclude the JU 88 bomber versions had no chance against he Mossie FB's or fighter version(s) to conclude your statement.

maybe I am adding too much, your article Colin in my estimation is one of value for this thread

The aircraft in the photo posted by Mr Colin1 is a Ju88A6/Uflown in Farnborough in August 1945 .Its basicaly an A4 airframe (jumo 211J engines 1400hp) with ventral gondola deleted(+20km/h) equiped with maritime radar Fug 200(whose antennas caused drag of caurse) Estimated top speed 485-500km/h.(personal opinion) It would be very impressive if that version could turn with a Mosquito of any variant. Ju88 could propably out dive the Mosquito since it was heavier and its airframe strong enough for dive bombing.
It seems that g6 was more capable than the literature presents. Is there any Book on Ju88 with recent research ?
It seems that even an jumo222 equiped version of the 88 would be of no importance with Germany so badly defeated in electronic war

the only thing missing from the FuG was the nose array which it needed to search and detect as shown on the A-6/U, although yes the wings were an alternative carry-on as well

there is a book on the Ju 88 all variants in the works in fact it has been going on for over 20 years of research

jim said:

Mr Erich insists that...

Click to expand...

jim said:

The aircraft in the photo posted by Mr Colin1...

Click to expand...

You don't need to prefix our names with Mr
We're a pretty relaxed, informal bunch around each other

Hello Colin
the plane Beamont flew was the famous Ju88G-1 4R+UR, at least according his Tempest over Europe and his artcle in AM around 1990.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello Colin
the plane Beamont flew was the famous Ju88G-1 4R+UR, at least according his Tempest over Europe and his article in AM around 1990

Click to expand...

Understood
clearly some mix-up somewhere but it's depicted in Testing Years as a nightfighter

Erich said:

but let us not forget the pics you added were not the most powerful Ju 88 variant(s), so if competing with a supped up Mossie would you not want a Ju 88 with comparable performance figures in the running ? I think I would to get a true pic of what may have happened to the war. think you can feasibly conclude the JU 88 bomber versions had no chance against he Mossie FB's or fighter version(s) to conclude your statement.

Click to expand...

Was not this the case with the Mosquito - P-61 flyoff? The Mosquito, afaik, was a NFII and not the NF30 which was entering squadron service at the time of the flyoff (June '44).

Personally I think this was deliberate on the part of the British so as not to embarrass the P-61.

I'm under the impression that AI equipped German night fighters had little difficulty locating enemy aircraft right up to the end of the war. For instance 277 Lancaster bombers attacked Nuremberg on the night of 16/17 March 1945. Oberleutnant Erich Jung found and shot down 8 of those bombers, which has to be close to a night fighter record for a single sortie.

how about 4 of those bombers while the others he attacked made it back to England Dave. LW accounts vary about the truth.... see Dr. Boitens masterful work on the Nachtjagd- 2 volumes

the Nachtjagd would still home onto emissions from BC radar sets by using the directional FuG 350Z Naxos while the FuG 220d sets would possibly be jammed and as former LW night crews have said also they would home onto the strongest presence of Window being dropped then they new they were in contact.

It's all very interesting yet confusing to the end.

Hello Colin
G-1 was definitely a night fighter.

Juha

how about 4 of those bombers while the others he attacked made it back to England

Click to expand...

Whether the bombers were shot down or only damaged is beyond the point. It appears to me that Luftwaffe AI and other night fighter electronic equipment worked just fine right to the end of the war. WWII Germany was not defeated in electronics warfare.

you have to give credit to the LW Bordfünkers and pilots to get within the BC system, as I said the standard FuG 220d set was jammed in 45 and the FuG 218 as well later in the spring of 45 so the Berlin 240A-1 was the only unit not so with only about 30 sets completed/possibly delivered. Mentioning of getting through the window and where it was picked up the strongest on the existing sets gave prrof to the German crews this is where the BC bombers were located at least in the area. BC command was quite adept at spoofing the German LW in fact in many cases in 45 the LW night fighters were informed to go in the wrong direction from ground control due to effective feints

There were many occasions right to the end that LW night fighters found their marks and successfully pressed home their attacks. But for any number of reasons, RAF loss rates had reduced steadily throughout the last year of the war, from a crippling 7% to under 1%. How you prioritise the reasons for that drop in losses is open to debate, but in my view the reasons include allied EW, lask of fuel, loss of the early warning ground stations, decline in pilot efficiency, sheer numbers. There are lots of other reasons

important points P ~ but in the spring of 45 some of the Nachtjagd was ordered and even the experten to terrible day/night ground attack duties flying both on the west and also to the East to keep the Soviets away from Berlin this had now become the priority for the LW in general. the single engine 109's not being able to hold their own against BC Mossies were dumped with the old 2cm waffen pods under each wing and attacked railroad crossing and MT junctions with fervor, but as noted in losses had no chance during the day being shot down by US fighters