FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It was good enough in all categories to replace ALL B-25s, B-26s and A-20s in the ETO.
What was better, the A-26 or Ju88?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was good enough in all categories to replace ALL B-25s, B-26s and A-20s in the ETO.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A26 vs Ju 388K with BMW801G
empty weight 10365 kgr vs 10250 kgr
loaded weight 12519kgr vs 14275 kgr
Max weight 15900kgr
Wing area 50m2 vs 56m2
Power 2x2000hp vs 2x1700 ps
Bombs 910kgr internaly and 910kgr externally vs 3000kgr internally
Fuel capacity 5042 lt vs 3860 lt
Max speed ~570km/h vs ~610km/h (unboosted,late war 801s could be boosted to almost 2100ps)
From the above datas they seem to me pretty close performing aircraft. The A26 has laminar flow wing, ,slotted flaps, 2 remote controlled turrers ,more fuel . The 388K seems a little faster, carries all its load internally,has a single defentive turret,has better visibility,slightly more wing area and structure strong enough to perform dive bombing if necessary.
If the 1944 Ju88 family member is obselete, why the very similar performing A26 is considered modern?
The Ju 388K should be much better performer above 20000 ft due to it's turbocharged engine. At SL, the similar Ju 388J managed up to 400 km/h, at 5 km it was doing up to 500 km/h; the 'antlers' and gun ports cost speed vs. the Ju 388K bomber. A-26 was good for 600 km/h at 3 km altitude, with 8-gun nose, using ADI (2370 HP at SL).
A-26 carried up to 4000 lbs internally (~1820 kg); CS sheet.
Speed chart of the Ju 388J with different engines proposed. Table covering the same. The power listed for the 801J is quite modest?
edit to add: I'm not sure that war-time A-26 have had the water injection system installed, the top speed is listed a 355 mph/570 km/h at 15000 ft/5 km
A-26 carried up to 4000 lbs internally (~1820 kg); CS sheet.
Speed chart of the Ju 388J with different engines proposed. Table covering the same. The power listed for the 801J is quite modest?
edit to add: I'm not sure that war-time A-26 have had the water injection system installed, the top speed is listed a 355 mph/570 km/h at 15000 ft/5 km
Last edited:
According the link that you provided(by the way, thank you a lot), the A26 achieved 600km/h at 3000m not only using ADI, but with the ventral turret deleted as well
And the chart for the 388J are with radar antennas and flame dampers
Last edited:
I've noted that 'antlers' will cost the speed 
Flame dampers on a turbocharged engine will cost far less of the performance, than on non-turbo engine that also relies on exhaust thrust to increase performance.
The A-26 was a 'next-generation' airframe that used 3rd best R-2800 available (ie. no two stage, no turbo); the Ju 388 was the 'legacy' airframe that used the best BMW 801, at least when we talk about high altitude. Net result is that those two were not far away when operating in medium altitudes, one having the edge at high altitudes, another on lower altitudes.
Come to think about it - the Ju388K-stlye aircraft was there for the USAF, had they pursued with XB-28.
Flame dampers on a turbocharged engine will cost far less of the performance, than on non-turbo engine that also relies on exhaust thrust to increase performance.The A-26 was a 'next-generation' airframe that used 3rd best R-2800 available (ie. no two stage, no turbo); the Ju 388 was the 'legacy' airframe that used the best BMW 801, at least when we talk about high altitude. Net result is that those two were not far away when operating in medium altitudes, one having the edge at high altitudes, another on lower altitudes.
Come to think about it - the Ju388K-stlye aircraft was there for the USAF, had they pursued with XB-28.
I've noted that 'antlers' will cost the speed
The A-26 was a 'next-generation' airframe that used 3rd best R-2800 available (ie. no two stage, no turbo); the Ju 388 was the 'legacy' airframe that used the best BMW 801, at least when we talk about high altitude. Net result is that those two were not far away when operating in medium altitudes, one having the edge at high altitudes, another on lower altitudes.
Come to think about it - the Ju388K-stlye aircraft was there for the USAF, had they pursued with XB-28.
I blieve the XB28 was somewhat bigger and more comparable to ju 288
The 388K when using the 801TJ was using the best 801 engine for High altitude but certainly not the best german engine. With Jumo 213E plus MW50 would be faster at almost all altitudes.
The 388 used an airframe that proved in six years of war that was able to face any condition. From the burning deserts of Africa,to the Frozen steppes of russia and even further to the artic ocean. Would Carry 4tons of bombs for short attacks on malta, 2 torpedoes for convoy attack, mg Containers for strafing soviet troops. All these from semi prepered airfields and poor fuel quality.
The A 26 , when faced the vietnam conditions, (which of course were much better than the Eastern front conditions), had to be extensively modifeid in to B26K
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Because it had room to grow, it wasn't a tail dragger and in the end served 30 years.
There is no doubt that Ju 88 was one of better designs that took part in the ww2. Stalin supposedly wanted from Soviet designers to come out with a bomber that would be better than Ju 88 specificaly, or so it is a saying behind the design process of Tu-2. The Allied evaluations were always favorable for the Ju 88, in any version.
The B-26K was a modification of a 20-year old aircraft. It is wonder the USAF even considered it. The modification included more powerful engines, different props, tip tanks, multiple wing racks, plus the bulking-up of the internals to handle greater weight power.
