Just picked up the latest edition of "Air Classics" magazine. It has the first part of an article by a fellow named Nick Stroud on the "Schnellbomber". It did have one tidbit that I didn't know: the JU 88 was designed by two AMERICANS named W. H. Evers and Alfred Gassner who were hired by the Junkers firm to design the plane. Later, the nazis hid that fact so that people would believe it was a total German design. Can't wait until the second installment comes out.
very interesting topic here, thanks for posting.....I read quite often, how engineering was copied/improved on/etc...I work for an engineering department.....what does 'designed' exactly mean<>tweak something/just some parts/everything...???
Hi B-7, Not totally sure, since info is sketchy about details. It seems at least one of them was an expert is light-skin stressed metal construction. Quote from Wm. Green, "Junkers, anxious to embody the latest structural techniques in its Schnellbomber contender, recruited for the task of designing the bomber W. H. Evers and A. Gassner..." Perhaps you could enlighten me and others as to what "light-skin stressed metal construction" is. Obviously having something to do with aluminum or magnesium, but beyond that, I'm stumped.
I work with stainless steel mostly....that sounds very interesting, as I do like reading about the engineering areas...I'm not an engineer though...I program and build what our engineers design..I asked one of them about it, he didn't know
Well, Gassner was Austrian by birth, and emigrated to America, in 1923, when he was 31. He received his American citizenship sometime between 1923 and 1928, but the sources are hazy on this point.
very interesting/good point....kind of funny....I've read a number similar situations, especially 1850s onward [of course with the immigration]...
Stressed skin construction is also referred to as semi-monocoque, not quite a full moncoque construction but lighter than a full frame construction type.
Stressed skin is where the skin of the aircraft bears some(semi-monocoque) or all(monocoque) of the load placed on the airframe. This is opposed to aircraft that have wooden or metal framing where the skin of the aircraft(fabric, wood, metal, whatever) bears only a very miniscule amount of the load placed on it. Think of it as such... Start stripping the skin if off a Hawker Hurricane or a Vickers Wellington fuselage, and the fuselage will still be structurally sound. Start stripping the skin off a Spitfire, and you see how quickly the fuselage collapses(provided it is not properly supported).
tango yankee Takao..nicely said, ...I've read the term so many times, and never really thought about it
I wondered if they were the same thing. So, would a Spit be monocoque or semi-monocoque? I would think "semi" since there are stringers and formers in the empennage and a spar in the wing. However, this may just refer to the fuselage.
Adding to Takao's excellent information. A rough but not perfect analogy is the comparison of a current unibody car to an older car with a chassis frame.
i'm surprised the LW lost more Ju-88's than any other bomber during the battle of britain when the '88 stood the best chance of surviving an attack. it can out-dive a hurricane, right?
Interesting Perhaps the Germans used their Ju88s more than the Do17 and He111 for the more dangerous daylight bombing? Numbers of aircraft di not automatically translate to sortie rates. Do the losses include losses from accidents or purely combat losses? The Ju88 was regarded as a more difficult to fly and land than some of the more docile bombers. high wing loading and relied on flaps at low speeds.
Your information surprised me no end. Good one. Very good explanatory film of the JU-88 Schnellbomber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RhTpawi7E
One of the more interesting aspects of the Ju 88 was the flexibility of the design in terms of expansion. It really was almost alone in this category during WW 2. The Ju 88H is the first example of this where the fuselage was substantially lengthened by insertion of new sections to give it more room for fuel extending its range. The next is the Mistal bomb. The nose section was replaced by a massive hollow charge warhead. Last, the Ju 488 took components from the Ju 88, 188, 288, and 388 to create a new four engine bomber out of the original two engine plane. The closest anyone comes to doing something like that during this period is with aircraft like the Douglas B-18 using the wings of a DC-3 mated to a new fuselage that produced a twin engine (and not very good) bomber.
Don't forget about the Manchester to Lancaster modification. That one resulted in a good bomber though
But, the Manchester / Lancaster mod is more like the He 177 / 277 modification. It takes what is essentially a four engine bomber to begin with and replaces two powerful but defective engines with four lower power ones on the same airframe. The Ju 488 goes way beyond that. It uses the stretch fuselage of a Ju 88H, with the crew section and nose of a Ju 388 along with an enlarged bomb bay using in part the wooden panner from a Ju 188 / 388. The wings are Ju 188 with extended tips and new center sections added for the two new engines. The tail assembly is from a Ju 288. It's sort of a "Frankenstein" airplane.
Mac-Bolan....don't forget that your tables don't have the He111 losses for comparison Those figures don't have much to do with vulnerability....but time and when the losses occured the Do17 was actually considered obsolete by the start of the BoB and was rapidly being phased out....so simply not quite so many Dorniers fought in the whole Battle as Junkers and Heinkels. Ditto in a similar way for the Ju87....the Stuka was withdrawn from bombing ops after three days of heavy losses against radar stations in the second week of August IIRC. So it too simply didn't fly anything like the same sortie totals across the whole timeline of the BoB Patrick Bishop in his Day to Day Chronology has LW loss figures for July and August....but sadly not September - but those two months are still enlightening. remember - the MAIN battle, against RAF airfields etc., didn't begin until the start of the second week of August; until then, through July, you had harassment raids, raids against ports and convoys etc., and the "Kanalkampf", the Germans trying to bring RAF fighters up for LW fighters to knock them down over the Channel. July... Do17 39 He111 32 Ju88 39 Ju87 3 August Do17 71 He111 89 Ju88 89 Ju87 57 See the spike in Ju87 losses I mentioned above? That was in a very short time, and they were out of the main strategic bombing battle again within days. By August also, the 111 and 88 are simply flying more sorties, so their losses are higher. Sadly he doesn't give have loss figures for September to compare But I'd hazard that Stuka losses went back down towards their July figure, while Do17 losses would go down also as they flew far less sorties. Losses from He111s and Ju88s would spike though....
