Ju-88G-7
Rob Arndt
Bombardier
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>
> Rob
I saw a lot of JU 88's during the war but never one with a nose like
that.More info?
Art Kramer
344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
Willie the Wolf Bombardier
England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
Rob
> On Jun 22, 7:17 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>
> > Rob
>
> I saw a lot of JU 88's during the war but never one with a nose like
> that.More info?
>
> Art Kramer
> 344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
> Willie the Wolf Bombardier
Nightfighter, Art, with special radar set-up:
From WW2.net, with some text editing + re-writing due to poor writing
by OP- edit by Rob Arndt
After the SN-2d or FuG 220d set was acquired and used on a successful
basis, the FuG 218 Neptun was being developed and sent to operational
units.The FuG 220d was still the standard during 1945 and newer radar
aerial fittings were being developed for a more streamlined look, with
less drag and thus more speed. Two versions were used on a very
limited basis: the first was a horizontal fitting with the aerials in
an X fitting toward a point directly in the center of the nose outward
as shown in this II./NJG 5 Gruppenkommandeurs 88G-6 a/c. Note the
black doppelwinkel by the wing...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/C9_AC.jpg
... and then to completely reduce the drag and provide maximum speed
and endurance, a special plywood nosecone was constructed to overfit
the horizontal pole and X configuration with only the top of the X
elements protruding and the tip covered in a special clear plexiglas
cover. The unit then was on par with the latest Mossie XXX in
performance. The FuG 220d in this set-up was of limited operational
use and the exposed FuG 220d with the 45 degree angled dipoles
continued to be produced.
An aircraft from NJG 4 under RCAF management at war's end
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
Rob
LIBERATOR
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>
> Rob
That's not a German one, what markings are those?
Rob
Captured, Liberator- RCAF (Canadian)... sigh... :(
Rob
Keith Willshaw
"Bombardier" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b5a0fc6e-20d0-4504...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 7:17?pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>>
>> Rob
> I saw a lot of JU 88's during the war but never one with a nose like
> that.More info?
It was the final night fighter variant and if it entered service at all it
did so in very small numbers. The nose is for the FUG-240 centimetric
radar which was based on captured allied cavity magnetrons. Less
than 40 examples entered service most on Ju-88-G6 aircraft
Keith
euno...@yahoo.com.au
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Bombardier" <artkr...@aol.com> wrote in message
The streamlined nose is actually not for a microwave radar but for a
non centrimetric radar its for the "Morgenstern" or "morning star"
array in which a cruxiform dipole array is covered in a fabric tent to
streamline it. This version was experimental, for the SN-2d I think,
it probably would have been used for the FuG 218 Neptune and FuG 219
Neptune. There were about twentyfive FuG 240N1a Microwave sets
delivered in Ju 88G6c 9cm sets (I think actually 8.4cm) but the idea
was to get some opperational experience from a limited series of 9cm
radars, perhaps let the allies build a jamming infrastructure against
them but rely mainly on improved versions of conventional radars and
jump straight in 3cm radars. The neptune frequencies were not being
jammed yet and the Fu 219 was supposed to burn through jamming with
its 120kw output power. The 3cm magnetrons were in series production
on a 'lab scale' and there were bench top versions of the radar.
The German magnetrons and radars weren't straight copies: they used
electromagents instead of permament magnets while they had their own
home grown split anode magnetrons for the local oscilator, the
recievers were quite different.
The German microwave program consisted of two targets: the abillity to
produce 5cm microwaves and the abillity to produce 25cm microwaves.
Despite General Martini's demand for research in this area the program
at Telefunken was shut down at the point that 1.5kW outputs were being
generated at 5cm with a tungsten split anode magnetron. The program
was put on hold for resource reasons (and possibly politics) barely a
month before the first allied magnetron was discovered and the focus
was on 50cm waves. Resources were extremely limited. Since the
researchers were dispersed and sent to the front (the Army) it took a
long time to get them back and the potential of microwaves in aircraft
detection wasn't perceived for quite a while. The German 25cm
program actually met with success though it was rendered the more
ploding when it was realised that it might be best to bypass the 27cm
stage. Nevertheless, and with a 1.5m dia Wurzburg dish it was enough
to auto trak aircraft. FuMo 231 Euklid was one such system menat for
destroyers. The disk triodes eg LD7, LD6 produced about 60kW at 27cm
and 8kW at 10cm and formed the basis of post war soviet air defenses
(known as G6e instead of LD60) since 20-25cm is not attenuated by
moisture and makes for a good long range radar.