Granted, the Ju 388 with 2-stage Jumo 213 would be a much better performer, but it will need to wait until 1945 to get those. In 1944, maybe install the DB 603A with MW 50, it should really outperform the BMW 801J under ~7 km?
The A-26 with 2-stage, let alone turbo R-2800 should beat the 650 km/h mark with ease.
The B-26K was a modification of a 20-year old aircraft. It is wonder the USAF even considered it. The modification included more powerful engines, different props, tip tanks, multiple wing racks, plus the bulking-up of the internals to handle greater weight power.
Granted, the Ju 388 with 2-stage Jumo 213 would be a much better performer, but it will need to wait until 1945 to get those. In 1944, maybe install the DB 603A with MW 50, it should really outperform the BMW 801J under ~7 km?
The A-26 with 2-stage, let alone turbo R-2800 should beat the 650 km/h mark with ease.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Counter insurgency operations during the late 50s and early 60s made this aircraft the perfect candidate for a late life mod that ensured it would be around for 10 more years, with Vietnam flaring up the USAF recognized this. During the early/ mid 1960s some B-26 did suffer wing failures and the fleet was grounded however a company from California came up with a wing modification that not only took care of the wing fatigue problem, but increased it's under wing stores capacity. As mentioned the B-26 had growth potential and it showed when the first B-26 was modded to the "K" configuration. Additionally earlier model B-26s saw action over Cuba, Central and South America, Africa and eventually South East Asia. From Biafra to Peru, I count at least 20 military operators of the B-26.
Linear performance numbers don't always mean one aircraft performed its role better than another. Consider flight characteristics, maintenance, product support and combat effectiveness, the B-26 seemed to have all of these when needed in the post war years, and again, it wasn't a tail dragger!
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
In regards to the last, I tend to wonder just how well JU-88s would have stood up in Viet Nam if their airframes were 15-18 years old at the time with hundreds of hours of flight time already on the books?
The B-26K modification scheme was started, in part, due to wing failures on old airplanes operating in the low level attack profile. A hard job for most aircraft. Some people claim that one hour of high speed low level flight is worth up to 10 hours of high altitude flight in regards to airframe fatigue. Even if was only 2-3 times as bad those B-26s were old airplanes.
However the B-26K program was more than just fixing the wings, New engines with 2500hp for take-off and higher cruise settings increased speed, Gross weight was increased. Fixed 165 US gal wing tip tanks were installed, the turret/s were taken out. Underwing load went from 2000lbs to 8,000lbs, anti-skid brakes installed as well as de-icing equipment. Two of the under wing stations were plumbed for drop tanks (230 US gal). AN extra 790 US gallons without using the bomb bay AND leaving 6 underwing stations unused could do wonders for combat radius.
The extensive modifications had a lot more to do with actually upgrading the capabilities of the plane rather than fixing structural weaknesses of 15-20 year old aircraft. Yes the wing structure was beefed up. But the result not only "fixed" the old airplanes but allowed for a massive increase in "normal" loading.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gee Shortround, we must be psychic friends! 
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That only helps for recon missions which of course is what Ju-388 was designed for. If we are considering the much more common CAS mission then we should be measuring performance @ 10,000 feet.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
At least one Ju-88 crew completed 1,000 sorties vs the Soviet Union (historical picture available in "Red Phoenix"). That's got to be at least a couple thousand flight hours, mostly operating from grass/dirt/mud airfields.
Shortround6
Major General
Yeah, but did they use one airplane?
And one airplane out of thousands proves very little.
For the Americans:
"According to the AAF Statistical Digest, in less than four years (December 1941- August 1945), the US Army Air Forces lost 14,903 pilots, aircrew and assorted personnel plus 13,873 airplanes — inside the continental United States. They were the result of 52,651 aircraft accidents (6,039 involving fatalities) in 45 months."
Bolding by me. Quite obviously with only 26% of the accidents writing off the aircraft and only 11.4% of accidents involving fatalities it was quite common for a pilot/crew to go through more than one aircraft.
It was quite possible for a bomber to go through several crews (B-26 Flak Bait did over 200 missions) , it was also quite possible for a pilot and crew to go through several bombers during a tour.
And one airplane out of thousands proves very little.
For the Americans:
"According to the AAF Statistical Digest, in less than four years (December 1941- August 1945), the US Army Air Forces lost 14,903 pilots, aircrew and assorted personnel plus 13,873 airplanes — inside the continental United States. They were the result of 52,651 aircraft accidents (6,039 involving fatalities) in 45 months."
Bolding by me. Quite obviously with only 26% of the accidents writing off the aircraft and only 11.4% of accidents involving fatalities it was quite common for a pilot/crew to go through more than one aircraft.
It was quite possible for a bomber to go through several crews (B-26 Flak Bait did over 200 missions) , it was also quite possible for a pilot and crew to go through several bombers during a tour.
A staggering level of losses and they didnt end in the USA. There were more loses training in UK. I believe there were questions asked in Congress about it.
Maybe compare the two AC against their environment. The 1940 Ju88 was up against the Spitfire as a front line fighter. The 1944 A 26 was against the Me262 as a front line fighter. I would say a Ju88 had more chance of getting the job done than an A26 given the same numbers of defenders.
I know there were no where near enough 262s, just saying
I know there were no where near enough 262s, just saying
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not really - a sortie is basically one flight. It could be 6 minutes or 6 hours.