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
Euno,
Haven't you learned not to argue with Keith over British invention
myths yet???
They didn't invent radar and Whittle barely made it to the patent
office before Ohain. Idiots still believe the British flew a jet first
when the Germans did 6 days before WW2 (3 days in an official flight).
Even postwar, W Germany tried a range of VTOL projects just as good
or better than the Harrier but could never get funding and were always
under US pressure to buy American.
Postwar the Germans have invented the IFV, caseless weapons, reactive
armor (patents sold to the Israelis), AIP Subs, Rotor radar, and a
range of other military concepts are in the pipeline like plasma
rifles, ACRs, families of wheeled advanced modular AFVs, etc...
Keith is living in British Empire wonderland and I sometimes wonder if
he takes some opium with his brandy ;)
Rob
Bombardier
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Bombardier" <artkr...@aol.com> wrote in message
After the war we moved into a base in Schleissheim Germany just
northt of Munich.for occupation duties. The base was littered with
wrecked JU 88's but never saw one like that. We had sort of a standing
joke where we said we would take all those wrecks and put together one
flyable JU and fly is back to the States for and charge for rides..
But of course it was just talk. We never did anything like that.
Keith Willshaw
"Rob" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d966d90f-f74c-4f25...@q3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Euno,
> Haven't you learned not to argue with Keith over British invention
> myths yet???
The fact that allies had large numbers of centimetric radars and the Germans
did
not is no myth.
> They didn't invent radar
I never claimed they did, what they did do however was make it part of
an integrated air defense system years before the Luftwaffe made the same
leap.
The Luftwaffe never did understand the advantages it gave the RAF during
the Battle of Britain
> and Whittle barely made it to the patent office before Ohain.
Both Ohain and Whittle profited from the early work on gas turbines
carried out by people such as Aegidius Elling and Dr AA Griffith
> Idiots still believe the British flew a jet first
> when the Germans did 6 days before WW2 (3 days in an official flight).
Feel free to point out any occasion on which I made that claim
> Even postwar, W Germany tried a range of VTOL projects just as good
> or better than the Harrier but could never get funding and were always
> under US pressure to buy American.
Incorrect. The German experimental aircraft used seperate lift engines which
carried a major weight penalty for most of the flight regime.
> Postwar the Germans have invented the IFV,
The Sch�tzenpanzer 12-3 IRC
> caseless weapons,
If you mean caseless ammunition then you should be aware that
the first weapon that used it was the Rocket Ball projectile patented
by Walter Hunt in 1848
> reactive armor (patents sold to the Israelis),
ISTR that the first recorded work on such armor was carrier out in the USSR
Scientific Research Institute of Steel (NII Stali) in 1949 but I'll happily
concede
that armour designed by Manfred Held was the first to be practical.
> AIP Subs,
Fair comment
> Rotor radar,
You'll have to clarify what you mean here, the term Rotor Radar is usually
used
when discussing the British Early Warning system of the 1950's
> and a
> range of other military concepts are in the pipeline like plasma
> rifles, ACRs, families of wheeled advanced modular AFVs, etc...
> Keith is living in British Empire wonderland and I sometimes wonder if
> he takes some opium with his brandy ;)
You know I have told you many times that far from yearning for the
days of Empire I am only too happy that we had the good sense to
turn our back on the notion.
As for Brandy with or without opium I much prefer a good Merlot
and single malt whisky.
Keith
Bombardier
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Rob" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
Bombardier
I love the great Ales of Noorthrrn England. Samuel Smith for example.
Get one of these and Bob's you uncle.
Art Kramer
344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
Willie the Wolf Bombardier
Keith Willshaw
On Jun 23, 9:48?am, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>> As for Brandy with or without opium I much prefer a good Merlot
>> and single malt whisky.
>>
>> Keith
> I love the great Ales of Noorthrrn England. Samuel Smith for example.
> Get one of these and Bob's you uncle.
Sam Smith's isn't bad, before they were bought out by Courage I
preferred John Smith's Magnet .
Keith
Bombardier
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Bombardier" <artkr...@aol.com> wrote in message
When I was in England during the war I drank Courage just because of
the ad line. It was "TAKE COURAGE". Clever huh. But I liked Guiness
better. I still am a Guiness man with an occasional Boddingtons Pub
Ale. And of course a wonderful Belgian Chamay every now and again,
Art Kramer
The Stansted kid. (G)
JasiekS
U�ytkownik "Keith Willshaw" <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk>
napisa� w wiadomo�ci news:4A80m.51928$kh1....@newsfe07.ams2...
>> and Whittle barely made it to the patent office before Ohain.
> Both Ohain and Whittle profited from the early work on gas
> turbines
> carried out by people such as Aegidius Elling and Dr AA Griffith
> They didn't invent radar and Whittle barely made it to the patent
> office before Ohain. Idiots still believe the British flew a jet
> first
> when the Germans did 6 days before WW2 (3 days in an official
> flight).
Almost everybody mixed with jet propulsion these days. For example
professor Jan Oderfeld together with J�zef Sachs and W�adys�aw
Berndzikiewicz experimented with jets and pulsejets in Poland in
early thirties. Their experiments hovewer didn't come out of
laboratory.
http://home.sandiego.edu/~pruski/oderfeld.html
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
Alistair Gunn
> And of course a wonderful Belgian Chamay every now and again,
Do you, perhaps, mean Chimay? In which case, I entirely agree with you!
Do you prefer the red, blue or the white?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Walt
<teut...@aol.com> wrote:
>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>
>Rob
I kept waiting for someone to say that this picture is of a Ju 88G-6
not a G-7. And the markings are RAF not Canadian. The radar is either
the FuG 218 or the standard Fug 220 with a Morgenstern antenna. The
Picture was taken at NAS Ford and is thought to be AM 16, w/n 622311
captured at Eggbeck.
Bill Shatzer
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:17:01 -0700 (PDT), Rob Arndt
> <teut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>>
>>Rob
> I kept waiting for someone to say that this picture is of a Ju 88G-6
> not a G-7.
You'll be waiting some considerable while, I suspect.
The G-6 had BMW radial engines, the G-7 Jumo 213 inlines.
The photo shows an aircraft with the inline engines.
> And the markings are RAF not Canadian.
Dunno how you could tell - during WWII, the RAF and RCAF markings were
identical. The maple leaf variation wasn't introduced until sometime
post-war.
> The radar is either
> the FuG 218 or the standard Fug 220 with a Morgenstern antenna. The
> Picture was taken at NAS Ford and is thought to be AM 16, w/n 622311
> captured at Eggbeck.
Could be.
Rob
Sorry Walt, but that is definately a G-7 under RCAF control. The radar
I can't say at this time...
Rob
LIBERATOR
Yeah I second that...
LIBERATOR
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Rob" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
Pretty good points overall Keith.
What's your feelings regarding Hitler and Goering being in a dream
world about "oh the British people will make the government call a
truce of which things will be straightened out" thus Goering wasn't
manufacturing planes or training men whilst the British were at full
speed, of which the edge of Battle Of Britain was theirs?
LIBERATOR
Looking back on the war now do you feel tricked and deceived by your
government or do you still believe Hitler was bad and all the B.S.
about wanting to rule the entire world?
Bombardier
Wow ! G-7 vs G-8. I saw a hell of a lot of JU-88's durirng the war and
could never tell one from another. And didn't really care one way or
another. You guys are really into the nitty gritty. Good for you.
Art Kramer
344 BG 494 BS
England France Belgium Italy Holland Germany
Willie the Wolf Bombardier
http://artkramer.blackapplehost.com/.
Walt
wrote:
You source for that please? Check this link. According to this all Ju
88G-6s had Jumo 213s:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=240&highlight=Ju+88g-7
Walt
Walt
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 12:17?pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:17:01 -0700 (PDT), Rob Arndt
>> > <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/Sboot/ju88am16.jpg
>>
>> >>Rob
>> > I kept waiting for someone to say that this picture is of a Ju 88G-6
>> > not a G-7. ?
>>
>> You'll be waiting some considerable while, I suspect.
>>
>> The G-6 had BMW radial engines, the G-7 Jumo 213 inlines.
>>
>> The photo shows an aircraft with the inline engines.
>>
>> > And the markings are RAF not Canadian.
>>
>> Dunno how you could tell - during WWII, the RAF and RCAF markings were
>> identical. ?The maple leaf variation wasn't introduced until sometime
>> post-war.
>>
>> > The radar is either
>> > the FuG 218 or the standard Fug 220 with a Morgenstern antenna. The
>> > Picture was taken at NAS Ford and is thought to be AM 16, w/n 622311
>> > captured at Eggbeck.
>>
>> Could be.
>
>Sorry Walt, but that is definately a G-7 under RCAF control. The radar
>I can't say at this time...
>
>Rob
And I'll ask you the same thing, what's your source? How do you know
it's "definately a G-7". Check the link above. If you 'd have read my
first post you might have gathered that the picture was take at Royal
Naval Air Station Ford. I don't know how you came to the conclusion
that it was under Canadian control. Enlighten me please on both
points.
Bill Shatzer
> You source for that please? Check this link. According to this all Ju
> 88G-6s had Jumo 213s:
> http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=240&highlight=Ju+88g-7
> Walt
Rechecking, you're correct - The Ju 88G-6a and G-6b had the BMWs while
the G-6c used the Jumo 213A engine.
The G-7s upgraded to Jumo 213Es.
Didn't catch that. Still, I think the "nose cone" around the Morgenstern
radar antenna was mounted only on (some of) the G-7b's - although
towards the end, the Germans were playing around with lots of
experimental, one-offs, and retrofitted arrangements so anything is
possible. Things were not well documented as the Gotterdammerung approached.
Rob
It's a Ju-88G-7b:
Ju 88G-7: Used Junkers Jumo 213 engines.
Ju 88G-7a: Intruder. Had Junkers Jumo engines.The ventral weapons
could be jettisoned. Had FuG 220 radar. The engines were optionally
equipped with methanol water power boost.
Ju 88G-7b: Intruder. Had Junkers Jumo engines. Had bomb racks under
the wings. Used the FuG 228 or FuG 218 radar. The antennae were
enclosed in a lengthened nose cone.
Ju 88G-7c: Used FuG 240 radar. The antennae were enclosed in a shorter
nose cone.
It is using FuG-218 Neptun radar as only 10 units of the FuG-228 were
manufactured and none saw service.
More information confiming that this is a G-7b:
The final production G series model was the Ju 88G-7, powered by two
Jumo 213E engines with MW-50 power boosting to 1,800 hp on take-off.
The Ju 88G-7a had FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 radar, while the Ju 88G-7b
had FuG 218 Neptune V radar with either the standard 'toasting fork'
aerials or a Morgenstern array enclosed in a pointed wooden nose cone.
The G-7c had FuG 240 Berlin N-1 centimetric radar with the scanner
enclosed in a plywood nose cone. Only ten G-7c were completed, before
the end of the war.
Rob
Walt
wrote:
Rob, you still didn't cite your sources. So your info is unverified.
If you'll do a little more research you'll also find that the a, b and
c suffexs were not of German origin for the G-6 or the G-7. As it says
in the link I posted there is no evidence that the G-7 ever reached
production. Now if you have some source document evidence that they
did I'm sure some of the people on that board would jump for joy. One
of those guys has been researching Ju 88 source documents for some 40
odd years and can't verify that a singe G-7 ever came off the
production lines. I'm sure he would be very interested in any original
info you have.
Rob
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:08:19 -0700 (PDT), Rob <teuton...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt,
According to the online LEMB Ju-88 Database the first two Ju-88G-7s
were converted Ju-88G-6s V112 and V113 (621044 and 621045). The V112
was destroyed in an air raid on Dessau on March 7, 1945 but at least a
few other G-7s survived* like the photo I posted which can never be a
normal G-6 as they did not have the pointed nose cone at all. Only the
G-7b and c featured that and also you can look up the proposed
Ju-88G-7b/Fw Ta 152H mistle combo as well to see that same nose with
the FuG 218 Neptun with the M-aerials.
* 10 G-7s were claimed built including the two prototypes V112 and
V113
Rob
Walt
wrote:
Granted, two prototypes were built, and you state one was destroyed.
Another source says both were destroyed before they ever flew.
Ah yes, the 10 that were "claimed to be built" and "proposed"
Ju-88G-7b/Fw Ta 152H mistle combo as well to see that same nose with
the FuG 218 Neptun with the M-aerials.
So far the only thing that you have cited is that 2 prototypes were
built. And that one, if not both, were destroyed.
I would also like to know your source for your statement that the Ju
88G-7 was the only one to have the enclosed Morganstern antenna.
One last thing, one source says the G-7 was suppose to have 4 bladed
props, which the one in the picture doesn't have.
You have made an outright statement that that picture is of a G-7, but
have provided no hard evidence to back it up.
Rob
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rob <teuton...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt,
There are NO normal Ju-88G-6s with that nose cone configuration and
your friend who was supposed to be a Ju-88 "expert" could not even
find the V112 and V113 conversions?
C'mon Walt, I'm not in a pissing contest with you- I am trying my
hardest to help.
LEMB Databas only lists the one G-7b lost in a bombing raid. If the
other one was lost as well, it would have been listed that way and I
believe that more were in production of the b-model in March 1945
which is stated at the official Junkers site as last model produced in
1945. I cannot speak for the c-model with the Berlin radar which would
have had a domed nose due to the dish radar. It is obvious, at least
to me, that the photo I posted shows a G-7b with FuG 218 Neptun using
M-aerials just as the proposed mistel combo matches. The ten FuG 228
sets were made, but never applied.
And excuse me for being the only person here that HAS provided at
least some evidence.
If you find it impossible to conceive than the burden of proof is on
you to dispute the RCAF photo with photos of Ju-88G-6s with that nose
cone. You won't find even one, that is a G-7 for sure and the Neptun
was the radar slated for that model.
Be my guest and prove me wrong. 2 are proven at this point when your
sources said NONE were ever built. I rest my case...
Rob
Bill Shatzer
For what it might be worth, Dutch records record the loss (written off
as beyond repair) of a Luftwaffe III NJG4 Ju 88G-7 (wk. no. 710348) on
March 4, 1945 at Steenwijk.
http://www.nimh.nl/nl/images/1945%20sec_tcm5-7286.pdf
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=49053
I suppose its always possible that the G-7 identification was an error
but, if not, the III NJG 4 Gruppe designation would indicate that at
least one G-7 was issued to an operational unit.
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROUND II:
Ok, here we go on Ju-88G-7 Debate:
Here's what I discovered and the various contradictions:
1) Accoding to “History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945”,
page 186:
“…fitted with more powerful Jumo 213 engine, it also had the pointed
wingtips of the Ju 188/388 series, as specifically stated in an RLM
aircraft type manual. Only about 10-12 Ju 88G-7s were completed in
November 1944 and none were ever delivered to an operational unit…
Plans for large scale series production were shelved because the
performance of this version did not show any notable improvement over
that of the current Ju 88G-6 series”
In an appendix, Aders gives performance as:
Max Speed: 584 km/h @ 9,000 m
Range: 2,220 km
Ceiling: 9,800 m.
2) the non- operational status and production numbers are
contradicted by these sources starting with this:
Ju 88G-7 710438 III. NJG 4 04-Mar-45 Notlandung after technical
failure. Fern Nachtjagd Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #12); Intruders Over
Britain, p.200 Steenwijk
* note that the captured RCAF a/c is ALSO from NJG-4 :)
OK, this is now a claimed Ju-88G-1 conversion that was operational,
but that contradicts this:
3) According to Brian Filley's "Junkers Ju 88 in Action Part 2", from
Squadron Signal:
Accordingly, the G-7 variant with Jumo 213E-1 engine was under
development with 4 prototypes, but never entered production. The first
2 were destroyed by bombing in March 1945 and the latter 2 had not
received their powerplants by war's end.
The identuty of those claimed 4?
4) V112, V113, V114, and V115- all converted G-6s. Obviously TWO of
these 4 were lost anytime from late 1944 to the March 1945 bombing
raid leaving 2 in assemby awaiting the Jumo 213 engines. The a/c in my
photo is completed so it cannot be either of the two destroyed nor the
two under assemby as it is completed and captured. So more than 4 were
made IMHO. Other undisclosed documents claim 2 more G-7s were strafed
at Brandenburg-Briest- so now there would be 6 official G-7s plus that
G-1 conversion lost= 7 a/c.
Second Source for the V112-V115 as converted G-6s:
Griehl's Waffen-Arsenal, "Nachtjäger über Deutschland 1940 - 1945"
5) Just for perfect clarification on the G-7c which was supposed to
have Berlin radar, take a look at a G-6 with the Berlin radar and what
type of nose it has:
http://members.fortunecity.com/nightfighters/Ju88/Ju88/Ju88-46.jpg
Does not match the special pointed nose cones made especially for the
G-7b and its FuG 218 Neptun radar.
I can find NO photographic proof of any Ju-88G-7c, so the production
ones were all G-7b models.
So Walt, we now have moved up to 4 confirmed conversion a/c plus a G-1
conversion and action with NJG-4 where the intact RCAF G-7b photo
originates. We also have 2 more unconfimed strafed G-7s= 8 total which
is close to the 10 claimed all over the net.
I see no valid reason to debate the designation of this as Ju-88G-7b
with the special nose cone to house the Neptun radar with the M-
aerials.
Your turn Walt... please consult your expert who could not even
provide all of this info. The only thing I agree with you is the
possibility that no G-7c models were ever built with the Berlin radar.
And as for the 4-blade controversy- there is none. Several G-6s had
four blades and it was only planned to use 4-blades with the Jumo 213s
or DB 603s. they just did not apply them, simple as that. And the
radars could have been changed too in 1945, but no G-7b had a Berlin
as evidenced by the type of nose for that dish radar.
Hope this ends this silliness right now Walt.
Rob
euno...@yahoo.com.au
This is a difficult subject but the RLM/Luftwaffe didn't designate an
aircraft according to its radar or radio setup.
Ju 88G-1 2 x BMW 801 engines.
Ju 88G-2 to Ju 88G-5 never built but having varitions such as GM-1.
Ju 88G-6 2 x Junkers Jumo 213A engines
Ju 88G-7 2 x Junkers Juno 213E engines.
The designation depends on the engine fitout, which was a major
manufacturing difference.
"U" numbers eg Me 109F4/U4/R2 for "Unrustung" (German for Conversion)
and "Rucksaetze" for retrofits told of modifications. I have seen the
occaisional letter used eg "b" but not sure what it meant or even if
it is German in origin.
Certainly Gebharb Adders in his book "The history of the Grrmsn nigh
fighter force" says that it was an allied mistake promulgated later by
(William Green) to attribut the designation of G-7 to Bernlin FuG 240
microwave radar equiped radars likewise for the a, b, c suffixes.
The Ju 88G-7 would have been a monsterously powerfull aircraft and I
think visually distinct aircraft from the Ju 88-G6. The difference
between a Jumo 213A engine and the Jumo 213E was that the "A" had a
single stage single speed supercharger while the "E" had a two stage
THREE speed supercharger with a very large intercooler. It was the
same engine that was used on the Ta 152H. A Ju 88G-7 must surely
have had a larger airscrew blade area, bigger air intake scoop and it
would have been a bit longer to accomodate the aftercooler/
intercooler.
As a guide to performance the Ju 388J-3 night fighter variant
(basically a Ju 88G with pressurised cockpit and a remotely controlled
tail turret) was expected to do 585kmh/363mph at 10250 meters with
radar aerials and gun packs and without MW50 which was to be
retrofitted in the form of 150L tanks in each wing. Jumo 222 and
BWW801T variants with higher prerformance were expected but the Jumo
222 was in development and the BMW801T may have been in limited supply
due to its turbo supercharger materials.
I've seen some sources state the Ju 88G-7 or Ju 88S-2 used Jumo 213E/F
engines, There is no "E/F" the Jumo 213F had the same two stage three
speed supercharger but apparently had a smaller intercooler. It was
the engine used on the Fw 190D-13. The Jumo 213F would have the
nearly same physical dimension as the Jumo 213A which is why it fitted
in the Fw 190D-13. Due to the lack of the intercooler it seems that
the 213F was more dependant on using high octane C3 fuel. The Jumo
213E-0 used C3 as well but the intercooler probably made conversion to
the Jumo 213E-1 optimised for 87 octane B4 easier to achieve.
Walt
wrote:
>On Jun 27, 9:15�pm, Rob <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
I didn't say he hadn't found them. I knew about them. It's just that
the picture you posted isn't one of them.
>>
>> C'mon Walt, I'm not in a pissing contest with you- I am trying my
>> hardest to help.
>>
>> LEMB Databas only lists the one G-7b lost in a bombing raid
The LEMB data is a G-6 database. And is continually being updated.
>> snip
The point of this discussion is wheather that picture is of a G-6 or
G-7. Some how it got off on wheather there were any G-7s. I most
likely did that. There probably, were. I'll concede that.
>
>ROUND II:
>
>Ok, here we go on Ju-88G-7 Debate:
>
>Here's what I discovered and the various contradictions:
>
>1) Accoding to �History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945�,
>page 186:
>
>��fitted with more powerful Jumo 213 engine, it also had the pointed
>wingtips of the Ju 188/388 series, as specifically stated in an RLM
>aircraft type manual.
>November 1944 and none were ever delivered to an operational unit�
>Plans for large scale series production were shelved because the
>performance of this version did not show any notable improvement over
>that of the current Ju 88G-6 series�
>
I'll leave you with this thought, the aircraft in that picture is
recorded as having the squadron code of 3C+. Further down on the page
of the Aders reference you cite it says the aircraft were never
delivered to an operational unit. Hence they would have had no code.
>snip.
>
> 2) the non- operational status and production numbers are
>contradicted by these sources starting with this:
>
>Ju 88G-7 710438 III. NJG 4 04-Mar-45 Notlandung after technical
>failure. Fern Nachtjagd Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #12); Intruders Over
>Britain, p.200 Steenwijk
>
>* note that the captured RCAF a/c is ALSO from NJG-4 :)
I'm familiar with this site, it's very good. And not to berate their
efforts, I suspect this is a G-1 rather than a G-7. It fits right in
with G-1 serial numbers. Probably a mis read document or a typo.
>
>OK, this is now a claimed Ju-88G-1 conversion that was operational,
>but that contradicts this:
>
>3) According to Brian Filley's "Junkers Ju 88 in Action Part 2", from
>Squadron Signal:
>Accordingly, the G-7 variant with Jumo 213E-1 engine was under
>development with 4 prototypes, but never entered production. The first
>2 were destroyed by bombing in March 1945 and the latter 2 had not
>received their powerplants by war's end.
>
>The identuty of those claimed 4?
>
>4) V112, V113, V114, and V115- all converted G-6s. Obviously TWO of
>these 4 were lost anytime from late 1944 to the March 1945 bombing
>raid leaving 2 in assemby awaiting the Jumo 213 engines. The a/c in my
>photo is completed so it cannot be either of the two destroyed nor the
>two under assemby as it is completed and captured. So more than 4 were
>made IMHO. Other undisclosed documents claim 2 more G-7s were strafed
>at Brandenburg-Briest- so now there would be 6 official G-7s plus that
>G-1 conversion lost= 7 a/c.
>
One source says that two prototypes were reported destroyed by
straffing at Brandis. Since we don't know where the conversion took
place there is a good chance these were the V112 and V113. V114 and
V115 were never completed. This leaves zero.
>Second Source for the V112-V115 as converted G-6s:
>Griehl's Waffen-Arsenal, "Nachtj�ger �ber Deutschland 1940 - 1945"
>
>5) Just for perfect clarification on the G-7c which was supposed to
>have Berlin radar, take a look at a G-6 with the Berlin radar and what
>type of nose it has:
>http://members.fortunecity.com/nightfighters/Ju88/Ju88/Ju88-46.jpg
>
Your point?
>Does not match the special pointed nose cones made especially for the
>G-7b and its FuG 218 Neptun radar.
>
>I can find NO photographic proof of any Ju-88G-7c, so the production
>ones were all G-7b models.
>
>So Walt, we now have moved up to 4 confirmed conversion a/c
2 destroyed and 2 incomplete
>plus a G-1 conversion and action with NJG-4 where the intact RCAF G-7b photo
>originates.
One of your information conflicts. What would be the purpose of
converting a G-1 to a G-7? Different engines, different piping, etc.
Especially when they apparently couldn't get the necessary engines for
the airframes they had under conversion.
>We also have 2 more unconfimed strafed
probably V112 and V113 as mentioned above.
>G-7s= 8 total which >is close to the 10 claimed all over the net.
So far we have a total of none. Four prototypes, one debatable G-7
from a loss list that's probably a typo for a G-1
>
Were any issued to operational squadrons? One of your sources says no.
And don't try to tall me the picture proves they were.
>I see no valid reason to debate the designation of this as Ju-88G-7b
>with the special nose cone to house the Neptun radar with the M-
>aerials.
>
You don't? So far you have offered no evidence that that picture is of
a G-7. Or that it was under Canadian control. I think I mentioned that
the picture was taken at RNNAS Ford.
>Your turn Walt... please consult your expert who could not even
>provide all of this info.
He's not my expert. But he is considered an expert on the Ju88.
>The only thing I agree with you is the possibility that no G-7c models
>were ever built with the Berlin radar.
>And as for the 4-blade controversy- there is none.
There isn't?
>Several G-6s had four blades
I don'y know about that maybe you're right
>it was only planned to use 4-blades with the Jumo 213s
Jumo 213Es
>or DB 603s.
I didn't know there was ever any plans to put DB603s in the Ju88.
Shows what I know.
>they just did not apply them, simple as that.
That's simple all right.
> And the >radars could have been changed too in 1945, but no G-7b had a Berlin
>as evidenced by the type of nose for that dish radar.
>
>Hope this ends this silliness right now Walt.
Not silly at all.
Now if you want ssome more facts.
The a, b, and c suffixes complicate matters. In the G-6 series a and b
supposedly indicated BMW 801 engines, the c suffix was suppose to
indicate Jumo 213 engines. It is now known that all G-6s had Jumo
213s.
In the G-7 the suffixes were suppose to indicate the radar fit. In
both cases the suffixes were not official German designations. They
were added post war.
I suspect some your info comes from "Warplanes of the Third Reich" or
from "German Aircraft of the Second World War". Both good books in
their day. However, more recent publications rarely even mention the
G-7s. In pictures and drawing all the aircraft once portraied as G-7s
are now identified as G-6s.
And I'm done. The burden of proof wasn't on me from the start. You
made the statement that it was a Ju 88G-7. You still haven't provided
any evidence that that picture is of a Ju 88G-7.
No more replies, no more arguments. Believe what you will.
>
>Rob
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
All of them had Jumo 213A engines and not Jumo 213E engines like the
G-7s.
Rob